Action-packed NH House Committee Hearings

Resolutions, bills, and "Constitutional Amendment Concurrent Resolutions." Covering such issues as education, RKBA on public -- and private -- property, the North American Union, unfunded federal mandates, and the restoration of the Constitutional right to redress of grievance. Just another (full) day with the NH Liberty Alliance and the NH Legislature we monitor. Here's a video selection, and 2 complete hearings from 2/5/2008.

Morning Festivities



Afternoon Festivities




Complete Testimony on HR23, declaring a supra-national government such as a North American union unconstitutional and urging the United States to withdraw from further participation in the Security and Prosperity Partnership.




Complete Testimony on HB1543, establishing a procedure for a member of the legislature to introduce a citizen's petition for redress of grievance.

Please uphold the Committee's ITL recommendation on HB1431

The following was submitted to my NH State Representatives:

Representatives,

HB1431, "establishing a permanent state defense force," is scheduled for a House floor vote on Wednesday, February 6th.

First, I want to stress that I support the concept of a state-based defense force, as well as (not to denigrate the balance of those documents, but specific to this topic) US Amendment 10, and NH Part First, Articles 7 and 10, and Part Second, Article 51, as well as the spirit of the proposed modifications to RSA541-A. However, I have profound concerns about HB1431, and the expressed intentions -- not to mention unsettling censorship -- of some of its supporters and implementers (positions, to be fair, I am unaware if the sponsors share, or of which they are even cognizant).

To borrow comments from one current NH Representative, I had likewise been under the initial impression -- and supported -- that this State Guard was to be "a separate entity from the National Guard and will answer directly to the governor and general court," and be "distinct from any federally controlled body."

However, I learned at a January meeting that the currently evolving incarnation is intended (at least by the current ex-military organizers) to be the "reserve" for the National Guard, and have strong ties to, and potentially come under similar direct control of the US Army. Particularly given the publicly stated aims, the implications of this concerned me, and I helpfully attempted to post the following to the associated Internet discussion group:

"... I think I'd like to see stronger language that, in the eventuality of, shall we say, 'unconstitutional federal action,' or 'actions in direct and egregious violation of State sovereignty,' the Guard's paramount allegiance is to the State of NH, it is always by default under State control, and yields to federal authority only at the expressed direction of the (more easily deposed) Governor. Or something like that. E.g., if the Governor says, say, 'Um, no. The NH State Guard will not assist you in confiscating firearms,' there's no question whose orders the State Guard is to follow. ..."

Or in whose brig the State Guard can end up. I still can comprehend nothing unacceptable about the proposed additional concept, let alone in the open discussion thereof.

The group's moderator blocked the post, however, unilaterally and summarily calling the issue "nonsense" and forbidden political content (although his posting of Committee hearings somehow isn't political), implying it was nothing but partisan conspiracy theory. Subsequent private correspondence produced no further defense of his position -- a curious silence on it, actually -- nor explanation of how my scenario was impossible, or even merely unlikely, for that matter. I was then removed from the group's membership without further comment.

I am very concerned with the apparent willingness to dutifully cede to federal authority that which is ostensibly intended specifically for state defense, even at the very moment our state sovereignty might be most vulnerable. This would appear to be a potential additional local extension of the federal "standing army," regarding which the Founders warned us, at the very least, to use caution.

I simply do not trust those who wish to centralize authority, to push it up a freshly created, even redirected chain of command, especially when it's not out in the open. Therefore, I do not support HB1431 as written, and request that you accept the Committee's ITL recommendation.

I would also strongly request that you keep my concerns in mind when evaluating any similar proposed legislation in the future. Eternal vigilance. Local control. Thank you.

NH House RFID Commission

HB686-FN, retained from the 2007 session, which "regulates the use of tracking devices in consumer products by requiring labels that inform consumers of their presence," and "also restricts the circumstances under which the state may use electronic tracking devices, and prohibits a private citizen from electronically tracking another person without that person's consent," fostered the creation of the Commission on the Use of Radio Frequency Technology. The House Commerce Committee is scheduled to revisit HB686 next week, and this was the Commission's last meeting before that benchmark. It certainly sounds like it's moving in the correct direction... 2/1/2008.

Morning Session



Afternoon session

CACR21 Hearing in front of the NH House Education Committee

Testimony on CACR21, providing that "the local subdivision responsible for public education shall have the power to determine curriculum, set standards, and determine funding, and that the legislature may provide supplemental funding" -- i.e., empirically necessary reaffirmation of already Constitutionally mandated (Article 6) local control -- in front of the Education Committee of the NH House of Representatives, 1/29/2008.

My filed opposition to HB1314

Having regrettably missed the opportunity to testify before the pertinent committee, the following is my post-hearing email to members of the Environment and Agriculture Committee of the NH House of Representatives on HB1314, which would make it illegal to take the life of any animal without lawful authority.

Representatives,

Unfortunately, I missed the Environment and Agriculture Committee's 1/24 public hearing on HB1314. I assert that this proposed legislation is ludicrous at best, and profoundly dangerous to liberty, autonomy and self-sufficiency -- the independent culture and spirit of New Hampshire -- at worst.

