1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

NH: More Free Staters arrested in spat with Feds

Discussion in 'Legal' started by DadaOrwell2, Feb 15, 2006.

  1. DadaOrwell2

    DadaOrwell2 Well-Known Member

    Interested to get THR's take on this:


    Manchester, New Hampshire
    Feb. 14, 2006

    Two New Hampshire Free Staters chose arrest last week rather than allow themselves to be herded into a "Free Speech Zone" while the President was in Manchester. One of the protesters was carrying a sign advocating New Hampshire secession, both were in a non-secure area where civilians were milling around unmolested.

    Keene Free Press article/pics:

    Manchester Union Leader article (link is split into two lines):

    Free Staters (www.FreeStateProject.org) are libertarian activists who move to New Hampshire from other parts of the country because they consider it the state with the most freedom. About 150 have moved here since 2003, with 7,000 more pledged to follow. Local and Federal officials have made seven arrests so far in civil disobedience incidents involving this group.
  2. ArmedBear

    ArmedBear Well-Known Member

    As a Libertarian I think that this was really stupid!

    I think we have more to offer than to emulate Cindy Sheehan, but these guys are making it seem like that's not the case.

    This sort of thing may appeal to old hippies who never grew up, or to underage anarchist wannabes, but it's the wrong way to reach out to intelligent lovers of freedom in the mainstream.

    I think most Constitutionalist and Libertarian types can understand the need for security around the President. You want Brit-style gun control, and more of a police state in general? Just watch what happens if someone else takes a shot at the President, no matter when and no matter which party he/she is from. The Secret Service doesn't hurt the Libertarian cause.
  3. The Freeholder

    The Freeholder Well-Known Member

    The Second Amendment applies everywhere (well, except CA, NY, NJ and a few other places), the Fourth, the Sixteenth and so on. Why shouldn't the First?

    I don't think the President--any President--or any other elected official's security is so threatened by peaceful protestors that you can make any case for "free speech zones". That concept smells to me like an attempt to stiffle dissent.
  4. ArmedBear

    ArmedBear Well-Known Member

    Philosophically, I agree, Freeholder.

    But I'm also into picking battles, and trying to use tactics and strategies to win those battles. Use your energy up on this kind of college-kid silliness, and what do you have left for affecting real change? Nothing.
  5. Owen

    Owen Moderator Emeritus

    Armed Bear,

    You are probably the first person I have heard defending the proposition of putting protesters in cages located in places where POTUS can't see them.

    That is exacly what they are doing. Anyone that isn't wearing a Bush T-shirt or whatever, gets corralled.
  6. And what's wrong with this? Why should the President, the leader of the free world be bothered by this riff-raff? He's out there, every day - on the front line of freedom protecting the Nation against the many threats that exist - I'm sure he and the serfs that travel with him wouldn't want to see these anti-American elements.
  7. Owen

    Owen Moderator Emeritus

    since when is protesting anti-american. Do you even know what they were protesting?

    Is protesting illegal wiretaps anti-american?
    Is protesting eminent domain abuse anti-american?
    Is protesting the patriot act anti american?
  8. Meplat

    Meplat Well-Known Member

    Errr...I believe the "serfs" part gave away the sacarcism of this post. :)

    At least I HOPE it did.
  9. Owen

    Owen Moderator Emeritus

    Well, if I missed some honest sarcasm, I apologize.

    Otherwise: GRRRRR!
  10. ArmedBear

    ArmedBear Well-Known Member

    Try a little nuance on for size. This is politics, now.

    I'm not defending "putting protesters in cages." I'm saying that joining in with a bunch of dimwitted, loud-mouthed moonbats makes libertarians look like nothing but idiots. This sort of "civil disobedience", where people do things that have no value or impact, to try to get arrested so they can tell stories about it in the paper just doesn't resonate with many people, nor should it.

    Talk to me when they get arrested but aren't deliberately TRYING. I want to win the long-term war, not rant about some pyrrhic victory.

    See, "protests" are a pretty silly way to get one's point across in the 21st century. Been to any? I have. Idiotarianism at its finest.

