Saturday • November 8 • 2025
Vol.XVII • No.XLV
Manchester, N.H.
If you shop at convenience stores, you may have noticed that checking for proof of age during tobacco & alcohol purchases has quietly moved from viewing the customer’s driver’s license to electronically scanning our licenses. I first noticed this at Circle K stores and then found the same practice in others.
Our privacy is once again under attack in a seemingly “small” way, but I became alarmed enough to dive into the legality.
A trusted State Rep pointed me to state law RSA 263:12. The last section of this law prohibits the scanning of my driver’s license with all of my personal information on it without my consent (with an exception for pawnbrokers, scrap metal dealers, and other secondhand dealers).
RSA 263:12 states in part,
It shall be a misdemeanor for any person to:
I filed a complaint with the NH Attorney General’s office that the law – as well as my Constitutional Right to privacy – was violated. The response I received confirmed my concern as I was pointed to the phrase in RSA 263:12 X “unless authorized by the department.”
The “Department” referred to in RSA 263:12 is the NH Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), which is run by unelected bureaucrats and political appointees free to push their political ideologies with apparently no desire by the NH Department of Justice to provide any oversight or enforcement.
Below is how The Department of Motor Vehicles and the NH Attorney General’s office washed their hands of their responsibilities to monitor and safely regulate who can access, scan, and store our personal data. They closed the case in typical Jedi Mind Trick fashion, inferring “there was nothing to see here” – but as you will see, can not back up their finding of no wrongdoing.
The Attorney General’s office identified DMV “rule” Saf-C 5606.05 which was written by those ideological, political appointees in the DMV, to unconstitutionally violate our Right to privacy. Therefore, I was told that Circle K was “authorized” (by those appointed ideologues) to scan my license electronically, and the case was closed.
DMV rule Saf-C 5606.05 states:
(a) Notwithstanding any rule to the contrary, the department authorizes the scanning of personal information from any license in any electronic form or format so long as all the following conditions are met:
(1) The equipment used to scan such personal information does not visibly identify any personal information other than driver license number and name;
(2) The equipment used to scan personal information does not retain, store, or transfer any personal information, other than driver license number and name, for any period of time; and
(3) The equipment used to scan personal information does not store any personal information, other than driver license number and name, in a central repository disaster recovery central repository, such as a cold site or hot site, whether on-site or in a remote location.
So, I asked the AG’s office three simple questions:
Before closing the case, did you confirm the following:
It appears they did not.
Instead of answering my questions, they told me I had to talk with the DMV – but could not/would not give me a contact at “The Department.” I found that to be a strange response from an investigative body that is tasked with enforcing the law based on facts.
How could the AG’s office close the case and not have answers to the very pertinent questions I raised? Did Circle K violate the law or not?
Stay tuned…
The post Are Convenience Stores Violating Your Privacy? appeared first on Granite Grok.
Aaron Day is running for President, but not to win. He is on a mission to increase awareness about a looming issue he believes will come to the fore before November 2024, and it could mean the end of liberty in America as we know it.
I’ve known Aaron for a number of years in various capacities as a candidate for office, grassroots activist, and in a number of roles in between. He recently wrote a book and is traveling around the country talking to audiences, other Presidential candidates, Senators, and others about the threat of digital currency and how close we actually are to having one.
Note: The podcast is presented as is. The working concept is five questions, uncut. The video was recorded on Riverside FM and was not altered or edited. Length will depend on the answers, but the target is 10-15 minutes. This maiden voyage is a few minutes longer, but as noted, these will not be edited.
Here is my interview with Aaron Day. [Watch it on YouTube, Rumble, Facebook, or GAB.]
The post Watch: Five Questions with Presidential Candidate Aaron Day appeared first on Granite Grok.
Almost eighty years ago, Margaret Scoggin, a librarian at the New York Public Library, made an odd choice. As one of the founders of the NYPL children’s branch in the early 1940s, Scoggin had been contributing a column to Library Journal called “Books for Older Boys and Girls.” In 1944, she inexplicably decided that her articles should instead be published under the title “Books for Young Adults.”
This decision catapulted the group of children for whom she was recommending books into an age bracket to which they did not actually belong. It is to Miss Scoggin, therefore, who first coined the term “young adult,” that we owe the existence of this illogical category used only by librarians and publishers to promote books for readers aged twelve and up who are actually still children.
The American Library Association arbitrarily defines a “young adult” as a library patron between the ages of twelve and eighteen. This category does not only apply to public library patrons but also includes middle and high school students who use their school libraries. Legally, however, adulthood is not attained until a person turns eighteen, so the youngest adult cannot possibly be younger than eighteen years old. The age at which an individual becomes an adult also called the “age of majority,” is set at eighteen years in forty-seven states (in Alabama, Nebraska, and Mississippi, you have to be even older).
Medically, adulthood is similarly defined. The American Medical Association and the National Institutes of Health only consider those who are eighteen and older to be adults; 13 to 17-year-olds are categorized as “adolescents.” Considering these standards, “young adult” emerges as an illogical term. “Pre-adults,” odd as it sounds, would make more sense, being similar to the term “preteen,” which is used, according to Merriam-Webster, to designate a child younger than thirteen. (The trendy word “tween” is also frequently used in libraries to specify children between young childhood and adolescence, generally ages 8-12.)
So, what explains this push by librarians and publishers to erroneously refer to children as adults? Is it merely an innocuous marketing technique, or is the motivation behind it more insidious? Some more library history may help to answer this question. Where Scoggin got the notion to suddenly refer to older children as young adults is unclear, but in speculating about her reasons for suggesting this change, a look at the influences upon her, including her educational background might shed some light on this mystery.
In the 1940s, Scoggin attended Columbia University’s School of Library Service, the first “library school” established in the United States. Two decades earlier, Columbia University had become the epicenter of Communist intellectual activity in the United States led by Frankfurt School intellectuals who relocated there from Germany. It is well documented that Columbia University’s Teachers College and other departments at this institution of “higher education” were strongly influenced by Communist ideology at this time, so it is likely that the library school was similarly affected.
In the past year, the political infiltration of the American Library Association has become quite obvious as self-proclaimed Marxist Emily Drabinski has taken over the leadership of the organization. Considering the origins of training programs for librarians, however, the roots of ALA’s ideological takeover may likely be traced back to the time of Margaret Scoggin.
