Free Staters Not Welcome in New Hampshire

The NH statewide newspaper covered the tweet controversy.

January 29. 2013 10:44PM
Manchester state rep's tweet leads to war of words over Free Staters
http://www.unionleader.com/article/20130130/NEWS06/130139986
Sullivan's tweets received an angry response from the Tea Party.

"Kind of stuff that proves these regressive thugs want to take away your rights," tweeted "The RealTeaParty." "You won't get anywhere with these neanderthals. All have bad attitudes to toward freedom."

Others, however, called for an end to name-calling.

"I understand tensions are high, but can we all agree that name-calling is counterproductive?" tweeted a Free State supporter.

"I just think we should keep the insults at a minimum, from all sides."

Sullivan could not be reached for comment.
 
Rep. Lambert (He endorsed Ron Paul while a state rep.) brought up the petition. Personally, I didn't support the petition. Anyway, while Rep. Lambert isn't a free staters, its obvious that he is 1 of the most pro-liberty state reps in the US. Some of his previous bills including ending all victimless crimes. Anywhere, here is the audio of the debate in the NH House over the petition. As I suspected, it failed badly. Humorously, another liberty Republican (though he also has been elected as a Libertarian in the past) wanted a roll call because he is against the bill and against free staters in this instance.

 
It seems the media, even the online blogging community, can't get enough of this story. I won't post all of the recent blog about this but here is another 1. Rick Barnes writes about the insanity of some on the left. For example, Jim Splaine spent many years pushing for same sex freedom in New Hampshire. He claims to be a champion of protecting minority civil rights but Barnes exposes Splaine for what he is, which is at the very least, a hypocrite. In fact, it appears as those Splaine takes pleasure in calling out and trying to punish minority groups for no other reason than that they support protecting civil rights and civil liberties.

Rep Chase Limits On Freedoms
Thursday, January 31, 2013 at 12:51PM
Rick Barnes
http://www.nhinsider.com/richard-barnes/2013/1/31/rep-chase-limits-on-freedoms.html

State Rep Chase wrote:

“Free Staters are the single biggest threat the state is facing today. There is, legally, nothing we can do to prevent them from moving here to take over the state, which is their openly stated goal. In this country you can move anywhere you choose and they have that same right. What we can do is to make the environment here so unwelcoming that some will choose not to come, and some may actually leave. One way is to pass measures that will restrict the “freedoms” that they think they will find here.”

Her statement calling for measures restricting freedom on a minority of people spawned a petition signed by 120 people, some of whom don't even live in NH calling for her removal from office or censure.

While some of the 120 people actually were free staters, some weren't but that didn't stop the left from attempting to claim they were all free staters and that this action represents the entire free state project. This of course deflects the focus away from her original statement and instead puts the FSP on defensive, typical tactic from the left.

But I'm burying my lead here. In searching for details on her statement I can across a statement from State Rep Jim Splaine found HERE. Before quoting him, let me preface by saying he was one of the leaders in NH calling for equal rights and freedoms for gays and helped push same sex marriage in NH.

Theyz are a funny bunch of peoples. Cynthia Chase should be given a commendation for being honest, and re-elected to another term.

Kind of weird that a “group” of people who try to make us feel they’re for a “free” anything want to shut up those who question their motives and so-called “ideals.”

Time to ignore them, except of course we can’t — we have to keep an eye on them, otherwise they would want to take democracy and freedom away from more of us so they can get their own way for their own selfish purposes. Therein lies the danger of their “project.”

So freedom for him and his kind are ok but someone who dare calls out for measures to limit freedoms on another minority is something that should be commended? Really Jim?

Need I remind Rep Splaine that many free state members were also very vocal in supporting his push for same sex marriage, mind you there were others who feel as I do (and for the record I'm not a FSP member) that we'd be better going the opposite way getting government out of the marriage business.

He defends the act of wanting to limit the freedoms of the FSP members by claiming it is they who want to take freedoms away from others. What freedoms do they want taken away? The freedom to use government to force others to fund the things you want against their will? The freedom to use government to force people into acting and doing what you feel is in their best interest?

And as for taking our "Democracy" away, we are NOT a democracy. Our founding fathers warned us of the dangers of a democracy calling it two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Majority rules equal majority tyranny over the minority. As a homosexual, Jim of all people should understand the importance of rules to protect the minority from the majority. Or would he rather see same sex marriage put up to a state wide vote (ie pure democracy) and live with the results of the outcome?

Of all the people coming to the aid and defense of Rep Chase it is Jim Splaine who I am most shocked by because he of all people I would have thought would have condoned anyone wishing to pass measures to limit the freedoms of a minority. I also find it interesting that he calls her statements "honest", so Jim do you wish to limit on certain minorities as well but just lack the same courage she has to admit it?

Hey Jim, let's change the group she's refering too and see if you still think the statement deserves a commendation and is worthy of someone being re-elected:

“Homosexuals are the single biggest threat the state is facing today. There is, legally, nothing we can do to prevent them from moving here. In this country you can move anywhere you choose and they have that same right. What we can do is to make the environment here so unwelcoming that some will choose not to come, and some may actually leave. One way is to pass measures that will restrict the “freedoms” that they think they will find here.”

