It's that time of year again!  As you probably know, "Free Talk Live"
(the FSP's favorite radio show) won the 2005 Podcast Award for the
Political/Cultural category.  Now voting has begun for the 2006
awards, and we've been nominated for Best Political.  Please take a
moment and vote for us at:
http://podcastawards.com

You'll find the Political category third from the bottom in the right
column.  You may vote for us in the Podcast Awards once per day
through Aug 11th.

Thanks to your help, last month we finished at 4th place on Podcast
Alley's Top Ten Podcasts. Now we need your vote again at
http://vote.freetalklive.com . If you've never voted before, you won't
be spammed, and it takes less than a minute!

Thanks for your help,
Ian
Host, "Free Talk Live"
http://freetalklive.com

Cool. Wish I could make it. One question: Why aren't the words "Free State
Project" included in the name of the gathering, so it's clear who is putting
it on (thus giving more attention to the FSP)?   ---Tim Condon


On 8/2/06, Sandy Pierre <scitarel@...> wrote:There will be a planning
meeting for the New Hampshire Liberty Forum
(the upcoming winter convention hosted by the Free State Project)
immediately following this Saturday's Merrimack Valley Porcupines
meeting in Manchester. It will take place
at 3:00PM at Panera Bread (across the street from Bickford's).
Everyone who is interested in volunteering to help organize the
convention is encouraged to attend. Please note that this meeting was
scheduled some time ago (well before Russell Kanning's arrest); my
apologies for forgetting to post this sooner.

--Sandy Pierre


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I and a few libertarian klatschers (at the NYS Hudson Valley Libertarian Chapter
meeting) wondered and conjectured what would happen in New Hampshire sustained a
full Libertarian revolution, i.e., the 3 branches of government were in control
by libertarians.

The conjecture included a full routing of laws dissolving all of them offensive
to libertarian governmental philosophy.

One the debaters said it would make little difference, because the federal
government would civilly invade the state and enforce all of its laws
nonetheless, e.g. drug laws.

I was of the opinion that an American sovereign state hostile to federal
imposition of laws limiting rights and freedoms granted by the state, would and
could make it very difficult for the feds to effectuate their laws.

Firstly the state government would in no way participate or assist in federal
law enforcement, necessitating a kind of federal street cop to enforce such
criminal laws. Other activities would require federal undercover operations,
that might be compromised legally by state law or other freedom of information
law. There might be a state task force dedicated to routing undercover federal
agents and posting their photos on the internet.
One of the debaters said that that action would be a blatant violation of
federal law (revealing the identity of an undercover agent), I thought if the
proper state legal structures were in place it could be gotten around legally.

Another point involved whether secession was a legal option or not. I asserted
that NH did not need to or even want to secede.
The question was whether a state could successfully challenge the imposition of
federal criminal law that limit citizen rights further than state law.

Secondly the question of jury nullification came up. It was discussed that even
if the feds could maintain an independent resident law enforcement structure,
that all federal prosecutions would still have to be put before a jury within
the federal district where the 'crime' occurred. If even 20% of the state
citizenry was ideologically libertarian and aware of its unlimited right to find
guilt or innocence, then most if not all nonlibertarian federal prosecutions in
such a state would fail.

It is just interesting to hypothosize exactly what the dynamics would be of an
American State that civilly rebelled against the federal imposition of
unlibertarian law.

Gary T


"It is better to have a bad plan, than no plan at all"

   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Glen Reynolds
   Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2006 3:14 PM


   > If I do move I would put money
   > on New Hampshire however. I really want to see the
   > Free State Project achieve its goal. We need people
   > yelling and screaming whenever some Washington bozo
   > tries to curtail our freedoms, dagnabit.
   >

   .


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- GTriest <garyonthenet@...> wrote:

> I and a few libertarian klatschers (at the NYS Hudson Valley
> Libertarian Chapter meeting) wondered and conjectured what would
> happen in New Hampshire sustained a full Libertarian revolution,
> i.e., the 3 branches of government were in control by libertarians.
>
> The conjecture included a full routing of laws dissolving all of them
> offensive to libertarian governmental philosophy.
>
> One the debaters said it would make little difference, because the
> federal government would civilly invade the state and enforce all of
> its laws nonetheless, e.g. drug laws.
>
> I was of the opinion that an American sovereign state hostile to
> federal imposition of laws limiting rights and freedoms granted by
> the state, would and could make it very difficult for the feds to
> effectuate their laws.

The most important positions to hold in this battle are the county
sheriffs. They can require that all federal officials apply to be
deputized within the county in order to effect their federal duties.
They can also require hearings on the validity of any federal notice,
particularly notice of liens issued by IRS agents.

In this, the second most important position to hold is the County
Registrar's office, which is responsible for deeds and liens, and in
the wrong hands often illegally and unlawfully converts lien notices
into liens without giving the property owner an opportunity for a
hearing.

With control of these positions, federal attempts to subvert state
authority cannot be imposed without a physical invasion of federal
forces. That being said, another important position is the Commander of
the NH National Guard. If he refuses, the president cannot nationalize
the NG for police action within the state without the approval of the
state government (Kennedy's actions in the 60's notwithstanding, his
acts were clearly unconstitutional).

