Libertarian Primary voting recommendations

For the first time in over 2 decades, the Libertarian Party is having a primary in New Hampshire. While I would prefer NH to join the list of states that allows a party to opt-out of having a taxpayer funded primary, I will be voting in the Libertarian Primary and casting a ballot that looks like this:

Governor: Jilletta Jarvis
Congress: Justin O’Donnell
State Senate: Ian Freeman
State House Cheshire 16: Darryl W Perry
Sheriff: Aria DiMezzo (write-in)
Treasurer: Kenneth Kelly III
Register of Deeds: Darlene Lester

You can find your polling precinct, and a sample ballot here

Now you can subscribe to Free Keene via email!

Don't miss a single post!


  1. I feel like we’re missing somebody.

  2. You have forgot, Libertarians take and take while never giving back.

  3. Actually Jacks, what you’ve just described here is called a government, not a libertarian. You’d know that if you bothered to pay attention.

  4. I don’t even understand your logic jacks. Libertarians are forced like everybody else to partake in giving. If you mean that we would not without government theft you are partially right but only to the extent that giving involves violence. So libertarians would not contribute to non-self defense programs involved in violence, but do already contribute to causes and programs that assist those in need where appropriate voluntarily. This is on top of what is already stolen by government from everyone.

  5. It’s more logical than you think, kk. You see, our dear friend Jacks here has absolute faith in the notion that government’s primary purpose is to provide him with all sorts of neat services to make his life better. These services are expensive, though. And since Jacks doesn’t think he can afford them, he thinks everyone around him must pay in – or else. To consider any other alternative to this sort of arrangement is to be a bad person.

    You see kk, to Jacks everything comes down to who’s morally superior. Jacks sees himself as one of the good guys – you know, because he needs things. We’re the bad guys because we’d prefer that he pay for the things he needs with his own money.

    Now as I’m sure you know, our camp would just prefer to be left out of all of this. Unfortunately, Jacks is a proud member of one of the camps who think it’s best to use government force to make their ideas a reality. That’s why they spend so much of their time trying to elect candidates that think the way they do. You see, they understand that if their side controls the government, then they can make laws to give them access to EVERYONE’S money! It’s hard to argue against that, isn’t it kk? Just don’t forget! They’re the good guys! If you don’t accept that, then nothing they say holds any water!

  6. kk – How are libertarians forced to partake in giving? “Libertarianism Is About Protecting Power, Not Freedom”

    “Libertarians believe that the non-violent exercise of power that was not gained through violence is an absolute right no matter how harmful that exercise of power may be to other people’s prosperity or freedom or to the prosperity of the society as a whole.

    If one corporation’s exercise of its power decreases the freedom of a million human beings, libertarians don’t care at all”.

  7. Hear ye hear ye! Darryl is voting thisa way.. Let it be known throughout the land… to all those masses of peoplesiz… who care so very very much

  8. He’s going out ona limb and voting for himself and …drum roll please: he’ll be voting for Ian Freeman..

  9. Isn’t Ian Freeman a self-admitted pedophile? Yeah, thanks, but no thanks, to the entire slate. If you are a reflection of the company you keep, the libertarian party should really vet its candidates better…

  10. Brandon are you dense or purposefully spreading bullshit? Show us where Ian has ever described himself as a pedophile.

  11. I guess nobody cares Ian Freeman was a convicted pedophile and child pornographer. But then again that’s just part of the Libertarian platform.

  12. Is this site under some sort of poorly programmed bot attack? Ian was never convicted of anything. There weren’t even charges filed. What the fuck is it with people knowingly spreading lies and falsehoods?

  13. Because these people understand that character assassination and deception both play important roles in winning popularity contests, Vincent. Just remember, their tactics aren’t always as powerful as they think they are. They certainly didn’t help Hillary Clinton.

  14. These people calling Ian a pedophile have no actual rational argument to make and thats why they are making shit up. They are advocating violence against peaceful people. I frankly don’t give two shits about the lies, but even if he was a pedophile he’d still have the moral high ground on these guys and the vast majority if not every other elected or otherwise government critter.

  15. Indeed kk. But when your only goal is to virtue signal to a crowd of people with low IQs, calling your rivals bad people is the easiest way to do it.

  16. And I take great umbrage to their deception, kk. Mostly because they use it to attempt to force their rivals into the position of having to constantly defend themselves – hoping it’ll leave no time left for them to discuss their ideas in detail with the general public.