I'm sorry but her statement is offensive regardless of which group you put in the blank and ANYONE who dare claim that they think that government should pass measures to restrict freedoms of another group is someone not fit for office. And the fact that the Democratic party not only doesn't see the problem with this statement but is also defending it and that a leading homosexual activist likewise fails to see the problems with it, shows how hypocritical they are.

Statements like hers are what lead this country to the days of black only entrances and seating and signs like "Irish need not apply". I don't want to see us ever return to that and I do agree with the petition that anyone who thinks that way should be removed from office. Government is not there to limit freedoms of those you disagree with, it's only job should be making sure your rights are not stepped on by those who disagree with you.
 
More coverage.

New Hampshire Democrat: We Need to 'Restrict Freedoms' of Libertarian & Conservative Citizens
Submitted by Michael RinoRemover on Tue, 01/29/2013 - 12:46
http://www.capitalismisfreedom.com/...ct-freedoms-libertarian-conservative-citizens

Feel free to read the article about it. At this point, the 100s of articles/blog posts on this subject are starting to blur together in my head so I prefer to look at pictures :)
Screen%20Shot%202013-01-29%20at%202.46.01%20PM.png
 
Does the Drone Memo justify striking the Free State Project?
February 6th, 2013
http://silverunderground.com/2013/02/does-the-drone-memo-justify-striking-the-free-state-project/
The big news this week is a secret memo from the Justice Department titled, “Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a U.S. Citizen.” It was leaked to NBC News, and details the legal justification the Obama Administration believes legitimizes drone strikes on American citizens. According to the 16 page “white paper” the State can now assassinate American citizens, without trial, without evidence, even without secret evidence, if an “informed, high level official of the US government” suspects them of being “senior operational leaders” of a terrorist organization or “an associated force.” This explicitly does not require any intelligence indicating they are engaged in a plot to attack America. If you’re unfamiliar with the story, go read Barry Donegan’s excellent coverage of it yesterday. No seriously. Go read it. I’ll wait.

When this story broke, most people’s first thought was of Imam Anwar al Awlaki and his 16 year old son, two American citizens assassinated in Yemen by the Obama Administration in two distinct drone strikes, but my first thought was the Free State Project.

The Free State Project is a movement of liberty-minded individuals moving to New Hampshire to consolidate their activism toward the creation of a free society. The plan is to collect 20,000 signatures at which point signers commit to moving within 5 years. The project currently boasts over 13,000 signers, but many people simply can’t wait that long. Over 1,000 people have already moved. Many Free Staters are content to work within the system and have run and been elected to public office. Others prefer strategies outside the system from civil disobedience to advocating secession.

Here’s what has me concerned. Recently New Hampshire State Representative Cynthia Chase said that, “Free Staters are the single biggest threat the state is facing today, but there is, legally, nothing we can do to prevent them from moving.” She went on to advocate intentionally legislating away the freedoms the Free Staters cherish in hopes that they will stop moving to New Hampshire, or even leave, but what if the leaked Drone Memo gives her the legal justification she’s looking for?

Read more http://silverunderground.com/2013/02/does-the-drone-memo-justify-striking-the-free-state-project/

DroneFSP.jpg
 
Another day, another Union Leader editorial about this issue. Oddly enough, Rep. Chase actually voted for freedom even though she knows it will make free staters happy. Rep. Chase is really hard to figure out.

February 07. 2013 10:57PM
Keene, Vt.: NH's beer-tax capital
EDITORIAL
http://www.unionleader.com/article/20130208/OPINION01/130209143
...On Wednesday the House voted 308-35 against House Bill 168, the beer tax bill. That is a walloping. A bill that gets defeated by a ratio of almost 10-1, drawing the support of not even 10 percent of the House, ought to embarrass its sponsor. Even Congress, with a 14 percent approval rating, is more popular.

The bill's sponsor was Rep. Charles Weed, D-Keene. He is not an outlier. Five of seven representatives from Keene, and more than half of Cheshire County's entire House delegation, voted for the bill.

The two Keene representatives who voted against raising the beer tax were Reps. Delmar Burridge and Cynthia Chase. Readers might recall that Chase recently got in hot water for stating that legislators should discourage Free Staters from moving to New Hampshire by eliminating the freedoms they come here to find. Burridge is the sponsor of a bill to give counties the power to impose income taxes.

For some perspective, 71 percent of Keene's representatives voted for this bill, but not a single representative from liberal Hanover did. Geographically, Keene is to the right of Vermont. Politically, we are not so sure anymore.
 
“Chase” That Chill Away – HB 307 is Dead.
by STEVE MACDONALD
http://granitegrok.com/blog/2013/02/chase-that-chill-away-hb-307-is-dead


The purpose of the bill was relative to the removal and destruction of certain woodstoves not certified for sale as new after July 1, 1986 by the government protection agency. The reason given was to reduce excessive particulate discharge from certain inefficient wood burning stoves. The committee had questions about enforcement, and financial reimbursement of the owner’s property, hence the ITL motion. Vote 13-6.

