Accountability, Schmountability

It is not only the end of NH's legislative year, but also the end of the 2-year term. No bill survives over election season. Interim study subcommittees are now making their final reports to House and Senate Committees regarding their recommendations for what the respective body should do about introducing similar legislation next year. Here is the NH House Criminal Justice Committee's deliberations on such a subcommittee's report on HB1619, "requiring law enforcement officers to record interviews of suspects in felony cases," 10/13/2010.

Perhaps the least malignant excuse for continuing to deny your right to record your servants on the job in your name, is the cops' lightly veiled concern that your 'mad video editing skillz' will make them look worse than they already do. Well evidently, the cops have impressed upon the committee a lack of faith in their own editing, too...

1st Amendment Rally, 10/14, Dover, NH

From the Desk of Stewart Rhodes, founder of Oath Keepers

As you know the baby of John Irish and his fiancee Stephanie was taken 16 hours after her birth. She was taken in part because of association with Oath keepers.

The time is now to stand up and protect the rights of all all parents freedom to associate and yours too. Join us.

We will be holding a rally in support of the First Amendment protected right of freedom of association, to be held this Thursday, October 14, at:

The Rochester Family Division Court, 259 County Farm Rd, Dover, NH 03820-6016.

The rally will be held from 12PM to 4PM

Stewart will be there, and he is calling on all Oath Keepers, all who "associate" with us, and on all other organizations that stand for the Constitution and for liberty to be there for a peaceful gathering in support of both the due process rights of the parents (who have a hearing there, on that day), but also to stand in support of the rights of free speech and association, free from persecution, for ALL Americans.

There will be many other organizations there standing up in defense of First Amendment protected right of association for everyone.

Gary Franchi, Sons of Liberty Riders, New Hampshire Free State. and more will be there in support for this crucial issue.

We need you there. If you live within a 1000 mile radius, you should be at this rally.

Please join us!

Oppression By Oath

First, do no harm. A day-old infant was abducted by NH DCYF on 10/7/2010, from, and allegedly with the complicity of, Concord Hospital, apparently at least partially because her father had affirmed, by association with Oath Keepers, an oath he'd taken to support and defend the U.S. Constitution. An oath government employees take every day. Do they respect their own promises as much? Do you care...?

This is the hastily organized protest the following day, 10/8/2010, outside the scene of the crime, Concord Hospital, Concord, NH.



MSM sources in attendance included WMUR, the Concord Monitor and the Manchester Union Leader. I'll link as I find stories...

Seriously, WMUR? This is your lede? Even though you quickly acknowledge that, "The hospital said there was no threat made?" Shame on you.

And finally, WMUR focuses on the actual story -- as much as they ever do, anyway (isn't there a pie-eating contest around here somewhere...?) -- 21 hours later.

Other sources of information:

• Learn more about NH DCYF
• Government Agents Seize Oath Keeper's New Born From Hospital
• Oath Keepers' Statement
• Peaceful Oath Keeper's Newborn Baby Seized at Hospital
• Government Seizes Newborn Baby Over Political Beliefs Of Parents
• NH politicos kidnap newborn infant 'cause father is a member of "oath keepers"
• NH DCYF takes children from parents who open carry and belong to Oath Keepers
• Baby Snatching: It's Hilarious When We Just Don't Like Their Kind
• Concord Hospital protest against baby kidnap
• Couple say NH took baby, paperwork cites father
• CONFIRMED: Court Did Rely on Oath Keeper Association to Take Baby
• The Kidnapping of Cheyenne Irish
• Oath Keepers plans rally

NH AG Recommends Less Police Accountability

'Cause, you know, they prefer that. And the subcommittee Chair asserts cops aren't even public employees. HB1372, "establishing a committee to study the provisions of RSA 570-A, the wiretapping and eavesdropping statute, and to study permitting a person to record a law enforcement officer in the course of such officer’s official duties," 9/28/2010.

