This billboard is part of the Federal Government people's "Department of Homeland Security". You really do have to provide credentials to government people when they say "Papers Please". We don't even need to put on a fake German accent to drive home the oppression of that.
You can't vote to end this at a state level. So the question is, if NOW isn't the time to secede and leave the oppression of the FedGov behind, when is?
"DO YOU HAVE APPROVED TRAVEL DOCUMENTS."
"TO GET HOME!"
Are ya feelin' the chill yet? Ya really should.
Really...
Let's hope the entire NH legislature gets the message -- as it finally did for REAL ID -- for next session's anticipated enhanced version of HCR6, state sovereignty. But what will it take for our federal servants to get the hint? Do we really need to care...?
NH Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on HB312: "permitting a person to record a law enforcement officer in the course of such officer's official duties," 5/19/2009
Essentially the same self-serving, dismissive, disingenuous dissembling from law enforcement as they trotted out at February's House hearing. Shouldn't they be required to understand the existing law?
Here's the deal. Taking pictures is already legal. Taking (silent) video is already legal. Holding a camera or a cellphone is already legal. Therefore, the "it might be a gun" argument is specious. Likewise, using a light with those visual image recording devices is not currently prohibited, so they are irrelevant to the question at hand of limiting audio recording. Non-law enforcement private citizens don't lose their rights, so the "they wouldn't be able to object to being recorded" argument is also specious. Breaching a crime scene is equally illegal without an audio recording device as it is with one, so that argument, well, you're seeing the pattern, yes? Right on down the line.
On the job means on the record. Why does this need to be explained to our employees?
Legislator schedules being what they are (and the Committee Chair is painfully aware of it on this incredibly hectic day she scheduled for herself), Rep Neal Kurk rushed in at the last minute, and signed in on the wrong sheet. Professional courtesy would generally have the Chair allowing him to speak, anyway, but she simply couldn't be bothered. "Sorry, the gavel can't be unbanged. There's nothing I can do. My hands are tied." What a...
Also below, the culminating testimony from Ryan Marvin and Rep Winters.
...would anybody hear it? NH Representatives Paul Ingbretson and Dan Itse lead an ad hoc House Committee addressing formulation of procedural recommendations for the House Rules Committee (breath) regarding the further adventures of last session's HB1543 and the non-optional -- as in Constitutionally mandated -- restoration of petitions for redress of grievance in the NH Legislature, 4/30/2009. Follow the backstory here and here and here.
Testimony on HB383: 'relative to passenger restraints,' before the NH Senate Transportation and Interstate Cooperation Committee, 4/20/2009. Mostly the same collection of nanny-statist authoritarians as at the House hearing. The liberty side seemed more focused and targeted to me than previously, although some testimony was missing this time. Yes, if you're still awake approaching hour 5, you heard that right: you're not an individual. Submit to the general good, whatever that is... I really can't stand this crap anymore...
Although I didn't end up using it in my testimony (which happens to kick off Part 4, and which is substantially identical to my testimony at the House hearing on the same bill), in the hearing I had jotted down an introduction that went something like this:
Rep Kelly is quite fond of referencing in her testimony and public statements the representative from the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance who also served on that stacked seatbelt commission. I trust it is not her intention to in any way imply to this Committee that the conclusion reached by that NHLA representative was or is remotely in concurrence with her own.
If you believe as I believe that you are an independent adult who can make your own decisions, thankyouverymuch, CONTACT YOUR SENATOR! NOW!
(Each full video below is temporarily double-posted to account for Blip's unreliability. Their versions will be disappearing soon...)
Somewhere down below, you'll find the video of the public hearing in front of the NH Senate Judiciary Committee on HB436: 'relative to civil marriage and civil unions,' 4/15/2009. Half of it could accurately be characterized, as one Rep quipped to me, as "bigots on parade," transparently convenient self-serving protestations and self-descriptions to the contrary aside. "Hey, I know a (godless) lesbian! I even said that out loud! Whaddaya want from me?! There're only so many rights to go around, ya know! I got mine, and I ain't givin' 'em up...!"