Manhattan Institute Senior Fellow Chris Rufo recently appeared on Fox’s Jesse Watters Primetime. In the beginning of the segment, “Dirty Books Are Being Used to Advance the Marxist Dream,” a clip was shown of Deborah Caldwell-Stone, Director of ALA’s “Office for Intellectual Freedom,” admitting to a “sustained messaging” program to “reframe” and “promote” inappropriate books on sexual themes as “diverse materials …that are about inclusion and fairness.” When asked why the ALA is pushing this agenda, Rufo explained, “The goal of Marxist political leaders since the beginning was always to abolish the nuclear family,” an institution which they consider one of the “impediments to the revolution,” and to have kids reject “notions of ‘heteropatriarchy’” to “advance the revolution” and “to dissolve the moral notions of children and their families.”
One of the goals of Marxism, as Rufo suggests, is to eliminate parental authority so that children become mere wards of the state. The sooner children are not under the control of their parents, the sooner they will be more easily controlled by the government. Indeed, Karl Marx called for the abolition of the family in The Communist Manifesto because he believed that children were being exploited by their parents. Considering its current agenda, the values of the American Library Association appear to align with Marx, and its organizational structure supports its agenda.
Just as there is a separate section in most public libraries designated as “young adult,” the American Library Association has a distinct branch called the Young Adults Library Services Association (YALSA). It should be no big surprise that Margaret Scoggin, thanks to her efforts to promote “young adult” literature, was appointed the first president of YALSA’s precursor, the Young Adult Services Division, which was founded in 1957. This organization was rebranded as YALSA in 1992 and continues its mission of influencing the publishing industry and libraries nationwide in accordance with its Marxist ideology.
YALSA’s recent award-winning books clearly reflect its woke agenda. Jason Reynolds is YALSA’s recipient of the 2023 Margaret A. Edwards Award, established in 1988, which “honors an author, as well as a specific body of his or her work, for significant and lasting contribution to young adult literature.” What was one of Reynolds’s “significant and lasting” contributions to YA literature?—a book he co-authored in 2020 with CRT-guru Ibram X. Kendi titled Stamped: Racism, Anti-racism, and You.
Meanwhile, the YALSA Printz Award is given to “a book that exemplifies literary excellence in young adult literature.” This year’s prize went to All My Rage by Sabaa Tahir, a novel based on a victim/oppressor worldview, which Kirkus Reviews praises for confronting “head-on the complicated realities of life in a world that is not designed for the oppressed to thrive in.” In Scout’s Honor, by Lily Anderson, one of the four honorable mention books in this category, “the cast displays an effervescent mix of racial and ethnic identities” (also from Kirkus Reviews), which certainly checks off the box for any ALA-award winning book requiring that its theme relates to racial or gender ideology.
In the latter category are the three other “honorable mention” books for the 2023 Printz Award. These include Icebreaker, featuring a gay romance between two hockey players, When the Angels Left the Old Country, in which, according to Kirkus Reviews, “Queerness and gender fluidity thread through both the human and supernatural characters,” and Queer Ducks (and Other Animals): The Natural World of Animal Sexuality, a book that “offers nature-based analogs for many types of human sexual orientation and gender identity” according to a BookPage review.
With all of the YALSA Printz-ward-winning books being geared towards racial and sexual themes, there is an obvious overemphasis on woke ideology in material recommended for readers aged 12-18 (ALA’s arbitrary definition of “young adult”).
As part of the obvious agenda of libraries towards getting woke literature into the hands of older children, ALA supports all efforts to allow this age group to access these books without parental knowledge. The ALA believes that children should be allowed to read books like Gender Queer and Lawn Boy without any parental consent, even if such books are shelved in the adult section of the library. Article VII of the ALA’s “Library Bill of Rights,” which was not added until 2019, eighty years after the original “Bill of Rights” was written, states that all people, no matter how old, “possess a right to privacy and confidentiality in their library use.”
This initially sounds like a good thing until you realize that it undermines those parental rights that should supersede it. ALA also “opposes all attempts to restrict access to library services, materials, and facilities based on the age of library users.” Most current state laws maintain the confidentiality of library records for all ages so that parents are not permitted to know what books their children are reading. The ALA is just fine with this situation and opposes all efforts to amend state law so that parents would be allowed to access their children’s library records.
Considering how strongly the ALA promotes woke literature to children, baffled parents are left wondering why. The answer is simple: the American Library Association is just following the Marxist dictate to undermine the authority of parents. That’s why libraries, predominantly managed by adherents to the ALA agenda, can’t just let kids be kids. To weaken the family, kids must become adults (or “young adults”) as soon as possible!
The cancer that had its roots decades ago has metastasized, and the only cure lies with parents and concerned citizens who vehemently reject the indoctrination supported by the American Library Association. They must support all efforts to have their towns and states cut financial ties with ALA, elect conservative library trustees who will reject ALA’s toxic agenda, and demand that their state representatives support legislation allowing parents to have access to their children’s library records.
The post Why Can’t They Just Let Kids Be Kids? appeared first on Granite Grok.
I’d call this developing, and that’s not just a photography play on words. Pictures have hit the internet taken by photographers who appear to have been embedded with Hamas militants as they invaded Isreal.
The AP, CNN, Reuters, and The New York Times used footage and photos from reporters embedded with Hamas terrorists during their slaughter of hundreds of Jews.
These Western media outlets then posted the photos in their coverage of this horrendous surprise attack on Israel.
AP reporter Hassan Eslaiah took photos and video while traveling with Hamas killers during the massacre. Hassan also provided photos to CNN.Yousef Masoud provided photos to The New York Times.
Hassan Eslaiah was seen with Hamas leader Yahya, Sinwar following the slaughter of Jews.
I don’t suppose we’ll ever learn how they knew to be there before the events of October 7th. You know, to capture the history of it.
On October 7, Hamas terrorists were not the only ones who documented the war crimes they had committed during their deadly rampage across southern Israel. Some of their atrocities were captured by Gaza-based photojournalists working for the Associated Press and Reuters news agencies whose early morning presence at the breached border area raises serious ethical questions.
What were they doing there so early on what would ordinarily have been a quiet Saturday morning? Was it coordinated with Hamas? Did the respectable wire services, which published their photos, approve of their presence inside enemy territory, together with the terrorist infiltrators? Did the photojournalists who freelance for other media, like CNN and The New York Times, notify these outlets? Judging from the pictures of lynching, kidnapping and storming of an Israeli kibbutz, it seems like the border has been breached not only physically, but also journalistically.