Firstly, no one with whom I associate is in favor of animal cruelty. Indeed, I prefer my dogs to the vast majority of humans. Literally. But the notion that a small, or "hobby" farm, or even household on a budget would need government approval to slaughter a cow or pig or lamb or rabbit or chicken for dinner is beyond absurd.

As is the notion that a poor family must now choose between allocating scarce resources for a "professional" to put poor ol' faithful Yeller out of his misery, or letting him hang on to the bitter end. Now, that's animal cruelty.

Now consider the mousetrap in your kitchen. Or the "roach motel." Or the mosquito on your arm you're about to swat. How about the hawk ravaging your chicken coop, or the bear attacking your dog, or the rabid fox advancing on your child? Ready to go call authorities for an "ok?"

Now extend an (ever) ongoing debate, and consider generally if a simple fertilized egg actually has the rights of the "born" of the species. And then consider your omelette. Depending on one's position on that related debate, how to argue against breakfast criminality under this bill?

Are you laughing yet? I'm not, because this is the proposed legislation. To be imposed by government force. For those who depend on their own resourcefulness, every dinner, every defense of life or property against even nature would now need government authorization.

The overall implications to, and foreshadowings for regulation of the food supply and "authorized" self-sufficiency in general, are very troubling to me, and not just because we raise poultry. This is an independent rural state, but whoever thought this up has clearly never left inner-city limits for any length of time. Or is simply an unrepentant authoritarian...

"You will be beholden to government. For your protection (in this case, even from nature). For your food. It is so written."

Not this camper. Not now. Not ever.

Please unequivocally recommend ITL on the onerous and portentous HB1314. Thank you.

NH House Committee hearings on HB1623-FN and HB1504-FN-LOCAL

Testimony in front of the NH House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee on HB1623-FN, which would make the penalty in NH for marijuana possession in a quantity of less than 1.25 ounces a violation; and (eventually, in part 3) Jim Forsythe's testimony on HB1504-FN-LOCAL, AN ACT directing New Hampshire to withdraw from the No Child Left Behind Act; 1/22/2008.

Part 1



Part 2



Part 3



And here's the complete testimony of Superintendent Richard Van Wickler of the Cheshire County (NH) Department of Corrections, generated by request of NH Coalition for Common Sense Marijuana Policy and Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
[sorry, lost to Google Video, and I didn't catch it -- gonna have to retrieve the original video from archives and repost to YouTube at some point...]

NHCommonSense.org NH Marijuana Legislation Press Conference

HB1623-FN, AN ACT relative to penalties for possession of marijuana, would make the penalty in NH for marijuana possession in a quantity of less than 1.25 ounces a violation. This is the press conference held by Matt Simon and the NH Coalition for Common Sense Marijuana Policy prior to the NH House of Representatives' Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee hearing.

The Year of the Patriot

Ok, this is a seriously cool, appropriate, and timely logo...


I want a t-shirt! (Remember, the New England Patriots won the Super Bowl following the 9/11 season, too. One game at a time, though...)

Reject Hidden Tracking Devices

Following is my email to my NH State Representatives regarding HB686-FN, "AN ACT relative to the regulation of tracking devices."

HB686 is scheduled to come to the floor on Wednesday of this week. Please defeat the Commerce Committee's majority ITL recommendation, and vote it OTP.

HB686 would require labels on consumer products that contain RFID, and prohibit electronic tracking. An informed consumer is an empowered consumer. There is no legitimate justification for intentionally hiding, with even the temporary sanction of government, the presence of such technology (in an apparent attempt to render it so ubiquitous before the public is fully aware of it that it's then impossible to reject).

HB686 would prohibit the state from using RFID in driver's licenses and other identity documents. As with REAL ID, when government succeeds in overstepping its mandate and saying, "You will," the voter has lost the choice to say "no." Mandating such potentially easily abused -- and abusive -- technology for government purposes should trouble every free citizen.

HB686 would make it a felony to forcibly implant an RFID chip in someone. How is this even an issue? There is no greater privacy violation than forcibly entering someone's body. Indeed, a volatile term for that concept comes to mind...

Additionally, NH citizens have no obligation whatsoever to involuntarily improve cost-effectiveness (by not "bucking the trend" of blind acceptance) for companies that choose to implement such potential post-sale tracking measures. If these companies believe they'll lose money, then they must also believe that consumers will reject RFID chips if they only know about them. Isn't the answer right there?

No matter to what potentially beneficial uses RFID is or may eventually be employed, these uses must be out in the open. Hiding them -- hiding the potential to surreptitiously track unwitting carriers -- is fraud. Hiding them with government's imprimatur is unconscionable. Citizens deserve knowledge and choice, as well as assurance that government, itself, will have no inescapable opportunity to invade their precious and increasingly vulnerable privacy. I support all these goals. I hope you do, too. Please pass HB686.

And thank you, Rep. Kurk.

2008 NH Liberty Forum, Day 4

Sunday morning activities at the Free State Project's 2008 NH Liberty Forum, 1/6/2008.



And scenes from Sunday afternoon, including excerpts from Dr. Ron Paul's address, the complete video of which can be seen here