  17. I want to say THANK YOU to every person who has supported my campaign. I’m excited to be representing this Party on into November.

  18. Hmmm, pedophilia, hmmm? Hmmm!

  19. The worst horrible liars get to hurl lies from hiding on the internet. I may be misremembering but i thought people use to be ashamed to do that.

  20. But there’s no shame in telling lies about bad people, now is there David? They’re not horrible at all! They’re heroes! Just ask them!

  21. kk – I do not believe you are correct. Ian is under investigation with the FBI for having child porn on his computer. They executed a search warrant and took his computers and electronics. He used to date a 14 y/o minor when he was 31 y/o One of his recordings, he advocates adults having sex with children. listen to the recordings.

    Ian talking to chris cantwell –

  22. Jumping Jacks: You are hearing what you want to hear. Ian has not advocated child rape in any of the audio you link to nor has he even encouraged sexual interactions between adults and children. What he has said on this topic is not of concern to anybody that hasn’t got a super low IQ or some other political agenda and reason to attack him. You can’t distinguish a pro-freedom argument from one advocating child rape which is more telling about you than Ian.

    Ian has not actually said, done. or had happen to him personally the things you claim. To suggest it was Ian’s computer would be a blatant fabrication of reality. The FBI knowingly stole computers and devices a year after they claim somebody downloaded child porn using an internet connection for the building that was in Ian’s name. There has never been any evidence released this child porn download actually happened and nobody has ever been arrested related to it. Which would have happened by now if someone had actually downloaded child porn (given how many years have past there is zero chance anybody will be). Not to mention the FBI knew full well that the name on the bill for the internet connection was for a property that housed multiple residents, businesses, and a radio studio airing multiple shows. Hundreds of people had access to that internet connection and the devices and computers they stole from people mostly didn’t even live there at the time the child porn was supposedly downloaded.

    It’s pretty obvious what happened. The FBI clearly didn’t like what Mark Edge had said two weeks prior about the FBI- calling them out for being hypocrites on nationally syndicated radio. You see the FBI argues that child porn distribution (not the creation of nor the rape) harms children and then proceeded to DISTRIBUTE child porn. This was nothing other than revenge for that and an attack on a political minority.

    I would like to see the evidence that Ian did anything with a 14 year old. I know you can’t produce anything because your an outright liar. The legal age in NH is 16 and there is no evidence he has ever had sex with anyone under the legal age. 14 though isn’t a child anyway and nobody has ever accused Ian of breaking any actual laws in this regard.And jacks you don’t even know what a pedophile is! I’ll help you out here and explain it. It means someone who is attracted to prepubescent children. A 14 year old is not that. If a girl hasn’t hit puberty by 14 she is *EXTREMELY LATE*. Puberty in girls starts as early as age 8.

  23. Say Jacks, we all know you’re on a noble mission to stop Free Keene and all, but don’t you think maybe next time you could pick some better clips? I mean really pookums, you’re not going to convince any intelligent people here that Ian is a child molester when your smoking gun is an audio clip showing Ian was the VICTIM of a molestation, rather than the committer of one.

  24. kk – any sexual contact with a minor is rape. If you think a 14 y/o is OK to have sex with an adult is a pedophile himself. I am a Nurse Practitioner. Which means all the time I spent during clinicals has shown me what sexual contact with a minor does both physically and mentally. Saying a 14 year old isn’t a child is wrong. Get your facts straight. You are very pathetic.

  25. Jacks my love, you’ve been chastised many times for attributing to yourself professional credentials you clearly don’t possess. Everyone here who follows you knows you’re not an NP, so why do you keep bothering to pretend otherwise?

    Oh, and Jacks? Maybe it’s time you stopped with these conspicuous expressions of moral superiority. After all, a pathological liar like yourself really has no license to be judging others, now do you pookums?

  26. Just wait until you hear about the bitch running for sheriff of if you’re bothered by Ian.

  27. Jumping Jacks:

    “any sexual contact with a minor is rape.”

    Rape is defined differently all around the world, but that doesn’t change what rape actually is. The common or traditional meaning of the word remains the same. Rape is forcing someone against there will to have sex with you. It’s really that simple. Redefining it legally doesn’t magically change what it is commonly understood by the word or what that word actually means. By taking some arbitrary legal definition of the word (which actually will be defined differently in different laws) you are changing the meaning of the word.