As ghoulish as that sounds – a word that keeps popping up to describe the premeditation media’s indifference to the death and destruction they signed up to record – what are the odds one or more of these “reporters” gets nominated for a Pulitzer?
The post ICYMI – The Media Had “Reporters” Embedded With Hamas as it Invaded Israel appeared first on Granite Grok.
The picture book “The Meaning of Pride,” targeted at ages 4 to 7, was prominently displayed in June in the Nashua Library’s children’s room. Six months before, Kristin Beck, who is featured in the book as a “transgender woman,” reclaimed his identity as a man.
Chris Beck, a decorated Navy SEAL, described the trauma and mental health problems he was facing when he was falsely sold transition as a cure by quack medical professionals at the Veterans Administration.
A year before, in August 2022, singer Demi Lovato, who had claimed a non-binary identity and is also featured in the book, said, “Recently, I’ve been feeling more feminine, and so I’ve adopted she/her again.” Demi has been very public about her struggles with mental health problems and drug addiction. If you have followed Demi over the years, it is pretty obvious that adopting a non-binary identity was a way for her to cope with these challenges, and it failed.
Both Demi Lovato and Chris Beck are people with serious mental health struggles who have detransitioned or desisted from a gender identity, and yet their gender transition is being sold to kids in “The Meaning of Pride” as something to emulate.
Related: The Truth Leaks Out: Dolls and Trucks Are for Everyone
It would be helpful if the library featured age-appropriate books about detransitioners and shared the pain and regret detransitioners deal with. I don’t expect we will be seeing those books in the library’s children’s room or the teen room because the American Library Association-approved book review journals won’t endorse them. It’s tragic that these important stories are being withheld from children.
I am delighted that the Nashua Library acquired “Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters,” which highlights the harm being done to kids and teens, as well as other gender-critical books for adults, but we need more books for the children’s and teen rooms that push back on the propaganda being fed kids and teens about gender ideology in books like “The Meaning of Pride.”
The post Gender Cult Propaganda in the Nashua Library Children’s Room appeared first on Granite Grok.
Polls have been soft for Biden since day one of his Presidency, but this weekend, they tanked, and every Democrat pundit either jumped or was pushed off the Biden Train. ABC News, not precisely a Right Wing tool, reported that 76% of Americans think the country is on the wrong track.
These people are on every media outlet proclaiming Biden as the man for these difficult times, but you also see them choke on their words like an Angora cat on a fur ball. It is pathetic and fake, and Americans see through the smokescreen.
Mark Levine, a former VA Democrat Delegate, appeared on The Ingraham Angle and embarrassed himself by fawning over Biden and Harris. He compared Biden to Truman and Reagan on the international stage and called Harris a positive for the ticket, and her accomplishments need to be highlighted. Good God, drug test this man before he utters another word. David Ignatius of the Washington Post says that Biden has to tap into the enthusiasm he has shown as a man of the center who can quickly bring this country back together. Still, if he fails, we are headed for a cataclysmic election. How far back in the Time Machine does he have to go to witness Biden’s enthusiasm? Maybe in the East Room when Obamacare passed, and Biden was caught on a hot mic telling Obama, “This is a big F$%^#%$ deal.”
And, of course, Stacey Abrams used her time with Jenn Psaki on Sunday to pull out the race card. Does she have any others in her deck? Abrams blamed the Republican racists, bigots, and misogynists for not giving Harris the credit she was due, and if she were a white man, people would be singing her praises. Well, she is not, and, honestly, she isn’t Black either. Her parents were from India and Jamaica, but it is politically advantageous for her to be Black. Okay. But even if we were all colorblind, she would still be the worst Vice President in our history.
How can a writer with the status of Ignatius jeopardize his credentials to ignore reality and elevate Biden to Mount Rushmore? Joe Biden has shown no ability to fulfill any of his campaign promises other than to have the most diverse Administration in history. It is okay to be diverse, but not if inept is your other descriptive. Nobody in Biden’s cabinet, from Harris to Buttigieg, performs even at an average level. And what policy of Joe Biden has made life better for America? I’m still waiting.
As bad as Joe Biden’s policy package has been, his inability to unify the country is what his critics point to as his biggest failure. This country has never been so divided, and it is because of two significant reasons. Obviously, the policies of Joe Biden have put America in a weakened place in the world but have put every American family in a sorry state. From having enough money in their budget for food after paying the bills to have their kids indoctrinated in school and possibly convinced they should change their gender. Realizing their savings and retirement funds are gone, retirement is no longer an option. They don’t feel safe in their neighborhoods as they see war springing up around the globe. They have nightmares about a phone call that Fentanyl or an illegal alien killed their child. In three years, Joe Biden took a prosperous and dynamic country and turned it on its head, and these ignorant talking heads try to convince America that Biden is the man for the time. I don’t know about you, but I have had enough of Joe Biden.
The post I Don’t Know About You, but I Have Had Enough of Joe Biden appeared first on Granite Grok.
The US House did at least two interesting things Tuesday evening. They presented a clean appropriations bill: “…a standalone funding bill for the General Services Administration, Securities and Exchange Commission, and other related agencies.”
They then muddied it (just a bit) with an amendment to reduce the Transportation Secretary’s salary to one dollar.
I wonder if he’ll get the message.
Since taking office in 2021, Buttigieg has faced criticism for Republican lawmakers in response to several crises that have faced the Department of Transportation.
For example, in February, after a train carrying vinyl chloride, a dangerous colorless gas, derailed in East Palestine, Ohio, Buttigieg was criticized for his apparent inaction and for waiting several weeks before traveling to the site of the derailment.
In addition, there have been multiple instances of mass commercial airline cancellations during his tenure for various reasons, including a pilot shortage. Republicans and Democrats alike had called for Buttigieg to take decisive action to ensure air travelers are protected from such cancellations.
Pete’s been busy making Kamala look competent in comparison [update: whose office they also tried to defund], so Marjorie Taylor Greene introduced an amendment to save taxpayers some money by paying Pete what he’s worth—one increasingly useless dollar.
BREAKING: I’m proud to announce my amendment to FIRE Pete Buttigieg just PASSED the House.
