Two Newspaper Appearances in One Day!

NH's Top Newspaper Regularly Features Libertarian Activists

NH’s Top Newspaper Regularly Features Libertarian Activists

I’ve long stated that libertarians in New Hampshire are making a bigger impact than anywhere else. That’s because we’ve concentrated our efforts here as part of an ongoing NH Freedom Migration, and turns out – concentrating activists in one geographic area actually works! Besides the haters who target our activists, you can also tell we’re effective because the media not only writes about our activism regularly, but also reaches out for comment on other issues that don’t even directly involve us.

This happens here because libertarians in New Hampshire are a relevant political force and we cannot be ignored, like happens to libertarians in other states.

Today, I had the honor of being included in two different newspaper articles, in two different newspapers.

First up, Union Leader reporter Meghan Pierce’s story about Dublin’s counterproductive new paraphernalia ordinance that was their top story of the day today. I was given the last word in the piece. Thanks Meghan!

“Apparently the chief (Suokko) and town council just can’t let go of the insane war on drugs and just have to keep pushing to extract more money and obedience from peaceful cannabis users who are our neighbors, co-workers, and friends,”

Also today, Steve Whitmore from the Keene Sentinel called me early this morning to get a comment on Christopher Cantwell‘s court hearing last week where two of the three felony charges were dropped against him. Here’s Whitmore’s story that appeared in today’s Sentinel.

In case you need more reasons to join the most successful libertarian movement in the world, here are 101 of them in a really entertaining documentary film.

Now you can subscribe to Free Keene via email!

Don't miss a single post!


8 Comments

  1. It seems that you guys have made a big impact alright. Whether it came from looking like buffoons on the Colbert Report, to having been raided by the FBI, and having been shut down by the City of Keene numerous times for trying to be tax exempt by making a house a “church”. I would say that isn’t working good for your libertarian movement, as well as having any involvement or association with Christopher Cantwell.

  2. Ian Bernard will run to the media every time he thinks the government is out to get him. You screwed your friend Will over by telling him everything is fine with the property he is using when there were a lot of red tape he has to go through to get his mosque recognized as a religious institution. Will showed his true colors by making threats and BS statements just because he didn’t get his way. You can brag all you want about how popular you think you are but it is just another freekeene fantasy.

  3. Now Ernesto darling, I know how overexcited you tend to get about the fact that our dear little friends over at the FBI are so tirelessly working to destroy your rivals here, but even you must admit that this particular wild goose chase has long since petered out. You know sweetums, instead of daydreaming about what will probably never come, maybe you should consider directing your efforts towards something more within your reach? I’ve heard that our old pals the Schmidts are having a tough time these days. Maybe you could lend them a loving hand or two?

  4. Now Ernesto daring, I know how overexcited you tend to get about the fact that our dear little friends over at the FBI are working so tirelessly to destroy your rivals here, but even you must realize that this wild goose chase of theirs has long since petered out. Maybe you should consider focusing on things more within your reach? You know sweetums, I heard our old pals the Schmidts have been having a tough time this year. Perhaps you could lend them a helping hand or two?

  5. Say Jacks, speaking of true colors, I can’t help but notice that you’ve managed to get your facts wrong again. Had you bothered to review the video recorded by Ian, you’d have discovered that Mr. Coley’s information pertaining to the property in question came from the City of Keene – and not from Ian.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=235&v=VJ1x9UdXGiI#t=3m57s

    You’re never willing to come in here prepared, now are you Jacks? I wonder why that is?

  6. “I would say that isn’t working good for your libertarian movement, as well as having any involvement or association with Christopher Cantwell”

    It might seem like that, but you are looking at it from a different view point. Actual libertarians find it more humorous than anything because what you consider an association with Cantwell to a genuine libertarian is evidence of respect for everyones right to engage in freedom of speech. It’s not the popular speech that needs protection. It’s the speech that isn’t tolerated by the masses that needs protection.

    Actual libertarians don’t restrict others speech- nor do they discourage it- even where it’s not to ones liking. It’s the socialists, it’s the democrats, it’s the republicans, etc who push for censorship and ignore all rational discussion. Rational discussion does not mean both sides have to be rational, just that one listens to the other side such that they can form a rational opinion. Actual libertarians more or less act rationally rather than emotionally. What having interactions with Cantwell and the ilk does amongst true libertarians is it demonstrate ones belief in free speech and ones support for rational discussion. It’s how you know someone is a real libertarian and whose just posing as one. You don’t solve underlying problems in society by ignoring the speech of those causing trouble- even when you don’t like a persons actions-even if it involves real harm. There may be a solution to a problem that doesn’t involve further victimization and harm to a society by listening to those you disagree with.