    “If you think a 14 y/o is OK to have sex with an adult is a pedophile himself. ”

    So your going to redefine pedophilia again then? Pedophilia is the sexual attraction to children. One need not be attracted to children to make rational arguments or be bullied the moralists out there. Nobody has event said it was morally acceptable to have sex with a 14 year old. The only thing anybody has said is that someone being attracted to a 14 year old is not pedophilia. Based on your logic someone having sex with a 27 year old is a pedophile because the human brain isn’t fully developed until about 28. This is just one reason why the argument for defining an age of consent is not rational or logical. You’ll twist this into me saying people should be able to have sex with 14 year olds- and that isn’t what I said. I’ve never advocated for sex with a child nor with a 14 year old. I’ve only pointed out the failure in your ability to make rational or logical arguments- or the law thereof.

    “I am a Nurse Practitioner. Which means all the time I spent during clinicals has shown me what sexual contact with a minor does both physically and mentally.”

    So- while I don’t believe this it would only evidence your a psychopath and one that has been brainwashed. There are lots of people having sex pre-18. The idea that people magically become sexual beings at some arbitrary government set age is the most irrational thing I’ve ever heard. I’d be shocked if 90% of 13 year old boys weren’t masturbating on a regular basis. If a 13 year old hasn’t figured sex out they are severely and mentally retarded. This is not to say that I’d encourage young people to have unsafe sex. This only is pointing out your putting morals (a belief that sex is bad) ahead of logic, ration, and actual science.

    “Saying a 14 year old isn’t a child is wrong. Get your facts straight. You are very pathetic.”

    Are you saying jews are wrong? Are you saying the only legitimate definition of a child is the one you put forth? Because there are a number of different definitions and few people would say a 14 year old is a child outside of moralistic and sexual situations and that is largely based on religious fear mongering related to premarital sex and a desire to increase the age of consent to ensure that pregnancy doesn’t interfere with academics and wealth. The reality is marriage is traditionally a financial arrangement. If you define child as not mentally developed you’d have to rationally argue that a 27 year old is not prepared for sex either. Which is just so utterly ridicules. While I’m sure there are people whom it is not in there interest to be having sex- but age generally has nothing to do with it. Sex can be a mildly risky activity and if a 14 year old isn’t ready to deal with that much of this is likely the fault of over-protective parents and/or society. Your refusal to educate or permit access to said material makes your entire argument hypocritical.

  28. Jacks isn’t an NP, kk. He’s making that all up. He tells people that because he thinks an argument from authority is more persuasive than objective evidence. You’re funny that way, aren’t you Jacks?

  29. kk – check the law. Any sexual contact of a minor by an adult is called statutory rape. It can land you in jail for a very long time. By the way, I suggest you re-read my previous post. You were adding words to your response that were never there.the rest of your rant is to bizarre to read.

  30. Jacks honey, now I know you’re all outraged because of all this immorality you’re seeing around here – but dear, is it really so difficult for you to understand the point Ian and kk are making? They’re making the case that consent matters. It needs to be proved or disproved in every situation – no exceptions. Statutory rape laws do an end run around this because they outlaw consent outright based on a person’s age. This means that prosecutors are under no obligation in these cases to prove that objective consent existed in t he first place. All evidence is prima facie, dictated by the definitions in the statute. And those definitions are not scientifically determined either, Jacks. That’s why they vary from state to state. This is a problem. And it deserves some attention, don’t you think?

  31. Hmmm, Renee! Hmmm?

  32. And yet not a single police report has ever been filed on this matter, now has it dearest? But don’t be bitter here, Mr. Hmmm. You could be the one to make a difference! Maybe even be a hero! Just go to the police and tell them everything you know. There’s the address below. Oh, and don’t forget to bring a camera along to record everything. You know, that way we can all see just what a caring fellow you are!

    Keene Police Department
    400 Marlboro Street
    Keene, NH 03431

  33. Jumping Jacks:

    “Any sexual contact of a minor by an adult is called statutory rape. ”

    Your reading comprehension issues are pretty severe. Nobody disagreed with you over what one or more laws says is illegal in this regard. That does not change the common definition of rape. The law is not moral or just. The law is simply the law and can be and has been changed and is routinely changed and differs from one region to the next. Some places consider voluntary sexual intercourse as rape when a women later regrets having had sex with a man.

    The issue is being twisted. The right of young people to decide for themselves is being deprived. It’s not even about adult/child relationships as jacks is making this out to be. I’m against drivers licenses, license, plates, and vehicle registrations as well. But to the extent a drivers license is required I will also object to there being an arbitrary age set to obtain said drivers license.

Care to comment?