Pothole Pete staged fake bike rides to the White House and used private planes funded by taxpayers to receive awards for the way certain people have sex.
American taxpayers should not… pic.twitter.com/9fq9XrXLV2
— Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (@RepMTG) November 7, 2023
Is he even worth that? I’d go with no. His existence as a squealing piggy at the seat of government is an endless waste of resources, and it’s not just Pothole Pete. Congress should use this power more often in more places, not that it will be more than political theater. The Senate will never go for it unless they had a bet that they could make Pete Buttigieg Transportation Secretary.
The post Is Useless Pete Buttigieg Even Worth the One Dollar after House Passes an Amendment to Slash his Salary appeared first on Granite Grok.
As it stands, RSA 173 directs law enforcement officers to confiscate all firearms and ammunition from individuals whenever a person files a restraining order against them. The orders are approved practically by default, and the subject is given an opportunity to contest the order of protection after the gun confiscation occurs, generally a month later.
The post Legislation Would Reform Red Flag Gun Confiscation appeared first on The Liberty Block.
NEW HAMPSHIRE – For the first time in the state’s recorded history, legislators in the New Hampshire House of Representatives have filed two bills aimed at giving voters the opportunity to vote on whether or not New Hampshire will peacefully secede from the United States of America.
State Representative Matthew Santonastaso (R – Cheshire 18) has sponsored a groundbreaking new bill that will force the creation of a Secession Study Committee in the Granite State. This comes on the heels of a bill filed recently by State Rep. Jason Gerhard (R – Merrimack 25) that if passed, would allow voters to amend the New Hampshire Constitution, declaring that the state will secede from the United States should the national debt reach a staggering $40 trillion.
The Secession Study Committee, as envisioned by the bill, won’t just be a cursory look into New Hampshire declaring its peaceful independence from the United States. It will delve into understanding the multifaceted implications, the potential benefits, and the challenges that New Hampshire might face if it were to consider seceding from the Union. This initiative underscores the urgency and importance of having a well-informed discussion on the subject.
Representative Santonastaso stated,“Given the current challenges at the federal level and potential unforeseen changes in the national landscape, it’s essential to study the feasibility of an independent New Hampshire. This effort is not about neglecting our shared history; it’s about proactive planning and ensuring our state shall persist under any circumstance.”
Carla Gericke, President Emeritus of New Hampshire’s Free State Project, weighed in on the matter, stating “The increase in the number of New Hampshireites, and now our legislators, who support peacefully exiting the Union, is indicative of the Biden admin’s complete and utter failure to represent the interests of our state. The federal government have nobody to thank but themselves for the inevitable result – more and more of us want to choose freedom.”
Matt Sabourin dit Choinière, the chairman of the New Hampshire Independence Political Action Committee, commented “The purpose of these bills is to get the tough questions relating to independence out on the table, and then get some answers to the public, it’s basically an outline for future grand national strategy. My father always said growing up that if a private business were to operate the same way as the government, they’d be locked in prison. It’s time to fire D.C.”
In the state’s 2022 legislative session, the House rejected a proposal that would give voters the opportunity to amend the New Hampshire constitution, allowing the state to peacefully declare independence from the United States. While opponents of New Hampshire’s secessionist movement have historically argued that the federal government is a net positive or at the least can be molded into one, proponents have argued that the federal government is too far gone – citing issues such as inflation, ongoing wars abroad, and healthcare. New Hampshire is one of approximately 25 states that pays more in taxes to the federal government than they receive in federal funding.
Once introduced, both bills will move to committee for further discussion and review. If passed, the Secession Study Committee would be comprised of members from both the House and Senate, as well as experts in economics, law, and governance. Their findings would be presented to the state legislature for consideration.
For the full press release see: https://nhipac.org/2023/10/18/684/
This weekend, New Hampshire independence supporters launched a weekly outreach booth in Keene’s Railroad Square. In addition to sharing the word of peaceful secession with passers-by, they also conducted an informal poll, with 16 people voting to stay in the Union and 13 voting that NH should leave! Despite a fresh nationwide poll showing over 25% supporting secession for their respective states, one supporter of the federal Empire stopped at the booth to tell us that she knows everyone in New Hampshire hates us. She said secession will never happen, before storming across Main St.
Then, she turned around and came back across Main St to say something else. That’s when I pulled out my phone and started recording:
Afterwards, she went back across Main St and made a phone call. Keene police showed up minutes later and affirmed our right to record video. They also identified the woman as Democrat activist Margaret Sawyer.
The results are in from the second poll in two years asking the people of New Hampshire about their views on declaring peaceful independence from the United States. Last year, the Foundation for NH Independence commissioned a detailed poll from Survey USA which had 625 respondents and asked a couple dozen questions which measured people’s frustrations with the federal government in addition to their thoughts about whether or not New Hampshire should become an independent nation. It having been about a year since the previous poll, we decided it was time to do it again, though this time we had the chance to hire the University of New Hampshire to include several questions in their monthly “Granite State Poll“.
The Granite State Poll is a highly respected scientific polling organization in New Hampshire, and the cost wasn’t cheap so we zeroed in on the most important questions to ask. We worked with UNH’s Survey Center on the wording, which was changed somewhat from Survey USA’s. Three key questions were asked again and we added a new question to measure awareness. The UNH survey had 1,105 respondents, 76% more than the Survey USA sample. Unfortunately, the results were down across the board, in some cases by about half. Thankfully it wasn’t a total decimation, but advocates of NH Exit have a lot of work to do to increase awareness and persuade people to support peaceful independence. You can read the full NH Independence survey results from UNH here (PDF), which include demographic breakdowns.
The most positive overall result was the 28% who said “definitely not” or “probably not” to this question, “If New Hampshire were not already part of the United States, would you want New Hampshire to join?” However, that was down from 37% on a similar question in last year’s poll, which read, “If New Hampshire were not already part of the United States, it would be beneficial for the state to join, and be governed by DC”. This year, 46% of republicans said they’d definitely or probably not want to join the US, compared to 30% of independents and 11% of democrats. The demographic most likely to oppose joining the US was 35-49, with 35% against joining.