    I think it’s great for instance that Free Talk Live has co-host that is a convicted murderer. Murders are people too and shit happens in life. That doesn’t mean they should be ostracized as a whole. It doesn’t do anybody any good. Certainly not society. Ostracizing people who do bad things just results in more bad shit happening. It’s best to understand, listen, and condemn the action, not the person, and then try to find resolutions to minimize harm- even if it doesn’t eliminate it. Sometimes minimizing damage goes a lot further than criminalizing it. Prohibition is a great example of this. Murder and crime skyrocketed to the point where rational heads decided it wasn’t worth the cost. Alcohol consumption can lead to increased deaths, but its not nearly as bad as criminalizing it, as that just leads to more people dying and crime.

    Anyone who knows Mark Edge realizes he’s not some insane lunatic that’s going to go off and start murdering people. Most murders aren’t crazy and it’s unlikely that a person who has murdered someone is going to kill again. Serial murderers are extremely rare in society. Most murderers do not even intend to commit the act in the first place. Mark Edge’s case involved a bar fight that unfortunately resulted in a death.

    It’s great when Ian and other co-hosts and actual libertarians don’t just accept the status quo- like hatred toward pedophiles. Recognizing societies irrational over-reaction to a largely fictional narrative has done more harm to actual children than all the sex offenders have ever. For instance 2/3 of the people on the sex offender lists have no genuine victims. Being on the sex offender list destroys lives- many people commit suicide after being accused irregardless of the truth of the matter. Meaning innocent people die from these screwed up laws and the social reaction to it.

    Unless you think pissing in a garbage can at 2AM which happens to be next to a playground- or having consensual sex with someone just a few months younger somehow constitutes a genuine victim 2/3s of the people on the sex offender list have no real victim. That number isn’t just pulled out of my ass either. I forget the organization’s name but its one of the respectable human rights organizations. They actually looked at the results of the implementation of these various sex offender laws and specifically the sex offender lists. And certain judges are now beginning to make sane rulings as a result. Like removing people from sex offender lists for consensual acts. Or sexting where a child sends a nude shot of themselves to a significant other.

    We’ve literally done little more than created more victims all the while there being no evidence that we’ve even caught actual rapists let alone child rapists. It might make you feel good that there are fewer pedophiles on the street, but that does nothing to protect actual children. Anybody who looks at the FBI stats on child molestation should see through this. Actual child molestation is a crime of convenience not pedophilia. That’s not even in dispute and the FBI will tell ya that much. The statistics clearly show most child sex abuse is the result of parents or other family members and not pedophiles. All you did by locking up pedophiles or banning child porn was cost the taxpayer money. Child porn is sick, but all the evidence shows porn availability reduces rape (study didn’t involve children, but the logical rational connection is it would apply to pedophiles too), not the other way round. But you can’t have a rational discussion about this. The back lash is clearly evident given the FBI raid over non-existent child porn. A story about a made up ‘bad guy’ is far more interesting to the media than the facts. Not to mention there was no genuine connection between Ian and child porn in spite of what the articles all said. His name was merely the person who was on the internet connection for a building that housed an activist center and for which there were numerous tenants. No child porn was ever found in spite of seizing numerous computers both that were his and that of some of the other tenants. Basically a bunch of made up non-sense.

  7. “Ian Bernard will run to the media every time he thinks the government is out to get him.”

    Dude- He was accused of being a child molester for christ sake which was implied by a raid for which the media were alerted by the government itself. How can you say the government isn’t out to get him? Then the articles all libel’d Ian in spite of the fact that the building housed multiple tenants and an activist center. Why write a story about Ian when it was coincidental that his name was on the internet connection for the building? That’s insane. It makes no sense. Hundreds of people had access to that internet connection. There was no logical rational reason for the media to target Ian. The FBI clearly had it out for Free Talk Live as Mark Edge, a co-host of Free Talk Live criticized the FBI for DISTRIBUTING child pornography just two weeks prior. The supposed access was a YEAR prior. No. The FBI targeted Free Talk Live and Ian specifically because Ian’s the one who controls the strings and the idea was they could destroy Free Talk Live by targeting the guy behind it’s reputation. It shockingly failed-mostly- but none-the-less was apparent it wasn’t an orchestrated affair. Nobody is that f’ing crazy. There is a huge difference between stupid shit you might think “free starters” do, or a particular crowd of them and a serious criminal offense. None of the “antics” have ever involved any serious criminal offenses.

    “You screwed your friend Will over by telling him everything is fine with the property he is using ”

    You sir are making shit up. None of the issues with the property were apparent from the onset except for the fleas and…

    “when there were a lot of red tape he has to go through to get his mosque recognized as a religious institution. ”

    The issues with the red tape were entirely government orchestrated. If you even watched any of the videos Will stated that he called in advance and they told him there was nothing he had to do other than getting a permit for the sign. Which technically he doesn’t legally need. However most state and city bureaucrats don’t like recognizing the fact they don’t have authority nor the existence of favorable court rulings. They’ll try and find some reason a ruling doesn’t apply and make you jump through the hoops in spite of it. It was demonstrated with the robin hood case which was won if you recall. The city didn’t like that there was a clear first amendment right to protest and at every appeal they lost.

  8. Hey Joe why don’t you ask Ian about his “folder of girls” that he has on his latest personal computer? It’s quite disturbing!

Care to comment?