> Firstly the state government would in no way participate or assist in
> federal law enforcement, necessitating a kind of federal street cop
> to enforce such criminal laws. Other activities would require federal
> undercover operations, that might be compromised legally by state law
> or other freedom of information law. There might be a state task
> force dedicated to routing undercover federal agents and posting
> their photos on the internet.
> One of the debaters said that that action would be a blatant
> violation of federal law (revealing the identity of an undercover
> agent), I thought if the proper state legal structures were in place
> it could be gotten around legally.

If they do not carry a shield and are not identifyable, they are
impersonating an officer of the law, and, technically, unless the
county sheriff has deputized them, they are also impersonating an
officer of the law.

>
> Another point involved whether secession was a legal option or not. I
> asserted that NH did not need to or even want to secede.
> The question was whether a state could successfully challenge the
> imposition of federal criminal law that limit citizen rights further
> than state law.

We don't need to secede, but might be forced to. The important thing is
that there is a constitutional avenue for lawful secession, one which
the southern states did not engage in in 1860, but which both Cuba, and
the Philippines have exercised, and which Puerto Rico has voted on
twice in the past. Also, Vermont and Tennessee both successfully
seceded from NY and NC by Constitutional means, a process that
Killington, VT is currently following with our assistance.

>
> Secondly the question of jury nullification came up. It was discussed
> that even if the feds could maintain an independent resident law
> enforcement structure, that all federal prosecutions would still have
> to be put before a jury within the federal district where the 'crime'
> occurred. If even 20% of the state citizenry was ideologically
> libertarian and aware of its unlimited right to find guilt or
> innocence, then most if not all nonlibertarian federal prosecutions
> in such a state would fail.
>
> It is just interesting to hypothosize exactly what the dynamics would
> be of an American State that civilly rebelled against the federal
> imposition of unlibertarian law.

So long as everything is done lawfully, then there is no pretext for
federal agression. If Puerto Rico can have a vote on secession, than
New Hampshire can, also.

Mike Lorrey
President, Lorrey Aerospace
http://www.lorrey.biz
Founder, Constitution Park Foundation
Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com

Your reply is informative on some points I was not aware of.

Specifically, I was not aware that the feds had, in the limit, any
Constitutional duty to be required to be deputized by county sheriffs before
exerting jurisdictional control of federal law within a state.
I am glad to hear that if its true, but I thought they had presumptive right and
jurisdiction to administer federal law anywhere they felt like in any manner
they felt like.
Correct me if I am wrong, but couldn't the DEA independently search & seize a
residence, jail and prosecute a state citizen under federal law, all without the
involvement or sanction of the subject state?
It would be great if some state authorities could limit effectuation of such
jurisdiction.
(Another example raised at our meeting was federal forces applied to Gov.
Wallace's refusal to obey civil rights edicts.)


I too would not want NH to secede if at all possible; however f**kt up our
current state of the union is, I still do consider myself an American, and agree
with 90% of the Constitution as it is written, and the remaining 10% I still
respect enought to obey - as it is written. Hopefully that remaining 10% can be
brought into consistency with libertarian mores.
Patriotism aside, being a member sovereign state of the US obviously also
carries with it many domestic & international benefits that I think we would be
hard pressed to substitute for.

An informal secession only on unlibertarian and/or unconstitutionally authorized
federal laws would suit us the best, if it could be done even against a hostile
federal government.

Gary T



"It is better to have a bad plan, than no plan at all"

   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Mike Lorrey
   To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 6:34 PM
   Subject: Re: [FSP] What if NH went libertarian




   --- GTriest <garyonthenet@...> wrote:

   > I and a few libertarian klatschers (at the NYS Hudson Valley
   > Libertarian Chapter meeting) wondered and conjectured what would
   > happen in New Hampshire sustained a full Libertarian revolution,
   > i.e., the 3 branches of government were in control by libertarians.
   >
   > The conjecture included a full routing of laws dissolving all of them
   > offensive to libertarian governmental philosophy.
   >
   > One the debaters said it would make little difference, because the
   > federal government would civilly invade the state and enforce all of
   > its laws nonetheless, e.g. drug laws.
   >
   > I was of the opinion that an American sovereign state hostile to
   > federal imposition of laws limiting rights and freedoms granted by
   > the state, would and could make it very difficult for the feds to
   > effectuate their laws.

   The most important positions to hold in this battle are the county
   sheriffs. They can require that all federal officials apply to be
   deputized within the county in order to effect their federal duties.
   They can also require hearings on the validity of any federal notice,
   particularly notice of liens issued by IRS agents.

   In this, the second most important position to hold is the County
   Registrar's office, which is responsible for deeds and liens, and in
   the wrong hands often illegally and unlawfully converts lien notices
   into liens without giving the property owner an opportunity for a
   hearing.

   With control of these positions, federal attempts to subvert state
   authority cannot be imposed without a physical invasion of federal
   forces. That being said, another important position is the Commander of
   the NH National Guard. If he refuses, the president cannot nationalize
   the NG for police action within the state without the approval of the
   state government (Kennedy's actions in the 60's notwithstanding, his
   acts were clearly unconstitutional).