When it came time for the floor vote to put an end the HB 307 nine legislators voted to try and save it.


The name that stood out most to me was, of course, Rhode Island’s own Cynthia Chase, the Free Stater xenophobe who also happened to be one of the Bill’s sponsors. (So were Cali-Pitts and Schmidt, sponsors voting against ITL.)

Did you know that Rhode Island (just as aside really) recently proposed a bill that would limit the sale, lease, or renting of property without an government certified wood stove?

House bill no.7371 states that beginning on January 1, 2013, an individual must obtain a permit before installing a wood stove in any residential home. Permits will only be issued for EPA certified models unless they are 50 feet from any lot line and 200 feet from a neighboring home. Property owners cannot sell, rent, or lease any home with an uncertified stove that is less than 50 feet from any lot line and 200 feet from a neighboring home.

I guess the benevolent statists running the Island of Rhode were convinced that people in more densely populated area’s would not take care of their stoves or replace them with newer ones when the desire and means struck them. Or maybe the nannies just wanted to be the first New England state to pass such a law. Could it have been the wood stove equivalent of ‘second hand smoke?’ Maybe it was all of the above.

Well it sounds like Rhode Islander Chase wanted to make New Hampshire the second state in New England to have this kind oppressive progressive oversight.

II. All wood stoves which are not certified for sale as new after July 1, 1986 by the Government Protection Agency shall be removed and destroyed upon the sale of a home if the home is in an area that has been designated as densely populated by the commissioner of the department of environmental services in rules adopted under RSA 541-A and posted at the registry of deeds.

The New Hampshire bill is much less tolerant than the Rhode Island Bill in many respects but the same elements are there. Only certified stoves. Densely populated areas. Government control. Sponsored by Democrats. Annoying, inconvenient, expensive, and more than likely–unnecessary. All hallmarks of Liberal leadership to be certain.

But we have to give credit where credit is due. There were plenty of New Hampshire Democrats who realized this was a no-go. A lot of them, actually. They overwhelmingly sent HB 307 packing 338-9. And to be give equal credit where due two of the nine who tried to resurrect the bill were elected as Republicans.

Here’s the full list of..what should we call them…wood stove Nazis? No wood stove for you!* List courtesy of Laura Jones.

Greg Burdwood (Dover-d), Jacqueline Cali-Pitts (Portsmouth-d), Cynthia Chase (Keene-d), David Miller (Rochester-d), Larry Phillips (Keene-d), Dennis Reed (Franklin-r), Peter Schmidt (Dover-d), Judith Spang (Durham-d), and Charlene Takesian (Pelham-r).
 
Last edited:
II. All wood stoves which are not certified for sale as new after July 1, 1986 by the Government Protection Agency shall be removed and destroyed upon the sale of a home if the home is in an area that has been designated as densely populated by the commissioner of the department of environmental services in rules adopted under RSA 541-A and posted at the registry of deeds.

Grrrr...

What's so hard to figure out about this broad Keith?

She voted against the beer tax because they want a broad based income and sales tax.
 
The NH statewide paper covered this story as it's main story last Sunday.

February 23. 2013 9:27PM
Free Staters told to set clock for 2015
By KIMBERLY HOUGHTON
Sunday News Correspondent
http://www.unionleader.com/article/20130223/NEWS06/130229559/

Democratic state Rep. Cynthia Chase of Keene previously posted this comment on the liberal blog BlueHampshire: "In the opinion of this Democrat, Free Staters are the single biggest threat the state is facing today. There is, legally, nothing we can do to prevent them from moving here to take over the stat. . . . What we can do is to make the environment here so unwelcoming that some will choose not to come, and some may actually leave. One way is to pass measures that will restrict the 'freedoms' that they think they will find here...."

Gericke said she is not upset about Chase's comments, but instead has a "bring it on'' attitude dealing with critics. In fact, she said, after Chase's comments appeared in December, her group's website received 130 percent more traffic and 5,000 new "likes'' on its Facebook page.
 
I only read the 1st dozen comments (I don't have all day to read nothing about nothing) but I thought the comments were mostly encouraging. I especially enjoyed this comment :)

Bob Lake said:
I thought the nuts were all here posting on the UL. You mean there's more coming? You mean all those republican nuts we saw on TV are coming here? Time to move. (Report Abuse)February 24, 2013 8:23 am
 
Can't she just marry Janet Napilitano and move to the District of Calamity?

That way she's out of our hair.
 
And it continues. This time, again, another NH Rep. gets in on it. This NH Rep. also shows while he is mean and spiteful, it hurts liberty folks when they act like that. So please liberty folks, be nicer when commenting on a video or photo online. Let's act better than the statists. Let's be the change we want to see.


Published on Mar 11, 2013

Last week, Free Stater Dave Ridley ambushed (his word, not mine) state House Rep. Raymond Gagnon for an interview regarding Gagnon's "F" rating from the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance.

The Claremont Democrat, who describes himself as a "progressive redneck," sat down with the film maker and offered an impromptu, off-the-cuff dissertation on why he opposes the Free State Project.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top