Check out the final speaker in Part 1, just for a pointed, head-slapping, cringe-inducing example (or the slightly more insidious grinning bigotry of the final speaker of Part 2, or the blissfully self-unaware 'Tyrants-R-Us' rant at the end of Part 3, or... ). Yes, he's a lovable sitcom stereotype, but don't be lulled. Wait for it... Wait... There. Was I lyin'? Yeah, that was my reaction, too. How ever did he forget "barefoot & pregnant," anyway...? Now, who was clapping louder in response: the defiantly authoritarian social conservatives or the bill supporters thankful for the farcical comic relief, hoping to encourage more such revealing volunteered honesty? Tough to say. "Give 'em enough rope" is certainly a valid strategy, especially when they so happily cooperate...
Anyway, in the course of testimony, we were told that this is an unflattering "'me' issue." That we've become a selfish society, and must change our ways. Wanna guess which side that assertion came from? (Answer [sorry, no 'spoiler space']: Those who want to vengefully [isn't there something about "vengeance" in their "good book"?] deny to others rights and benefits they, themselves, consider a birthright.)
We heard that the encouragement of the stability of official marriage greatly benefits all of society. Wanna guess which side that statement came from? (Answer: Those desiring to continue to limit its availability.)
We were assured that no one is opposed to equal rights, that justice is our goal. Wanna guess?
We were informed that the purpose of marriage is to breed future generations of obedient government servants. Guess... OK, that one's a gimme.
We learned that rights should be voted on, subject to majority rule, this being a "democracy," and all.
We were regaled with ominous arguments and portentous prophecies citing biology and education and adoption and tax revenues and incest and bestiality, but never exactly how any of it related to the bill at hand.
We were informed, on multiple occasions and to knowing chortles, that this bill would outlaw the use of words like "bride," "groom," "husband," "wife," in common usage. "Who's 'Person 1,' anyway?!?" (guffaws ensue) Well, who's "Party of the First Part?" For that matter, what's a "part"? (guffaws ensue...)
We were notified that God will be filing copyright infringement charges. (Well, the wages of sin aren't what they used to be, after all, the economy being what it is...)
We were warned that Taliban-like imposition of religious values was the inevitable next step, the irony clearly entirely lost on the speaker. (Once again, oppression is bad only if "we" aren't the oppressor.)
It was implied that gays are godless, or at least that any religion they might claim to follow (there were audible snickers for the Druid) is somehow plainly false because...
We were told that there are many kinds of churches, but they all (needless to say) subscribe to the (particular) speaker's interpretation of [southern preacher accent]everybody's lord Jesus![/southern preacher accent] (I think somebody said the Committee Chair is Jewish, so that concept should have gone over well...)
We wistfully recalled, with 'Tammy Faye,' the days of scripture exams in public schools.
We were literally told that passing this bill would usher in full-blown barbarianism. True. No, true.
We were warned that softball fans can't be allowed to confuse their favorite sport with the National Pastime, thus profoundly harming us all. Seriously.
We heard from several individuals that they were personally willing to go to jail, ostensibly (they weren't exactly clear) rather than comply with some provision of the proposed legislation. (They were even less clear on what the charges could possibly be. Maybe those 'copyright' violations...?)
We were told that if one is bisexual -- i.e., if one might potentially be hormonally attracted to other people, especially people of whom someone else's church might not approve for them -- certainly one wouldn't be getting married, anyway, since ya can't not do something about it, right? (Evidently, heterosexuals automatically lose that biological capacity. Does that mean I'm not really hetero, or not really married? I'm so confused. I guess the "traditional marriage" divorce rate is just a fiction...)
We learned -- with visual aids, even -- that marriage is like stool: all connected and fibrous-like. Oh, sorry -- that was like a stool... (Btw, the third leg of "the marriage stool" is "the child" -- not to be confused with "the Belmont Stakes," being the third leg of "the Triple Crown," speaking of big honkin' stools -- so I guess the "not" that I'm judged to be is "really married.") This unadulterated "stool," you may be interested to know, issued forth from an actual elected (I must accept, I suppose, lacking evidence to the contrary) NH Representative. Eww...
And ahhhhh, of course, we were incessantly chided that denying equality under the law is righteous and -- say it with me -- "for the children!"