28% Definitely or Probably Wouldn’t Join USA
The big question though, asking specifically if people are ready to peacefully secede from the United States, did not fare as well as last year, though the question changed significantly from last year’s which was, “I would prefer New Hampshire to govern itself as an independent country” which found 29% strongly or somewhat agreeing. This year’s question was more explicit: “Would you support or oppose New Hampshire peacefully seceding from the United States and governing itself as a separate country?”, to which only 16% strongly or somewhat supported, about one in six people. The language of this year’s question reflected the language of CACR 32 which was the proposed constitutional amendment that would have put the question to a vote last year, had it passed the legislature. Opposition to secession was very strong on this year’s question, with a full 70% strongly opposed and only 6% somewhat opposed to peaceful secession, compared to last year where it was 37% strongly disagreeing and 21% somewhat disagreeing with being an independent country.
Of course, it’s worth noting here that we are comparing apples to oranges somewhat as it’s not really fair to compare results to questions that were different, as everyone knows that the way questions are asked in a poll can have an effect on the results. Regardless, one thing that remained true across both polls on the independence question is that the most pro-independence demographic is people 35-49. Last time it was 27% of that demographic supporting independence and this time 24% supported peaceful secession. Republicans were more likely to support peaceful secession, with 31% strongly or somewhat supporting, compared to 21% of independents and 2% of democrats. UNH’s survey also asked respondents about their media consumption. Of the 59 respondents who identified as Joe Rogan listeners, 38% said this question didn’t matter / they were neutral – by far the largest segment of people who didn’t care about this question. Only 44% of Rogan listeners oppose peaceful secession, but bizarrely, 80% of Rogan listeners said they would support NH joining the union.
One in Six NH People Support Peaceful Secession, But 70% Strongly Opposed
The results were slightly better, as they were last year, for the question asking whether people support putting NH Independence to a vote. This year’s question was, “Would you support or oppose the idea of New Hampshire holding a vote to find out whether voters want New Hampshire to peacefully declare independence from the United States?” and 20% strongly or somewhat supported having a vote, down from last year’s 42% who said they strongly or somewhat supported the similarly worded, “Would you support or oppose the idea of New Hampshire holding a vote to find out whether voters want New Hampshire to peacefully separate from the US?” Again, republicans were more likely to support the vote with 31%, compared to 27% of independents and 8% of democrats. Ironic, considering all their talk about supporting democracy. Again, 35-49 year-olds were the strongest demographic supporting putting it to a vote, with 31% supporting. The next most supporting age demo was 50-64 at 22%.
One in Five Support Holding Vote on NH Independence
Again, curiously, Joe Rogan listeners stood out from the rest of the respondents with 33% support putting independence to a vote, while the second most supportive media group was conservative radio listeners at 24% support. Again, Rogan’s listeners were much more likely than any other media consumers to say that they were neutral or it didn’t matter to them – 42%! Rogan’s listeners were the only media group with an insignificant number of people strongly opposed to a vote, only 8%. Also, more of his listeners supported the vote than opposed it, 33% to 25%. Every other media group has massive opposition to a vote on independence, as you can see here from the below breakdown. Results go across left-to-right from Strongly Support, Somewhat Support, Neutral/Doesn’t Matter, Somewhat Oppose, Strongly Oppose, Don’t Know/Not Sure, and the total number of respondents that identified as that type of media consumer:
Media Consumption Breakdown on Vote Question
The new question on this year’s survey was regarding people’s awareness of the legislation last year: “In March of 2022, the N.H. House of Representatives rejected a proposed constitutional amendment calling for New Hampshire to peaceably declare independence from the United States and to govern itself as a separate country. How much do you recall hearing about this?” While barely anyone heard “a lot” about it, interestingly it was liberals whose awareness was higher on this than conservatives – 61% of liberals had heard something about it compared to 39% of conservatives, though liberals were far less likely to be supportive of independence, with only 1% of liberals supporting declaring peaceful independence compared to 26% of conservatives. Overall, 50% of survey respondents had heard nothing at all about the constitutional amendment last year.
Finally, UNH included a cross-tab graphic showing the relationship between opinions on secession and the theoretical question about joining the union. Excluding the obviously confused 1% who support secession but would also join the union, there are 15% who both support secession and wouldn’t join the US. There are another 9% who can see the wisdom of not joining the US, but are probably too afraid to leave the abusive federal gang:
15% Get it.
For the full demographic breakdowns, please see the full PDF provided by UNH that also lists the entire survey with all the month’s questions which also covered marijuana legalization, the debt ceiling, and immigration.
Did you notice some interesting things in the survey data that I missed in this article? Share your findings with the NH Exit community in our Matrix chat room (also on Telegram) or in the Forum.
Hopefully we’ll continue to perform polling on a yearly basis to see how beliefs change, especially as the federal oppression worsens under this administration and whichever tyrant gets elected in 2024. If a republican tyrant is elected in 2024, will the support for secession flip along R-D party lines?
On Wednesday morning, NHexit.US announced that local liberty activists in New Hampshire have hired a chartered airplane pilot to fly a pro-independence banner over the three largest cities in the state. Over the past few years, the calls for serious discussions on peaceful separation of New Hampshire from DC and the union have grown dramatically. New Hampshire is already home to the most influential liberty movement in the world.
Notable events since 2021 include:
This Saturday, an airplane banner could be added to that list. The tentative plan is for the banner to fly over Nashua, Manchester, and Concord. If you look up while in one of these cities, you just might be able to snap a photo or record a video of the banner. We encourage our readers to post their photos to social media with the tags #NHexit, #secession, and #NHpolitics.
Additionally, the question of secession will be asked by another highly reputable pollster. The University of New Hampshire is currently conducting a political survey that includes multiple questions related to New Hampshire independence. The results could be published within days or a few weeks.
The post Secession Airplane Banner Flying Over Merrimack Valley Saturday appeared first on Foundation for New Hampshire Independence.
AI Biplane Over NH
On the advice of Daniel Miller of the Texas Nationalist Movement, who has been a big supporter of NH Independence, we’re hiring a pilot to tow a pro-secession banner over New Hampshire’s biggest cities this Saturday, May 27th!
It’s not cheap, but it should definitely get some attention. The idea is that online or big media ads are too common and it’s hard to stand out, however aerial banners are relatively rare and tend to get people talking.
You can help get the word out about this flight, especially if you’re in the Nashua, Manchester, Concord corridor. Here’s how: if you see the plane – take a photo or video and share it on your social media with #NHexit. Of course, you should also mention your support for peaceful NH Independence.