   > Firstly the state government would in no way participate or assist in
   > federal law enforcement, necessitating a kind of federal street cop
   > to enforce such criminal laws. Other activities would require federal
   > undercover operations, that might be compromised legally by state law
   > or other freedom of information law. There might be a state task
   > force dedicated to routing undercover federal agents and posting
   > their photos on the internet.
   > One of the debaters said that that action would be a blatant
   > violation of federal law (revealing the identity of an undercover
   > agent), I thought if the proper state legal structures were in place
   > it could be gotten around legally.

   If they do not carry a shield and are not identifyable, they are
   impersonating an officer of the law, and, technically, unless the
   county sheriff has deputized them, they are also impersonating an
   officer of the law.

   >
   > Another point involved whether secession was a legal option or not. I
   > asserted that NH did not need to or even want to secede.
   > The question was whether a state could successfully challenge the
   > imposition of federal criminal law that limit citizen rights further
   > than state law.

   We don't need to secede, but might be forced to. The important thing is
   that there is a constitutional avenue for lawful secession, one which
   the southern states did not engage in in 1860, but which both Cuba, and
   the Philippines have exercised, and which Puerto Rico has voted on
   twice in the past. Also, Vermont and Tennessee both successfully
   seceded from NY and NC by Constitutional means, a process that
   Killington, VT is currently following with our assistance.

   >
   > Secondly the question of jury nullification came up. It was discussed
   > that even if the feds could maintain an independent resident law
   > enforcement structure, that all federal prosecutions would still have
   > to be put before a jury within the federal district where the 'crime'
   > occurred. If even 20% of the state citizenry was ideologically
   > libertarian and aware of its unlimited right to find guilt or
   > innocence, then most if not all nonlibertarian federal prosecutions
   > in such a state would fail.
   >
   > It is just interesting to hypothosize exactly what the dynamics would
   > be of an American State that civilly rebelled against the federal
   > imposition of unlibertarian law.

   So long as everything is done lawfully, then there is no pretext for
   federal agression. If Puerto Rico can have a vote on secession, than
   New Hampshire can, also.

   Mike Lorrey
   President, Lorrey Aerospace
   http://www.lorrey.biz
   Founder, Constitution Park Foundation
   Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I'm going to be giving a talk to a Florida county Liberty Party gathering in
a couple of weeks, and I have a problem in addressing them. This is the way
I put it to those who invited me to speak about the Free State Project here
in Tampa:

"I'll be there at 6:00 p.m. I lay awake last night thinking: How do you
convince people to move from a warm-weather state with no income tax and
very good gun and self-defense laws...to a small, very cold-weather
northeastern state with no income tax and good gun and self-defense laws? I
shall bend my will to that conundrum, and reveal the solution at my talk.
---Tim Condon"

Can any of you Porcupines, from anywhere, help me with my conundrum?

--
Timothy Condon, Esq., P.O. Box 1007, Tampa, FL 33601
813-251-2626  Fax: 254-2979  Email: tim@...


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

yeah-- read the letter that Shuvom posted on the
forum.

The LP gets how many at a function?

The FSP can get 20-30 people for a move in.
We can get 40ish people at a monthly meeting.
We can get 400+ at once a year gathering.
We are actively working on freedom in NH now.... not a
debate club.

Also we don't get many hurricaines.

--- tim condon <tim@...> wrote:

> I'm going to be giving a talk to a Florida county
> Liberty Party gathering in
> a couple of weeks, and I have a problem in
> addressing them. This is the way
> I put it to those who invited me to speak about the
> Free State Project here
> in Tampa:
>
> "I'll be there at 6:00 p.m. I lay awake last night
> thinking: How do you
> convince people to move from a warm-weather state
> with no income tax and
> very good gun and self-defense laws...to a small,
> very cold-weather
> northeastern state with no income tax and good gun
> and self-defense laws? I
> shall bend my will to that conundrum, and reveal the
> solution at my talk.
> ---Tim Condon"
>
> Can any of you Porcupines, from anywhere, help me
> with my conundrum?
>
> --
> Timothy Condon, Esq., P.O. Box 1007, Tampa, FL 33601
> 813-251-2626  Fax: 254-2979  Email:
> tim@...
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Tim

I'm living in a warm-weather place, and a place with so many kinds of individual
liberties that don't have in any place in America, wich had anothers liberties I
don't have here. .I'm from Brazil. But I pretend to move to NH because I seek
others liberties too and I belive the FSP can reach the liberties I had here and
much more that don't have in any place in the world
You can't convince people who care only about the warm, but those peoples who
atend to a event like these one are really interst in what you are going to say.
Good luck!

Fernando

  Since there is no such entity as "the public," since the public is merely a
number of individuals, the idea that "the public interest" supersedes private
interests and rights can have but one meaning: that the interests and rights of
some individuals take precedence over the interests and rights of others. - Ayn
Rand


   ----- Original Message -----
   From: tim condon
   To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Friday, August 04, 2006 10:49 AM
   Subject: [FSP] Can anyone give me some guidance?


   I'm going to be giving a talk to a Florida county Liberty Party gathering in
   a couple of weeks, and I have a problem in addressing them. This is the way
   I put it to those who invited me to speak about the Free State Project here
   in Tampa:

   "I'll be there at 6:00 p.m. I lay awake last night thinking: How do you
   convince people to move from a warm-weather state with no income tax and
   very good gun and self-defense laws...to a small, very cold-weather
   northeastern state with no income tax and good gun and self-defense laws? I
   shall bend my will to that conundrum, and reveal the solution at my talk.
   ---Tim Condon"

   Can any of you Porcupines, from anywhere, help me with my conundrum?