The subcommittee was charged with studying "permitting" someone to monitor their public servants, their employees, acting in their name, on their dime, in public space. As we've learned before, our servants aren't all that keen on the idea. Well then, work somewhere else. It's a free country, right...?

So here, highlights, then the whole surreal authoritarian love-fest. Hey, if I can take it, you can take it...

Prohibition and the Wheels of Government Grind On

Mostly everything in their path...

The NH House committee formed by authority of last session's HB1373: "establishing a committee to study the effects of current state and federal laws on illegal drugs and the possession and use of such drugs," votes on its final report, 9/22/2010. Their finding: 'It is just too hard for us.'

Wonder what the bill sponsors, Reps. Joel Winters and Paul Ingbretson, must think of their dedication...




And herewith, the final "interim study" work session of the NH House Criminal Justice subcommittee addressing HB1652: "allowing purchase and use of marijuana by adults, regulating the purchase and use of marijuana, and imposing taxes on the wholesale and retail sale of marijuana" -- the "tax & regulate" bill, sponsored by my own Rep. Cal Pratt and the equally redoubtable Rep. Joel Winters, among others, from the previous session of the NH House, 9/22/2010.

Originating in the second session of the 2-year term, the original bill is now technically gone, but the committee soldiers on in an effort to craft something more, shall we say, "palatable" -- which is also, mercifully, inching toward "rational" in a drug war-crazed world -- for the next session, which begins after November's elections.

Rights and Privileges

I started writing a comment for this post at "Unlawful Government" referencing the (even misdirected) intolerance emanating from a Florida church ("Dove World Outreach Center?" Seriously? Why do I get the feeling they wouldn't even get along with Westboro Baptist?), but my thoughts wandered enough, addressing things I've been thinking about recently, that I decided to just turn it into a post of my own...

Either we consider that freedom of speech (or religion or RKBA or 'due process' or etc) is a fundamental unalienable right, above and beyond infringement by our form of government, or it's merely a "privilege," the regulation of which we just haven't delegated to the federal component of that government. Ya gotta pick one. If it's a "right," then "incorporation" by(/of/to/whatever) the several States is unavoidable, seems to me. Either that, or they can just leave the union. Serves 'em right, eh...?

As long as you're not directly endangering someone else's person or property -- and no matter how "offensive," as that's precisely what the First Amendment was designed to protect, after all -- flag-burning is political speech. As is book-burning, as are campaign contributions. And don't even get me started on the profound, compounded, convoluted insanity of house-of-worship "tax-exempt status." We simply do not surrender the right of speech to obtain the right of association. Or vice versa.

On the other hand, as 'South Park' has (unintentionally) taught us, some religions are evidently more equal than others. And from the same WSJ article, Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle:

"America must contain this pastor if it wants to avoid a confrontation with the Muslim world," Mohsen Pak Aien, the head of Organization for Islamic Culture and Communication, told Iran's Tabnak news website.

And get this...

"The dangers of this despicable action are clear to all. It will ignite massive fires of anger and hatred toward America. The U.S. government and president will be held accountable if this happens in their country," said Grand Ayatollah Lotfollah Sadeghi Golpaygani, according to Fars News.

...because you figure the president of this Constitutional Republic of expressly enumerated powers protecting open-ended rights has been delegated the authority to do what, exactly? Or do you mean it would be ok if only "this" happened outside "their country," like, say, the Middle East equivalent of the WTC?

Or this...

The two top Arabic news channels, Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya, reported the news in the context of a backlash in the U.S. against Muslims, and questioned how U.S. leaders could continue calling for peace and religious tolerance in other countries, if these episodes continued to flare up in America.

I do believe someone's referred to this concept as "blowback," in this case perhaps exacerbated by one faction's (hardly unique) hypocritical insistence that only the other faction's "leaders" exert control over -- or at the very least unequivocally denounce -- ostensibly rogue members of their "flocks."