Further, you can join our NHexit chat room on Matrix or Telegram for updates on where the plane has been spotted. It’s also a great place to keep up with the goings-on in the NH Independence movement.
New Hampshire Independence PAC Chairman Matt Sabourin dit Choinière was this week’s guest on “Free State Live”, the weekly video show hosted by Free State Project movers and liberty-loving NH natives. Of course, they discussed peaceful NH independence. Watch the full episode here:
Pro-Independence Rep Matt Santonastaso RE-ELECTED!
Earlier this year, the historic NH Independence constitutional amendment, CACR 32, was voted on in the state house. Thirteen brave state representatives stood in favor of allowing the people of NH to vote on declaring peaceful independence from the United States, which is all the bill would have done – simply let the people vote.
New Hampshire gets a lot of credit for having a thriving liberty activism migration here and many elected libertarians serving in the legislature as the “Freedom Caucus”. So, why did so many freedom-oriented state reps hide in the shadows on the CACR 32 vote? They privately would support independence, but these reps were too cowardly to show their true colors. A major objection from them was that secession isn’t popular, but the scientific polling done by the Foundation for NH Independence over the summer blew that fear out of the water, showing that nearly one-in-three Granite Staters and over 50% of NH republicans already support New Hampshire being an independent nation.
The other major objection from the reps who otherwise should have supported this issue was fear of not getting re-elected. Now we have the indisputable proof that this fear was also unfounded. Though it’s true that most of the NH population isn’t ready to secede, that doesn’t mean they don’t support putting it to a vote. According to the FNHI polling, 42% support putting the question of NH independence to voters, with 12% unsure. Still, most politicians aren’t known for their leadership and courage, so now they can look at the brave thirteen state reps who were willing to take the arrows from the loyalists to the Empire. Let’s take a look at what happened with those thirteen reps, and why it’s a success story for the NH Exit movement.
Of the thirteen reps who heroically voted in favor of CACR 32, several decided not to run again: Mark Warden, Raymond Howard, Dennis Green, Dustin Dodge, and Alan Bershstein. Of the eight running for re-election, three didn’t make it through the primary: The Seacoast’s Max Abramson who barely got defeated by 54 votes, or just over 1%. There’s no indication that his support of independence played a role in his narrow defeat. In the Lakes Region, longtime reps Glen Aldrich and CACR 32’s main sponsor Mike Sylvia lost handily to their republican opponents. However, Sylvia himself and other election observers attributed their losses to the Gunstock Mountain situation where they were targeted politically from the left and right for trying to de-fund and probably ultimately sell the state-owned ski area. That left five of the eight pro-independence reps who were seeking re-election, advancing to the primary.
All five were successfully re-elected! The big race to watch was Rindge state rep Matt Santonastaso. Santonastaso was a key leader with CACR 32 and was targeted heavily by the democrats for his support of NH independence. He doesn’t just want people to be able to vote on it, he’s a strong advocate for New Hampshire’s peaceful divorce from the United States. Every newspaper article I saw about him labeled him as a secessionist, even in the headlines. He won re-election, along with reps Glenn Bailey, Diane Kelley, Paul Terry, and Josh Yokela. Plus they gained at least one newly elected first-time representative, Jason Gerhard, who was endorsed by the newly-formed NH Independence PAC.
Empire Loyalist Brodie Deshaies, was DEFEATED in the primary!
The NHIPAC will surely be reaching out to the other new and returning liberty-oriented state reps – of which there were a record number elected this year, including a record 50 free staters – to see who is willing to go on the record in favor of freedom from the United States.The state reps who had excuses before will probably still have excuses the next time legislation like CACR 32 comes up, but now they can’t claim they won’t win re-election or that no one supports independence, because those are simply fear-based and not the reality on-the-ground in New Hampshire. The popularity of peaceful secession is only going to increase as the federal government continues to ratchet up the tyranny no mater which political party is running it.
What’s next for NH independence? The newly elected and re-elected state reps have a couple of weeks to file legislation for the upcoming 2023 session that kicks off this winter. What secession-related bills will be filed this time? Stay tuned here to NHexit.US for the latest, and don’t forget to sign the petition if you haven’t yet.
P.S. Goodbye to the federal government’s loyalist rep, Brodie Deshaies – the young pro-tyranny state rep from Wolfeboro who was the key spokesman against CACR 32 in the state house. Deshaies didn’t make it through the primary! Of course a new loyalist to the Empire will rise to take his place the next time the state house debates NH independence, but the loyalists never have any argument except appeals to violence and “authority”.
Videos are now available on Odysee covering various aspects of the rally and the Ballot Law Commission meeting yesterday where Karen Sue Steele’s challenge of the “Independent Thirteen” failed by a 5-0 vote. Karen had been trying to get the secession-friendly state reps barred from ever holding office again.
Free Keene’s video includes a speech given by the President of the Foundation for NH Independence, Alu Axelman, the full portion of the commission meeting where the BLC heard Karen’s complaint, an interview by NBC Boston with CACR 32 co-sponsor Matt Santonastaso, and the activists confronting Karen when she leaves the building:
Dave Ridley of the Ridley Report was also on-the-scene. His video contains his reporting on the events and also multiple “ambush” videos where he speaks to various politicians and bureaucrats as they enter or exit the hearing:
Karen and her handler Kathy Slade slinked away for now. What will they try next? I’m excited to see and grateful to them for providing the NH Independence movement with so much free publicity!
NHexit Supporters Outside the State Archives Building
Today was a big day for the New Hampshire Independence movement. Not only did Karen Sue Steele’s attempt to disqualify the “Independent Thirteen” from the ballot fail by a 5-0 vote of the Ballot Law Commission, but more importantly, the NH Attorney General’s office weighed in with their official position.
Specifically, assistant attorney general Kevin Scura who sits as an advisor on the Commission, was asked to speak to Karen’s complaint. Karen’s email to the Commission had claimed the state reps were in violation of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. The Scura made it clear that “insurrection” and “rebellion” – as cited in the 14th Amendment – involve the use of violence. This is what those of us advocating for peaceful independence have been pointing out. A ballot measure is using the democratic process to change the system, not open violence.
Karen had claimed that insurrection doesn’t necessarily involve violence and further went so far to make the laughable claim that simply speaking words against the government would qualify as “giving aid or comfort to the enemies” of the “United States”.