   --
   Timothy Condon, Esq., P.O. Box 1007, Tampa, FL 33601
   813-251-2626 Fax: 254-2979 Email: tim@...

   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- tim condon <tim@...> wrote:

> I'm going to be giving a talk to a Florida county Liberty Party
> gathering in
> a couple of weeks, and I have a problem in addressing them. This is
> the way
> I put it to those who invited me to speak about the Free State
> Project here
> in Tampa:
>
> "I'll be there at 6:00 p.m. I lay awake last night thinking: How do
> you
> convince people to move from a warm-weather state with no income tax
> and
> very good gun and self-defense laws...to a small, very cold-weather
> northeastern state with no income tax and good gun and self-defense
> laws? I
> shall bend my will to that conundrum, and reveal the solution at my
> talk.
> ---Tim Condon"
>
> Can any of you Porcupines, from anywhere, help me with my conundrum?

Well, this past week's 100+ weather certainly doesn't seem cold-weather
to me. Note that people used to Floridas climate, living with AC can
get through NH summers without AC, while people here use heating in the
winter like Floridians use AC in the summer.

Furthermore, tell them if they believe in the existence of Global
Warming that New Hampshire is going to be the new Florida anyways, with
much less chance of hurricanes, alligators, sinkholes, and gangbangers.

Mike Lorrey
President, Lorrey Aerospace
http://www.lorrey.biz
Founder, Constitution Park Foundation
Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com

Several things that come right to mind off the top of my head are sales
tax, business-friendly environment, and cost of living, especially housing.
I don't know how those compare to Florida, but I imagine NH is favorable in
those regards.

--- tim condon <tim@...> wrote:
> Can any of you Porcupines, from anywhere, help me with my conundrum?


Dale in L.A.



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

--- GTriest <garyonthenet@...> wrote:

> Your reply is informative on some points I was not aware of.
>
> Specifically, I was not aware that the feds had, in the limit, any
> Constitutional duty to be required to be deputized by county sheriffs
> before exerting jurisdictional control of federal law within a state.
> I am glad to hear that if its true, but I thought they had
> presumptive right and jurisdiction to administer federal law anywhere
> they felt like in any manner they felt like.
> Correct me if I am wrong, but couldn't the DEA independently search &
> seize a residence, jail and prosecute a state citizen under federal
> law, all without the involvement or sanction of the subject state?
> It would be great if some state authorities could limit effectuation
> of such jurisdiction.

Yes, there are a few sheriffs out west (in Wyoming and Montana), who
have enforced this sort of rule for years now. The constitutional fact
is that federal officials only have jurisdiction on federal property,
unless the relevant state authorities agree to recognise their
jurisdiction. This is why you can't try a person for federal crimes in
a state court, and vice versa.

Federal officials got into the habit of going anywhere during
Reconstruction, as well as when most of the West were territories, not
states, and not enough people made a stink about their continuing the
practice thereafter.

WRT service and execution of federal warrants, orders, informations,
etc. they must be done with prior approval of the county sheriff, as
the sheriff is the highest law enforcement official (higher than the
colonel of the state police), specifically because he is elected.

Likewise, a town's selectmen hold the constabulary power, and in the
absence of a delegation of their authority to a full time appointed
constable, or a separate elected constable, they hold superior police
power over the town's chief of police.

Constitutionally, all authority is local: we the people delegate powers
first to the state, and only then to the federal government. The
federal government is a creature of state authority.

While the full faith and credit clause mandates that states recognise
judicial rulings of other states and the federal government as
legitimate, this does not apply to administrative actions (which is why
there needed to be an Interstate Driver License Compact to implement
interstate reciprocity, since driver licenses are not issued by a
judge, and why states get away with refusing to recognise CCW permits
issued by police and/or selectmen: they don't have to). However, it
does mean that federal officials must go through the motions to first
present their judicial orders to the sheriff, and no sheriff is
obligated to accept mere administrative actions of feds.

Mike Lorrey
President, Lorrey Aerospace
http://www.lorrey.biz
Founder, Constitution Park Foundation
Blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com

Of course, here's one possible answer:

New Hampshire IS Libertarian.

And the result IS the highest school test scores, the highest health rating,
the lowest poverty rate, and the lowest tax burden in the US.

Sounds good to me....

Thom


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> Can any of you Porcupines, from anywhere, help me
> with my conundrum?

Several years ago I read an article about retirement
and how to choose a place to retire. It made sense to
me and not really from just a retirement perspective,
but anyone choosing where to live. It said basically -
don't choose the place that has the best weather just
because of the weather. Instead choose a place where
there are people like yourself. Like-minded people who
you can bond with and support each other. Mostly
people who share your values. Location isn't really
just about weather, it's about the environment that
will support you the best.

I lived in CA for 10 years and now in New Mexico. CA
has great weather and in a lot of respects, I wish I'd
stayed there. New Mexico is the pits in people and
weather. I'm from Massachusetts and moving back to New
Hampshire. I'd take a NE blizzard any day over this. I
feel like I'm being cooked alive in this heat,
radiation, altitude, etc. But importantly, the people
here are very backward. Of course there are some
really nice folks but the values are typically right
wing... well I wot get into it. There is a lot of
ignorance.  There are a lot of cool people moving in
from out of state, really changing the local culture.
But that about does it for me. I'm done with this
place.