Yet if Petraeus fears that "images of a burning Quran could be used to drum up anger toward the U.S. and potentially endanger troops," what the hell does he think invading and bombing might do? Has anybody asked him? But at base, we're talking about religions here -- including the one devoted to "the state," of course -- so what rationality can we expect, really?

On to the mosque. If they own the property in south Manhattan, they have the right to decide what to do with it. If they don't get to decide what to do with it, then they really don't "own" it, now do they? Whoever does get to decide does "own" it, regardless of whatever level of substantive "investment" they may or may not have made. Simple. Where do politicians get off telling a private citizens what to do, indeed. Do any of us effectively own anything -- including our own bodies -- anymore...?

In any case, it certainly strikes me as a ridiculously expensive (including the required annual tribute to the state for the "privilege" of continuing to occupy it, of course) piece of property on which to be doing just about anything other than "obscenely" profitable commerce, but it's just not my call.

But if you, dear reader, don't want what they want for their property, if you're sufficiently committed to controlling it, I'm sure they would entertain sufficiently lofty offers. That's right: voluntary commerce. Put up or shut up. Or boycott. 'Course, if you're already that exercised over the issue, that probably won't be a hardship, I'm guessin'...

The Florida ACLU condemned Mr. Jones's message Wednesday as un-American but defended his right to free speech. "We cannot pick and choose who is protected by the Constitution," spokesman Brandon Hensler said. "We're very concerned about this wave of anti-Muslim sentiment. But the answer is not to infringe on their right to say what they want to say."

Gosh, non-chauvinistic, non-jingoistic, uncompromising, nuanced yet consistent principle based on original intent. Liberty.

Ooo. This and this just in.

Say, are there any Toyota dealers on O'ahu? Anybody...?

'Constitution Ride Across America' Hits Concord

The 'Constitution Ride Across America,' with driving force Daren Gardner, motors into Concord, NH, 8/19/2010, for its eighth stop, spreading "the word that the constitution still matters and that you can do something about it," by delivering copies of the US Constitution to state Representatives in the "lower 48." Well, to the ones who are interested, anyway...




We met up with Daren at Riley's in Hooksett to escort him to the NH State House for the rally. If you couldn't make it, you can relive the 25-minute ride right here in 7 minutes.

Not. Just... Not.

Kelly Ayotte is your venal, arrogant, unlimited, unresponsive, out-of-touch, unauthorized, centralized, wealth-redistributing, lying/cheating/stealing, police-state government on steroids. Any questions...?

Good. Go get yourself some answers...

Memoriam Revisited

The vented frustrations have proved justified, the predictions borne out, their only failing in being overly optimistic. And my memorial to our lost liberties has more than doubled in height and tripled in breadth in the intervening 2 years. I gotta say I deeply appreciate the appearance it's taken on of a defiantly raised middle finger. This tree "knows" me...

Summer 2008

Summer 2010

It's curiously and appropriately reminiscent of another iconic image, don't you think...?

Last Great Act of Defiance

The one where the NH AG intimidates a "citizen of good character"

Ivy Walker has been known to do legal research and/or represent individuals before the servant state of NH -- individuals fully aware, even preferring, that she hasn't sought the sanction of that state or the state's bar association -- and as "authorized" by the state's own laws, specifically, RSA 311:1, which says:

"A party in any cause or proceeding may appear, plead, prosecute or defend in his or her proper person, that is, pro se, or may be represented by any citizen of good character. For the purposes of this section, a citizen shall be presumed to be of good character unless demonstrated otherwise."

Not surprisingly, the state isn't happy about her nettlesome, "insufficiently deferential" competence in this area. Or, perhaps they're just not aware of their own law...

Here, Ivy has been summoned to the NH DOJ by the high priests of NH law enforcement to "explain herself," 8/12/2010. Goes without saying, of course, that your servants don't want their activities in your name being recorded...