The commission stated clearly that they had no jurisdiction over constitutional questions, and voted 5-0 to dismiss Karen’s complaint. That’s great news, but it was also great news that dozens of NHexit supporters came out to support independence and even more importantly, the mainstream media was present. Curiously, the media was nowhere to be found when CACR 32 had its public hearing earlier this year, or when the state house voted on it, but as soon as a Karen showed up to start some drama, multiple media organizations descended. I made sure to thank Karen after the meeting for all the free publicity.
Full video coverage of the meeting and the confrontation of Karen will be posted here in the coming days. Meanwhile, here’s a quick media rundown of some of the coverage we’ve gotten within hours of the end of the meeting today. All of the media organizations below had reporters at today’s meeting:
Karen Sue Steele, Hates Independence, Originally from MN.
A real-life Karen is targeting the “Independent Thirteen”, the thirteen courageous state representatives who earlier this year voted against killing CACR 32, the NH Independence constitutional amendment. Karen Sue Steele of Atkinson NH has sent in a complaint to the “Ballot Law Commission” demanding the state reps be removed from office and barred from ever running again. She emailed her complaint his weekend and Secretary of State David Scanlan forwarded her email to all the state reps involved with an invitation to the upcoming commission meeting on Wednesday August 24th, 1pm at the Archives and Records Management building at 9 Ratification Way in Concord. All reps who have been identified in her complaint are allowed to speak at the meeting, which is open to the public. Pro-independence activists will rally outside the building starting at noon.
Karen’s email to the Commission says:
I would very much like to get on the agenda for this Wednesday’s meeting, August 24, at 1 pm in Concord.
It is my assertion that the following people are no longer eligible to hold office in NH and thus are unqualified to run for office as they are in violation of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, Section 3.
1) The seven (7) members of our NH House of Representatives who sponsored a bill to secede from the United States of America: 2022-2243/CACR32 – “Providing that the state peaceably declares independence from the United States and proceeds as a sovereign nation” and
2) The 13 members of the NH House of Representatives voted to not ITL (Inexpedient to Legislate) or kill the bill/NH Constitutional Amendment.
Given the overlap, there are a total of 14 individuals who should not be allowed to run for or hold office in New Hampshire.
Karen’s wrong, of course. Regarding her first-numbered point, the state reps in question did not sponsor a bill to secede from the United States of America, as anyone who actually bothered to read CACR 32 would know. The bill was a proposed constitutional amendment that, if passed by over 3/5ths of the state house and senate, would have placed a question on the ballot for the people of New Hampshire to decide on whether or not to declare peaceful independence from the US. Passing CACR 32 would merely have caused a vote of the people, and if over 2/3rds voted yes, then the constitution would have been amended to add the following to Article 7 of the NH Bill of Rights:
[Art.] 7-a. [Independent Nation.] New Hampshire peaceably declares independence from the United States and immediately proceeds as a sovereign nation. All other references to the United States in this constitution, state statutes and regulations are nullified.”
State Rep Mike Sylvia Speaks on the State House Floor about CACR 32
Second, we’ve heard her ridiculous claim that the US Constitution’s 14th amendment prohibits what the heroic NH reps did, from loyalist state rep Brodie Deshaies at the public hearing on CACR 32. However, as Mike Sylvia – CACR 32’s prime sponsor – previously argued, the 14th amendment only prohibits office-holders from “engaging in insurrection or rebellion”. Anyone who bothers to actually look up those terms in a dictionary, would see they both involve violence against the state. Obviously a proposed vote of the people on a constitutional amendment to peaceably exit the US isn’t violence in any way, so it will be interesting to see how the Ballot Law Commission rules on this at Wednesday’s meeting.
We knew the loyalists to the Empire would be making secession a major issue this election season, which is great news! The more attention independence receives, the more people in New Hampshire will consider peaceful secession for the first time. The more people on the fence will be convinced to join us. I’m grateful that Karen brought this complaint as either way the Ballot Law Commission decides will make things more exciting. If they rule to disqualify the reps from office it could lead to an appeal to the NH Supreme Court and if they rule to keep the reps in place then it’s official that the reps were indeed working within the system’s own rules by proposing the amendment, which means Karen and her ilk will be even more frustrated.
Interestingly, Karen Sue Steele is quite the busybody around Atkinson, Danville and Rockingham County, as anyone with the ability to search the internet could discover. Also, turns out that Karen’s not from New Hampshire, originally hailing from La Crescent, MN. Many of the most ardent big government supporters in New Hampshire are not natives. I wonder if Karen is willing to debate Alu Axelman about independence for NH. He has yet to be able to find any loyalists to talk publicly about their viewpoint. Alu also covered the news about Karen’s attack on the state reps in his detailed article at the Liberty Block. If you’d like Karen to debate this publicly, she helpfully included her contact information in her public complaint. Be kind if you decide to reach out:
Karen Steele
4 Pebble Brook Road
Atkinson, NH 03811
603-362-8850 – home
978-857-6048 – cell
karen.sue.steele@gmail.com
The loyalists are desperate and don’t realize what they are up against. NH Independence is already surprisingly popular amongst NH inhabitants, with nearly one in three supporting New Hampshire being an independent nation and 52% of republicans. See the details on the recent, first-ever Survey USA poll results here.
The recently-formed NH Independence PAC has called for supporters of an independent New Hampshire to gather for a rally starting at noon on Wednesday August 24th, outside the State Archives at 9 Ratification Way (formerly 71 South Fruit Street) in Concord prior to the start of the Ballot Law Commission meeting at 1pm. They will then attend the meeting in support of the brave state reps who are under fire from this literal Karen. Hope to see you there!
29% agree, “I would prefer New Hampshire to govern itself as an independent country.”
Thanks to the folks at the Foundation for New Hampshire Independence, we now have the results (PDF, web) of their first-ever scientific poll of the people of NH on various questions related to NH independence from the United States! Conducted by SurveyUSA, 625 adults in New Hampshire were asked 27 questions, so there’s a lot of data to go through, but here are some important takeaways.
First, 29% of all respondents either said they strongly agree or somewhat agree that they “would prefer New Hampshire to govern itself as an independent country.” This alone is tremendous news! Nearly one in three already onboard is an excellent starting point to begin persuading the rest of the population. Given only 2/3rds are needed to pass a constitutional amendment, we’re almost halfway there! Another 14% said they were “not sure”, so those people are already on the fence on the issue.