__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

I appear to have got an excellent response with the San Francisco
Libertarian Party from the talk I gave there a few weeks ago.

The theme was: "This is what it is like to fight for Freedom... and *WIN*"
I used as my basis the victories enumerated in:
http://freestateblogs.net/victories06

I also passed out hard copies of Shuvom's open letter
http://www.freestateblogs.net/open_letter

I also passed out copies of the Keene Free Press, Mass. Edition:
http://keenefreepress.com/kfp_ma_edition.pdf

I passed out copies of my FSP-DVD. I'll send you some if you don't
have any, or you culd pick up some copies of Roger Grant's
better-produced DVD at:
http://underground.soulawakenings.com/tiki-index.php?page=Free_State_Activism_DV\
D

Lastly, for the final blow, I handed out First1000 pamphlets.

If there's one thing I would tell anyone speaking to Libertarian
groups about the FSP, it is very simply this:
YOU ARE BARGAINING FROM A POSITION OF STRENGTH, NOT WEAKNESS.

Liberty-lovers are fighting battles that would be insurmountable
elsewhere: against giant, nationwide, well-funded groups (American
Heart/Lung/Cancer society), and WINNING. On a shoestring budget. With
a dozen or so volunteers.

When someone asks you about the cold, look at them with outright
derision. "If that's a showstopper for you, you lack the conviction to
  win WHEREVER you fight."

Every single person on the ground here has a HUGE impact in scoring
REAL VICTORIES. When you're tired of banging your head against the
brick wall of statism, come join the Free-Staters. Be part of the
Second American Revolution. Be one of the First 1,000!

-Denis

--- In freestateproject@yahoogroups.com, "tim condon" <tim@...> wrote:
>
> I'm going to be giving a talk to a Florida county Liberty Party
gathering in
> a couple of weeks, and I have a problem in addressing them. This is
the way
> I put it to those who invited me to speak about the Free State
Project here
> in Tampa:
>
> "I'll be there at 6:00 p.m. I lay awake last night thinking: How do you
> convince people to move from a warm-weather state with no income tax and
> very good gun and self-defense laws...to a small, very cold-weather
> northeastern state with no income tax and good gun and self-defense
laws? I
> shall bend my will to that conundrum, and reveal the solution at my
talk.
> ---Tim Condon"
>
> Can any of you Porcupines, from anywhere, help me with my conundrum?
>
> --
> Timothy Condon, Esq., P.O. Box 1007, Tampa, FL 33601
> 813-251-2626  Fax: 254-2979  Email: tim@...
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

NH is not libertarian, yet, unfortunately. If it was, I would move there next
month.

It does have best seeds for libertarian government though.

Gary T


"It is better to have a bad plan, than no plan at all"

   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Thomas Tuathal Simmons
   To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Friday, August 04, 2006 5:48 PM
   Subject: RE: [FSP] What if NH went libertarian


   Of course, here's one possible answer:

   New Hampshire IS Libertarian.

   And the result IS the highest school test scores, the highest health rating,
   the lowest poverty rate, and the lowest tax burden in the US.

   Sounds good to me....

   Thom

   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

That was wonderful!  Can I quote you in inquiries I get from the
retired/elderly folks as the NH Info Coordinator?  Thanks!

Lynn

   ----- Original Message -----
   From: sueki
   To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Friday, August 04, 2006 6:57 PM
   Subject: Re: [FSP] Can anyone give me some guidance?


   > Can any of you Porcupines, from anywhere, help me
   > with my conundrum?

   Several years ago I read an article about retirement
   and how to choose a place to retire. It made sense to
   me and not really from just a retirement perspective,
   but anyone choosing where to live. It said basically -
   don't choose the place that has the best weather just
   because of the weather. Instead choose a place where
   there are people like yourself. Like-minded people who
   you can bond with and support each other. Mostly
   people who share your values. Location isn't really
   just about weather, it's about the environment that
   will support you the best.

   I lived in CA for 10 years and now in New Mexico. CA
   has great weather and in a lot of respects, I wish I'd
   stayed there. New Mexico is the pits in people and
   weather. I'm from Massachusetts and moving back to New
   Hampshire. I'd take a NE blizzard any day over this. I
   feel like I'm being cooked alive in this heat,
   radiation, altitude, etc. But importantly, the people
   here are very backward. Of course there are some
   really nice folks but the values are typically right
   wing... well I wot get into it. There is a lot of
   ignorance. There are a lot of cool people moving in
   from out of state, really changing the local culture.
   But that about does it for me. I'm done with this
   place.

   __________________________________________________
   Do You Yahoo!?
   Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
   http://mail.yahoo.com






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Absolutely!

--- Lpb52 <lpb52@...> wrote:

> That was wonderful!  Can I quote you in inquiries I
> get from the
> retired/elderly folks as the NH Info Coordinator?
> Thanks!
>
> Lynn
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

1.New Hampshire isn't full of old people.
2.The southern part of NH is ot comprised of a single, major, ethnic
voting block, who desires that the US occupy Cuba.