    Who has had more of a libertarian influence on politically-aware Americans? These guys, or Glenn Reynolds?
  11. Art Eatman

    Art Eatman Administrator Staff Member

    When I read some of the vituperation against Bush posted here at this website, and read some of the even more hostile commentaries at the more leftist sites around the WWW, I'm not at all surprised that security efforts have become as harsh as they are.

    I was around some of the Secret Service security for LBJ, both before and after he became Prez. I recall Reagan being shot. I recall the hostility expressed agains Clinton and now against Bush.

    No, I'm not at all surprised at how security is now handled, compared to before 11/23/63.

    I am surprised that others get all bent out of shape on what we--as the public at large--have brought upon ourselves.

    And that's even WITHOUT Al Qaida.

  12. WayneConrad

    WayneConrad Well-Known Member

    It's not about the president's safety.

    Why would a person intending harm to the president show up with a sign and a t-shirt? I can't believe that weeding out people who look like protesters is the best the SS can offer to safeguard our president. I don't believe that. I think the SS looks beyond the clothes, just as you and I would if we were truly interested in security.

    So... better s'plain to me again why clothing and signs denote a physical threat to the president.
  13. Art Eatman

    Art Eatman Administrator Staff Member

    Wayne, do you reckon it might be what's worn under the shirt and inside the pants? something that goes Boom?

    The Secret Service guys are paid to be paranoid. They're paid to believ that somebody is out to get The Boss. All-in-all, as I said above, they have reson to be as they are...

    I'm not saying I like it, to put in what seems to be obligatory as a disclaimer. I'm just trying to understand why stuff happens in an apparently unsane world...

  14. WayneConrad

    WayneConrad Well-Known Member

    Art, that's exactly right. It's not the clothes that can harm the president. It's what might be under them. And what can be worn under a "Bush Lied" shirt can just as well be worn under a suit & tie. So why would any security detail worth its salt get distracted by the clothes? I postulate that the SS is worth its salt, and is not distracted by appearances. I also believe that they have the will, the right people, the right training, and the right equipment to protect the president. These things I believe are why I conclude that putting people with signs in "free speech zones" has nothing to do with protecting the president.
  15. hammer4nc

    hammer4nc Well-Known Member

    Two examples of idiotic demonstrations:

    1. Applause lines at the state of the union address. Choreographed by the Executive Staff. Dutifully counted and reported by the MSM on prime-time TV.

    2. Those that occur on the floor of the national conventions (dem and repub). Orchestrated, paid for, cued and directed by the candidate/party.

    So, if the "protest" supports one's position/candidate, its OK, & encouraged; if it gets in the way of the photo-op, its idiotic? The king has no clothes.

    Those who buy into the "security" pretext for isolating opposing opinions haven't really thought too much about the issue, IMO.
  16. joab

    joab Well-Known Member

    We have only the word of the woman involved that they were peaceful, but after reading some of these little pieces of childish drivel I don't necessarilt believe her
    When you act and speak like an idiot you will generally be treated like an idiot.

    I am seriously pulling away from the Republican party and am looking at the likes of the Libertarians, mostly due to the influences of Neal Boortz.
    But if freaks like this are representative of the party I'll pass
  17. There are people out to get the boss - let us not forget - United flight 93 was thought to be flying to crash into the White House when it crashed in PA. American flight 77 might have been targeting the White House too, and chose the Pentagon as a secondary target. The White House wasn't evacuated until 7 minutes after 77 hit the Pentagon.
  18. Highland Ranger

    Highland Ranger Well-Known Member

    This didn't start with Bush did it? Wasn't this practice started during the reign of Slick Willy?

    In any event I have a problem with it. It's controlled free speech. And put up jobs on the part of either party aside it just feels wrong.

    If you become what you say you aren't while trying to defend what say you are then . . . .well what are you?
  19. Hawkmoon

    Hawkmoon Well-Known Member

    This was satire, right?

    PLEASE tell me you were kidding.
  20. Manedwolf

    Manedwolf member

    Secession? Okay. People like that need to get the hell out of NH. We're quite happy being part of the United States, thank you. :cuss:

Share This Page