Someone may claim this is a fluke poll, but it’s actually in line with another secession poll conducted in 2021 by Bright Line Watch which asked people across the country if they “support seceding from the US to form a new regional union”. It’s not as good of a question for our purposes, as we don’t want to be in a union with the rest of New England, but it does give some insight into regional interest in independence. In that poll, 34% of New Englanders said they support seceding for joining a regional union! That result is right in line with the SurveyUSA numbers targeting only NH respondents.
63% agree, “I trust my state government more than I trust the federal government.”
An even more interesting takeaway from the NH poll is that 52% of republicans say they strongly agree or somewhat agree that they “would prefer New Hampshire to govern itself as an independent country.” Plus, 11% said they were “not sure”. When the historic, proposed constitutional amendment to peacefully secede came up this year in the state house, despite having several republican sponsors, the establishment republicans spoke firmly against it. Others quietly told us they agreed with the bill, but were too afraid they’d lose their re-election if they supported it. Ultimately only thirteen voted against the establishment motion to table the bill. Now that we have the encouraging results of this poll showing majority republican support for secession, perhaps some of the state reps will find a spine. Hopefully the newly established NH Independence PAC will be able to use this data to try to persuade them to stand up in favor of independence for New Hampshire.
As the Foundation for NH Independence pointed out in their announcement of the poll numbers, over time people’s opinions can shift on an issue once considered impossible, like shall-issue gun permits. They say in 1990 that shall-issue permits were less popular than secession is today, but opinions changed and now the supermajority of states have them. Let’s look at some reasons why the numbers are going to shift in favor of independence for NH:
We already have roughly 2/3rds of people in NH who are frustrated with the federal government. As the feds continue to get worse, more and more will let go of their indoctrinated, nationalistic love of the United States and join the side of NH independence.
Interestingly, only 39% of respondents agreed that, “If New Hampshire were not already part of the United States, it would be beneficial for the state to join, and be governed by DC.” Showing that even though some in NH aren’t ready to leave just yet, they sure wouldn’t want to join this terrible union! Further, 42% said that the question of secession should be put to New Hampshire voters, and 12% said “not sure”.
Will NH’s state reps be persuaded by these numbers?
Whenever one speaks to people about declaring independence from the United States, the number one objection is the fear that the military will be used to attack the state that is seceding. This is an understandable fear, given what happened in the 1800s. However, this poll shows it has no basis in reality, as across all eight states that were polled, an average of only 6% would support military intervention if a state secedes. While 37% would support some form of “economic sanctions”, the majority – 57% – say the state should simply be allowed to leave. Americans don’t want to kill their own families and friends just because they want to leave the union and if the federal government gets violent with a seceding state, it will only undermine their legitimacy even further.
The New Hampshire Independence movement is just getting started and I’m excited that so many people are already supportive. If you love liberty and want to secede, you should be here in NH. Come help us make this a reality sooner rather than later. Time is of the essence. You can start by signing the petition!
You can see the full results including crosstabs (PDF, web) for yourself, so feel free to dig through the data yourself!
A recent poll conducted by SurveyUSA on behalf of the Foundation for New Hampshire Independence (FNHI) shows that while the peaceful separation of New Hampshire from the federal government has low support among politicians, it has significant support among registered voters.
According to an overwhelming number of respondents, the people of the United States are getting more and more divided over important issues like LGBT rights, guns, abortion, election integrity, race relations, involvement in foreign wars, climate change, immigration, and so on (91%). Nearly as many fear that if this trend continues, it will lead to increases in political violence (89%).
Large majorities of respondents agreed that the federal government doesn’t have their best interests in mind (67%); that it violates their rights more than it protects those rights (65%); that it produces laws, regulations, and court rulings that are incompatible with New Hampshire’s culture of freedom (63%); and that its financial decisions and economic regulations hurt our livelihoods, and could lead to inflation and bankruptcy (77%).
In short, 63% of respondents feel that their state can be trusted more than the federal government.
One possible way forward would be for New Hampshire to begin ignoring federal laws and regulations regarding matters reserved to the States by the 10th Amendment. Fewer than half of respondents believe that the federal government should be able to force New Hampshire to follow federal mandates and laws regarding cannabis (27%), medicine (37%), public health (42%), education (41%), welfare (42%, firearms (42%), businesses (38%), and abortion (33%).
This approach, also referred to as ‘nullification’ is common, currently being utilized by dozens of states, and is consistent with the recent enactment of New Hampshire HB 1178, ‘prohibiting the state from enforcing any federal statute, regulation, or Presidential Executive Order that restricts or regulates the right of the people to keep and bear arms’.
However, a more comprehensive way forward would be for New Hampshire to reclaim its sovereignty, peacefully separating from the federal government to govern itself as an independent country, an idea that was supported by 29% of respondents and 52% of Republicans. Only 58% of respondents do not support immediate and full secession from the federal government today. More than 2/5 of respondents agreed that the state should be able to do this without securing permission from the federal government (43%). And only 3% of respondents would support the use of military force by the federal government to interfere with such a separation.
Again, while politicians declined to put the question to the people, more than 2/5 of respondents support the idea of placing independence on the ballot (42%) while only 47% currently oppose it.
History is filled with proposals that seemed at first to be politically impossible, but after serious discussion and evolving circumstances, proved to be politically inevitable. To take just one example, shall-issue laws for concealed carry licenses, once viewed as extreme, are now the law in nearly every state. As the results of this poll show, peaceful separation already has more support now than shall-issue laws had in 1990. Today, not only is shall-issue the norm, but 25 states allow their residents to carry concealed guns without even requiring a permit. If New Hampshire independence follows a similar path, it may only be a few short years away from broad adoption.
The survey also found strong support for independence and extreme discontent with DC politicians among all 8 states polled. In Texas, 90% of Republicans recently endorsed putting secession on the ballot, officially placing the position in their platform. California progressives have a strong independence movement of their own, and surveys show that around half of Californians support or are open to independence from the union. Progressives in Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington also support independence. States like South Carolina, Florida, and many other states have new independence movements that are rapidly growing, as well.
The post New Hampshire Survey Shows Disdain For DC, Support For Independence appeared first on Foundation for New Hampshire Independence.