--- In freestateproject@yahoogroups.com, "Lpb52" <lpb52@...> wrote:
>
> That was wonderful!  Can I quote you in inquiries I get from the
> retired/elderly folks as the NH Info Coordinator?  Thanks!
>
> Lynn
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: sueki
>   To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Friday, August 04, 2006 6:57 PM
>   Subject: Re: [FSP] Can anyone give me some guidance?
>
>
>   > Can any of you Porcupines, from anywhere, help me
>   > with my conundrum?
>
>   Several years ago I read an article about retirement
>   and how to choose a place to retire. It made sense to
>   me and not really from just a retirement perspective,
>   but anyone choosing where to live. It said basically -
>   don't choose the place that has the best weather just
>   because of the weather. Instead choose a place where
>   there are people like yourself. Like-minded people who
>   you can bond with and support each other. Mostly
>   people who share your values. Location isn't really
>   just about weather, it's about the environment that
>   will support you the best.
>
>   I lived in CA for 10 years and now in New Mexico. CA
>   has great weather and in a lot of respects, I wish I'd
>   stayed there. New Mexico is the pits in people and
>   weather. I'm from Massachusetts and moving back to New
>   Hampshire. I'd take a NE blizzard any day over this. I
>   feel like I'm being cooked alive in this heat,
>   radiation, altitude, etc. But importantly, the people
>   here are very backward. Of course there are some
>   really nice folks but the values are typically right
>   wing... well I wot get into it. There is a lot of
>   ignorance. There are a lot of cool people moving in
>   from out of state, really changing the local culture.
>   But that about does it for me. I'm done with this
>   place.
>
>   __________________________________________________
>   Do You Yahoo!?
>   Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>   http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Very nicely said, Denis! I'll do most of the recommendations you have below.
Would someone send me some DVD's, and also some of the First 1000 brochures?
(I figure there will be about 15 or 20 libertarians at the meeting I'll be
speaking to.) Many thanx!  --Tim Condon


On 8/5/06, Denis Goddard <denis.goddard@...> wrote:
>
> I appear to have got an excellent response with the San Francisco
> Libertarian Party from the talk I gave there a few weeks ago.
>
> The theme was: "This is what it is like to fight for Freedom... and *WIN*"
> I used as my basis the victories enumerated in:
> http://freestateblogs.net/victories06
>
> I also passed out hard copies of Shuvom's open letter
> http://www.freestateblogs.net/open_letter
>
> I also passed out copies of the Keene Free Press, Mass. Edition:
> http://keenefreepress.com/kfp_ma_edition.pdf
>
> I passed out copies of my FSP-DVD. I'll send you some if you don't
> have any, or you culd pick up some copies of Roger Grant's
> better-produced DVD at:
>
>
http://underground.soulawakenings.com/tiki-index.php?page=Free_State_Activism_DV\
D
>
> Lastly, for the final blow, I handed out First1000 pamphlets.
>
> If there's one thing I would tell anyone speaking to Libertarian
> groups about the FSP, it is very simply this:
> YOU ARE BARGAINING FROM A POSITION OF STRENGTH, NOT WEAKNESS.
>
> Liberty-lovers are fighting battles that would be insurmountable
> elsewhere: against giant, nationwide, well-funded groups (American
> Heart/Lung/Cancer society), and WINNING. On a shoestring budget. With
> a dozen or so volunteers.
>
> When someone asks you about the cold, look at them with outright
> derision. "If that's a showstopper for you, you lack the conviction to
> win WHEREVER you fight."
>
> Every single person on the ground here has a HUGE impact in scoring
> REAL VICTORIES. When you're tired of banging your head against the
> brick wall of statism, come join the Free-Staters. Be part of the
> Second American Revolution. Be one of the First 1,000!
>
> -Denis
>
> --- In freestateproject@yahoogroups.com, "tim condon" <tim@...> wrote:
> >
> > I'm going to be giving a talk to a Florida county Liberty Party
> gathering in
> > a couple of weeks, and I have a problem in addressing them. This is
> the way
> > I put it to those who invited me to speak about the Free State
> Project here
> > in Tampa:
> >
> > "I'll be there at 6:00 p.m. I lay awake last night thinking: How do you
> > convince people to move from a warm-weather state with no income tax and
> > very good gun and self-defense laws...to a small, very cold-weather
> > northeastern state with no income tax and good gun and self-defense
> laws? I
> > shall bend my will to that conundrum, and reveal the solution at my
> talk.
> > ---Tim Condon"
> >
> > Can any of you Porcupines, from anywhere, help me with my conundrum?
> >
> > --
> > Timothy Condon, Esq., P.O. Box 1007, Tampa, FL 33601
> > 813-251-2626  Fax: 254-2979  Email: tim@...
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


--
Timothy Condon, Esq., P.O. Box 1007, Tampa, FL 33601
813-251-2626  Fax: 254-2979  Email: tim@...


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> 1.New Hampshire isn't full of old people.
> 2.The southern part of NH is ot comprised of a single, major, ethnic
voting block, who desires that the US occupy Cuba.

Yeah, but FL is, especially Tampa, which was established as a tobacco
industry of expatriate Cubans way before the Cuban Revolution, so maybe we
don't want to alienate a demographic spread possibly reflected in this
particular gathering.

Anyway, Cuban capitalists wanting their nationalized small business and
abandoned individual property back are certainly okay by me.  Let me know if
you want that anything translated into Spanish, Tim (grin).