About the only thing that no one seemed to disagree on, or at least contest -- refreshingly (small incremental victories...) -- is that government marriage does, in fact, bestow government benefits. As an aside, I'm not really steeped in this specific issue -- coulda fooled you, at this point, huh? -- being personally more vexed by the broader implications of theocracy and church/state commingling in general. But it seems to me that if I were directly affected, I'd be mostly fixated on the state-granted "contract package" aspect (visitation, etc. -- "permission" to visit your sick spouse, can you imagine?) than with any monetary windfall that social conservatives often claim I'd somehow realize against their will (but haven't we heard a lot of kvetching over the years from those very same conservatives about the "marriage penalty"? So which is it...?).
So, after six and a half (plus lunch break) liberty-sapping, soul-crushing hours (divided by ~2) of repetitive, mind-numbingly parochial "well, duh! God said so! Everybody knows that!" religious fundamentalism, I remain, um, fundamentally and profoundly unconvinced by the opposition.
Simply stated, government shouldn't be -- isn't authorized to be -- involved in many things, but if it unfortunately currently is (as with marriage), and until it isn't again, it absolutely may not discriminate. Period. Least of all according to one sect's -- nay, empirically one faction of one sect's -- definitions. Not in a free society. Not, as on this issue, in a First Amendment-compliant society. Any existing discrimination must end. Immediately.
If'n ya don't like the results of that Constitutionally mandated field-leveling, then you've got incentive a-plenty to help to get government out completely. Then you can continue to discriminate in your own church (ya simply don't get to discriminate in someone else's church -- that's kinda what makes it "theirs," don'tchaknow) or in your own business, to your dark, oppressive little heart's content. Yeah, get used to that characterization: you are an oppressor, like Stalin (ohh, no -- no Godwin's Law invocations here!), of peaceful people just trying to live their lives in liberty, in pursuit of happiness. Or, if you insist, pursuit of happinefs...
Make ya feel good, does it?
As I've said before, even quite recently, government's got no business whatsoever selectively making peaceful private lives more difficult. None. Ever. Simple as that.
Testimony on HB648: 'relative to the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes,' before the NH Senate Health and Human Services Committee, 4/14/2009. The Forces of Darkness just get more strained and more twisted and more bizarre each time we do this little dance. There's some real unintended comedy here.
Last month, following the the House Committee hearing, I sent the following to my Representatives and Senator:
Compassion isn't a character flaw, pain relief shouldn't be criminal
Seriously ill patients in a free and compassionate society should be "allowed" to use medical marijuana if their certified medical doctor (as opposed to their politician) believes it will help ease their suffering. Actively denying and prosecuting medical marijuana patients, besides being cruel and inhumane -- downright barbaric, in fact -- wastes taxpayer dollars and preoccupies law enforcement officials when they could be arresting real criminals threatening life, liberty or property.
And the national government being the expressly created servant of the states, themselves, federal laws -- even if they WERE Constitutional -- are the feds' problem to enforce, not ours. And the current President has apparently finally begun to concede the folly and hubris of the expensive, immoral and unauthorized war on legitimate state laws (on THIS topic, at least -- hey, it's a start...), and will no longer be prosecuting what should have been non-"crimes" in the eyes of state legislatures all along.
Those of us who needn't walk a mile in these patients' painful shoes should simply count our blessings and sit on our hands. It's long past time we recognized the suffering that these seriously ill patients endure, and require that our state government get off its high authoritarian horse and get out of their arduous way. Government has no justification for arbitrarily making peaceful lives more difficult. None. Ever.
Please uphold the House Health, Human Services and Elderly Affairs Committee's recommendation of 'OTP' on HB648: "relative to the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes." It's the compassionate thing to do.
That's $3.7M in one-time windfall blood money from the feds (where did they get it, again?) divided by 1.3M NH residents (that's 2007 figures, and truncated at that, so your autonomy was worth less than $2.85 in your government's eyes, even then). Plus the glorious citation revenue, of course. Bwa-ha-ha-haaa...!
Interested? No? Too bad. Whom do you think's running this joint, anyway? Now be a good subject and just do what you're told...
Except activists are sworn to make sure the goon-state of NH never gets to spend it quite the way it envisions, maybe even lose money in the bargain (yes, it's actually taxpayers' money, either way...). Will the state listen? Can it "do the math?" Does it actually care? Or is it really all about obedience of the masses? Watch the video: it's all a big joke to them. They still don't see what's coming...