Lynn

It sure is.

One must remember that the R's in NH are more in truth like L's even
if not be labeled that way.

They are nothing like the R's at the Nat'l level as witnessed by our
last good Governor Benson who left office with a surplus.

- J

On Aug 4, 2006, at 5:48 PM, Thomas Tuathal Simmons wrote:

> Of course, here's one possible answer:
>
> New Hampshire IS Libertarian.
>
> And the result IS the highest school test scores, the highest
> health rating,
> the lowest poverty rate, and the lowest tax burden in the US.
>
> Sounds good to me....
>
> Thom

I'll second that, Sueki. I want to use your suggestions and words also!
Thanks for sharing them.  ---Tim Condon

On 8/5/06, sueki <sue_yuryan@...> wrote:
>
> Absolutely!
>
> --- Lpb52 <lpb52@...> wrote:
>
> > That was wonderful!  Can I quote you in inquiries I
> > get from the
> > retired/elderly folks as the NH Info Coordinator?
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Lynn
> >
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


--
Timothy Condon, Esq., P.O. Box 1007, Tampa, FL 33601
813-251-2626  Fax: 254-2979  Email: tim@...


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

LOL. As always, I like Lloyd's sense of humor, and as always, I like Lynn's
spunky response. We're gonna have a home for freedom-lovers of all stripes,
you guys!! Onward to the Free State!   ---Tim  :--)


On 8/5/06, Lpb52 <lpb52@...> wrote:
>
> > 1.New Hampshire isn't full of old people.
> > 2.The southern part of NH is ot comprised of a single, major, ethnic
> voting block, who desires that the US occupy Cuba.
>
> Yeah, but FL is, especially Tampa, which was established as a tobacco
> industry of expatriate Cubans way before the Cuban Revolution, so maybe we
> don't want to alienate a demographic spread possibly reflected in this
> particular gathering.
>
> Anyway, Cuban capitalists wanting their nationalized small business and
> abandoned individual property back are certainly okay by me.  Let me know
> if
> you want that anything translated into Spanish, Tim (grin).
>
> Lynn
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


--
Timothy Condon, Esq., P.O. Box 1007, Tampa, FL 33601
813-251-2626  Fax: 254-2979  Email: tim@...


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2006/08/06/
international_companies_buying_up_lebanon_nh_companies/

International companies buying up Lebanon, N.H., companies
August 6, 2006

LEBANON, N.H. --International companies are finding promising small
businesses in town and buying them up in multimillion dollar deals.

Four recent buyouts are boosting the area's reputation for spawning
promising new businesses. But unlike other buyouts, it appears this
time some of the larger companies will keep the operations within New
Hampshire.

Robert Rosenblum, the founder of Spectra Inc., says Fuji Photo's
recent purchase of his ink jet printing company will likely lead to
an expansion of local operations and possibly some new jobs.
Other recent business acquisitions in Lebanon include pharmaceutical
giant Merck's purchase of the biotechnology firm GlycoFi, Novell's
purchase of software developer Tally Systems and Ansys Inc.'s
purchase of the software company Fluent.

Well....in my defence, I was going to add: 'be carefull who is in
the room before you use my argument':)
My concern is that the Cuban voting block in So Flo will get the
rest of us involved in taking back Cuba.

--- In freestateproject@yahoogroups.com, "Lpb52" <lpb52@...> wrote:
>
> > 1.New Hampshire isn't full of old people.
> > 2.The southern part of NH is ot comprised of a single, major,
ethnic
> voting block, who desires that the US occupy Cuba.
>
> Yeah, but FL is, especially Tampa, which was established as a
tobacco
> industry of expatriate Cubans way before the Cuban Revolution, so
maybe we
> don't want to alienate a demographic spread possibly reflected in
this
> particular gathering.
>
> Anyway, Cuban capitalists wanting their nationalized small
business and
> abandoned individual property back are certainly okay by me.  Let
me know if
> you want that anything translated into Spanish, Tim (grin).
>
> Lynn
>

My 'spunky response' did not make it to the list. I wonder why?
I credited those 'right wingers' with the fact that NH is low tax,
less gov't, more freedom, because well, it's true!

On Aug 6, 2006, at 6:48 AM, tim condon wrote:

> LOL. As always, I like Lloyd's sense of humor, and as always, I
> like Lynn's
> spunky response. We're gonna have a home for freedom-lovers of all
> stripes,
> you guys!! Onward to the Free State!   ---Tim  :--)
>
>
> On 8/5/06, Lpb52 <lpb52@...> wrote:
>>
>>> 1.New Hampshire isn't full of old people.
>>> 2.The southern part of NH is ot comprised of a single, major, ethnic
>> voting block, who desires that the US occupy Cuba.
>>
>> Yeah, but FL is, especially Tampa, which was established as a tobacco
>> industry of expatriate Cubans way before the Cuban Revolution, so
>> maybe we
>> don't want to alienate a demographic spread possibly reflected in
>> this
>> particular gathering.
>>
>> Anyway, Cuban capitalists wanting their nationalized small
>> business and
>> abandoned individual property back are certainly okay by me.  Let
>> me know
>> if
>> you want that anything translated into Spanish, Tim (grin).
>>
>> Lynn
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Timothy Condon, Esq., P.O. Box 1007, Tampa, FL 33601
> 813-251-2626  Fax: 254-2979  Email: tim@...
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

***
"You shall have one world government, whether or not you like it, by
consent or by conquest."
-- Former FDR aide, James Warburg  CFR/TC, in testimony before the US
Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, 17 Feb 1950.

Oh stop, please. It is a wonderful fantasy, but so obviously not accurate as to
be silly.

NH does not have a libertarian government. If it did, the whole panapoly of
libertarian rules, laws, and precepts would be in effect in NH. They simply are
not.

So we can work our way toward it, with much better fodder than any other state.
But NH is not yet libertarian in its government.

Gary T


"It is better to have a bad plan, than no plan at all"

   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Jane
   To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2006 5:19 PM
   Subject: Re: [FSP] What if NH went libertarian


   It sure is.

   One must remember that the R's in NH are more in truth like L's even
   if not be labeled that way.

   They are nothing like the R's at the Nat'l level as witnessed by our
   last good Governor Benson who left office with a surplus.

   - J

   On Aug 4, 2006, at 5:48 PM, Thomas Tuathal Simmons wrote:

   > Of course, here's one possible answer:
   >
   > New Hampshire IS Libertarian.
   >
   > And the result IS the highest school test scores, the highest
   > health rating,
   > the lowest poverty rate, and the lowest tax burden in the US.
   >
   > Sounds good to me....
   >
   > Thom





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

There are degrees of being in accordance with libertarianism.  If New Hampshire
already was libertarian, there would be no need for
the FSP at all; it would be the haven we all seek now.  New Hampshire is *more*
libertarian than other states, and as you note, the
results speak for themselves.  But it is not fully libertarian by any means. 
There is plenty of room for improvement, often around
issues such as zoning, property taxes, public schooling, alcohol distribution,
vehicle inspections, and some others.  We hope to
further bring NH into accordance with libertarian ideals, and thereby further
increase the sorts fo results you note, and realize
other benefits as well.

philb

"Thomas Tuathal Simmons" wrote:

Of course, here's one possible answer:

New Hampshire IS Libertarian.

And the result IS the highest school test scores, the highest health rating,
the lowest poverty rate, and the lowest tax burden in the US.

Sounds good to me....

Thom

It's tough to be libertarian when your governor is a D. He *was*
willing to sign HB 1582 had it passed the Senate.

As for why in such a conservative state the governor is a D I can
only offer my opinion that because of our 'liberal' voter
registration rules, we have a lot of out of staters that come here
and vote illegally and then leave, notably one Kerry worker named
Geoff Wetrosky.

We have a lot of Wetrosky-ites here and thus voter fraud.
The governor also keeps signing stuff that makes it tougher for us to
get these records that show fraud.

On Aug 6, 2006, at 2:11 PM, GTriest wrote:

> Oh stop, please. It is a wonderful fantasy, but so obviously not
> accurate as to be silly.
>
> NH does not have a libertarian government. If it did, the whole
> panapoly of libertarian rules, laws, and precepts would be in
> effect in NH. They simply are not.
>
> So we can work our way toward it, with much better fodder than any
> other state. But NH is not yet libertarian in its government.
>
> Gary T
>
>
> "It is better to have a bad plan, than no plan at all"
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Jane
>   To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2006 5:19 PM
>   Subject: Re: [FSP] What if NH went libertarian
>
>
>   It sure is.
>
>   One must remember that the R's in NH are more in truth like L's even
>   if not be labeled that way.
>
>   They are nothing like the R's at the Nat'l level as witnessed by our
>   last good Governor Benson who left office with a surplus.
>
>   - J
>
>   On Aug 4, 2006, at 5:48 PM, Thomas Tuathal Simmons wrote:
>
>> Of course, here's one possible answer:
>>
>> New Hampshire IS Libertarian.
>>
>> And the result IS the highest school test scores, the highest
>> health rating,
>> the lowest poverty rate, and the lowest tax burden in the US.
>>
>> Sounds good to me....
>>
>> Thom
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

***
"You shall have one world government, whether or not you like it, by
consent or by conquest."
-- Former FDR aide, James Warburg  CFR/TC, in testimony before the US
Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, 17 Feb 1950.

<<<  If New Hampshire already was libertarian, there would be no need for
the FSP at all; it would be the haven we all seek now. New Hampshire is
*more* libertarian than other states, and as you note, the  results speak
for themselves. But it is not fully libertarian by any means. There is
plenty of room for improvement >>>

But there is no such a thing as an Absolute Libertarian Perfection...and in
fact, you would not find even TWO individuals who would agree 100% on the
merely "theoretical" attributes of a such a Perfect Libertarian state.

Therefore, there can ONLY be degrees of Libertarianism, relative to other
places.  And, there will ALWAYS be room for improvement.

And that also means that the original question, "what if NH went
libertarian?," is really the wrong question. New Hampshire IS libertarian,
it can *not* 'become' Libertarian because no one knows what that means and
not even Libertarians can agree on it.

The better way to phrase this is, "Look at how healthy New Hampshire is with
its relatively Libertarian approach to government.  Imagine how much better
it could be if we could even improve on that!"

And thats how *I* present the scenario to outsiders.  We're Good, and
Getting Better.

Thom





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]