This is the continuation of last week's NH House Ways & Means Committee hearing on HB383, this year's seatbelt bill, 3/20/2009. What does it take to instruct these servants that we simply don't want their "help?" For the "attention deficit" crowd, selected testimony video follows...
Details on the pledge Jeremy talks about can be found here and here.
Contact your legislators, and tell them you didn't hire parents. Tell them your freedom isn't for sale. Tell them you haven't authorized them to "instruct" you how to live your life (as if they're qualified). Tell them to leave you alone, thanks for the "concern."
Not great possibilities still in the House at this point, but they're not done yet, and it's certainly worth the fight. Likely on to the Senate after another floor vote, possibly next week. Steel yourselves, sovereigns...
Simply surreal. This is part of the discussion that occurred in the hallway outside the NH House Ways & Means Committee hearing room prior to the (first) hearing on HB383: "relative to passenger restraints," followed by the hearing, itself. It was way late, and will pick up again next week (so everybody who took the day off to instruct their legislators can do it again. Oh, joy.).
The Wall Street Journal sent a reporter, Jennifer Levitz, with a video camera (I mooched for a bit). She interviewed the inestimable Jeremy Olson and the world famous Mark Edge. Then she initiated an interview with the bill's sponsor, Rep Sally "live free or die!" Kelly (she's lived here 34 years, ya know -- I think she gets an extra vote at 35 or something...). Our own Ivy Walker interceded (with "permission" from both parties). Even your humble chronicler got in a question. An answer, not so much. Hilarity ensued.
It's interesting how anecdotes (did you know they're "facts?") are only valid when they tell them, and even then, the conclusions they draw can be diametrically opposed to the evidence presented. Eventually, they will make my head explode...
Details on the pledge Jeremy talks about can be found here and here.
As mentioned above, precious little time was allotted, and only 2 speakers were heard. They are also included here. The rest must wait on the Committee's pleasure.
Rep Kelly came up to your humble chronicler following the hearing, extended a hand, and wished me luck with my efforts, as if the contest for my liberty were just some amusing little game to her. A sport. Shaking her hand and saying thank you, I do believe the tyrant was genuinely surprised that I didn't wish her the same...
(I hate Vista. I really, really do. I'd fixed and saved that edit/typo. The OS, it turns out, apparently felt differently. I wonder what else I "didn't do"...)
Testimony before the NH House Commerce Committee on HB478-FN: "relative to remotely readable devices and relative to the illegal use of a payment card scanning device or reencoder." RFID, in an acronym.
Part 1
Part 2
And the bulk of Dr. Katherine Albrecht's isolated culminating testimony. See the hacker video referenced by Dr. Albrecht here.
216 "somebody"s, as it turns out... Have they even bothered to read what they've sworn to uphold?
Herewith, the rally and roll call vote on HCR6, "affirming States' rights based on Jeffersonian principles." As you watch the floor debate in the 2nd half, remember that there was no public testimony against HCR6.None.
There were no arguments expressed against it in the State-Federal Relations Committee's shockingly perfunctory Executive Session. Zero.
The extremely limited coverage the mainstream media has deigned to provide (not to mention statements by Committee members in session) has suggested that legislators have been hearing a lot on this issue, yet none of them seems able to say any of it was remotely negative. There were hundreds of well-chilled voters who turned out on a work day to express their (to employ laughable understatement) strong approval for the resolution.
These "representatives" certainly aren't listening to their constituents. Who are they listening to? Whom do they serve?
And the arrogant hypocrite Rep. Rollo on the House floor disparages anyone who "thinks they know better" on this bill, but I guarantee you he believed he "knew better" on spending bills and regulation bills voted on in this very same chamber later on this very same day. He has no place whatsoever as my servant, and I want him fired.
Find out who your NH State Representatives are. Then locate them in the "HCR6 Roll Call" to find out how they voted on HCR6: whether they defend your unalienable liberty or they meekly turn it over to the feds (remember, they were voting on the Committee's recommendation to kill the resolution, not on the resolution, itself, so 'nay' is good). Then hold them accountable in November 2010. Here are mine:
Good job, men. Thank you for understanding enumerated powers, limited government, states' rights/sovereignty, and intended liberty by local control.
Fellow citizens, this is your Republic the politicians are stealing. Your birthright. Your children's birthright. Do you care? If you're in NH (and why wouldn't you be?), hit the NH Liberty Alliance for help.
