Darryl W Perry launches gubernatorial campaign

Press Release

For IMMEDIATE Release

Public interest lobbyist and former Chair of the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire, Darryl W Perry has launched a gubernatorial campaign. Perry, who was a Libertarian Presidential candidate in 2016, officially launched his campaign on December 4, on a platform of criminal justice reform, lower taxation, ballot access reform and voting rights.

Perry has previously lobbied for the repeal of the death penalty, which Governor Sununu vetoed twice. He has also lobbied for more fair ballot access laws, voting rights, and other reforms of the criminal justice system; all issues that he will highlight during his campaign.

Regarding criminal justice reform, Perry says, “I’m not simply going to talk about reforming sentencing guidelines; I want to end drug prohibition in New Hampshire. That’s going to include not just retail cannabis sales, but Portugal-style depenalization of all other substances for personal use; working with the Executive Council to pardon all nonviolent drug offenders; and working with the Legislature to allow those with previous drug convictions to work in the retail cannabis industry, something no other state with recreational cannabis allows.” He has also already signed the Taxpayer Pledge stating his opposition to the implementation of a sales, income, or other broadbased tax in the Granite State.

He also wants to repeal SB3 & HB1264 which are currently being litigated, and ease ballot access laws for minor party and independent candidates.

To schedule an interview with Darryl please send an email to darrylwperry@gmail.com or call 205 863 0110


Darryl W. Perry has spent most of his adult life as an advocate & activist for peace and liberty.Darryl W. Perry is running for Governor of New Hampshire as a Libertarian on a platform of criminal justice reform, lower taxation, ballot access reform and voting rights.

As a Presidential candidate in 2016, he had a goal to run the most libertarian presidential campaign in history, to promote the ideas of liberty as boldly and as often as possible, and to give as many people as possible the chance to vote for an actual libertarian in November 2016. After the Libertarian National Convention – where he placed 4th for the LP Presidential nomination – Perry formed a crowd-funded public-interest lobbyist firm, to lobby the New Hampshire Legislature in support of individual rights, minimal government and maximum freedom!

Darryl served as Chair of the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire from September 2016 until April 2018.

Now you can subscribe to Free Keene via email!

Don't miss a single post!


47 Comments

  1. This sounds like the song, “Send in the Clowns” During his multiple runnings for office, he has demonstrated very poor judgement, mood swings, and violent verbal outbursts. Who’s to say he won’t act like this during this campaign. His track record shows this.

    I believe this to be another farce for people to amuse themselves. Sorry Darryl, not many have faith in you.

  2. Spot on, Jacks! I mean really! Just think how scary it would be to have a libertarian like Darryl furnishing the magnificent people of New Hampshire with all of their high-priced leadership needs! Your guy can do things way better! Sure, it costs us a lot more, but his minions can always help themselves to more of our property to pay for everything, right pookums?

  3. JJ : Maybe he was irritated with you, ever think of that! Did you ask a dumb question?

  4. I just like that I learned a new word because of Daryl : illeism…which I always like new and different words

  5. I’m gonna vote for him, if his name’s there

  6. David Crawford – I have never spoke with or corresponded with Darryl. I’ve seen videos of his interviews. They were less then pleasant.

    Maybe you should do some research next time.

  7. Jumping Jacks: Making shit up only does yourself a disservice. Nobody believes a word coming out of your mouth. Darryl is an excellent choice for governor explicitly because he isn’t a liar. Something you would know a lot about jacks. He isn’t like most politicians and why you are likely right. Only liars and thieves ever get elected. Your opinion of him just demonstrates your perverse belief in the use of violence against peaceful people and what a masochistic you are.

  8. kk – You haven’t pointed out one thing that I am supposedly “Making shit up”.

    You seem to like answering for everyone else when you have no ability to prove your own statements. Your repeated snippets and off color language do not make you look smart. I suggest you go back to the books called “Hooked on Phonics” That might help with your off colored responses.

    “Darryl is an excellent choice for governor explicitly because he isn’t a liar”.

    Really? How often do you talk with him? Do you pal around, go for coffee, etc…? Has he told you his secrets and then backed them up with hardcore facts?

    “Only liars and thieves ever get elected”. OK? You say he isn’t a thief or a liar and in your own words you say “only liars and thieves ever get elected”. So what are you trying to say?

    “Your opinion of him just demonstrates your perverse belief in the use of violence against peaceful people and what a masochistic you are”.

    Now that is interesting. For the sake of argument, lets say Darryl is elected. How is he going to enforce his “new laws” Obviously there has to be consequences for not following the laws he made. I’m sure ti will be law enforcement who will have to enforce those laws.

    I have other opinions of people, places, objects, does that still make me someone who uses violence against people? My opinion of Darryl is taken off videos and other recordings I have seen over the past couple of years. He buried himself big time when he ran for “president”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ul0qfEL_Zog Darryl loses it on the air

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqZVVvp95nc Darryl makes no sense what so ever even the crowd is laughing at him

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvUUfPaorhE Darryl won’t even register in the state of NH. He chooses to go to jail.

    Those videos are his resume. There are many more on youtube if you want to educate yourself.

  9. Wow, I didn’t know JJ listened to EVERYTHING…I thought he didn’t like the liberty people so it’s it’s I don’t know what to think of the fact that he listens to so much of it…..I look at the liberty people as just another agent in the gumbo that’s run amok I mean who’s going to scream about liberty stuff if the liberty people aren’t there who’s going to temper the runaway statism that’s my point… So for me it’s just a voice a voice of liberty amongst are the things.

  10. “OK? You say he isn’t a thief or a liar and in your own words you say “only liars and thieves ever get elected”. So what are you trying to say?”

    That’s an easy one, Jacks! Kk’s saying that Darryl’s unlikely to get elected because he’s not a liar or a thief! This means those shady hair-hats you and your friends keep voting for are safe to continue their plundering with absolutely nothing to fear! Isn’t that just wonderful, pookums?

  11. “Obviously there has to be consequences for not following the laws he made.”

    Nice try jacks. Last I checked Darryl was advocating for the elimination of stupid laws. Not creating new ones that need to be enforced. However you are right in some sense, but only due to the way the system works. It’s much harder to repeal a bad law than to get a new one passed which eliminated the old bad law.

  12. kk – He has made multiple statements how he would do this and this but in the end, any law he brings up will have to be enforced somehow. You look at his statements and see what he wants to do.

  13. Jacks my love, repealed laws wouldn’t require enforcement. That’s the point of repealing them.

    Maybe you should try again, pookums? Don’t worry. We’ll wait. Everyone here knows how difficult it is for you to contribute anything useful, especially critical observations that are worthy of discussion.

  14. @zx81 Sam Seder is in favor of using guns to initiate aggression against peaceful people who don’t agree with him.

    Libertarians don’t mind if Sam Seder wants to be a socialist, they mind if he wants to use guns to force them to be socialists.

    . Can you disprove that ? Are you in favor of that ?

  15. Wow. Bob’s really got you by the nezmins with that one, doesn’t he zx81?

    Say, did you also know that our dear friend Sam was actually fired as an MSNBC contributor a few years back because of a Tweet saying it’s OK for talented older men like Roman Polanski to rape young girls? Sam tried to defend this statement by pretending that he was actually trying to satirize Polanski’s defenders. But we all know what he really thinks, right buddy? Wink! Wink!

  16. I was under the impression that Polanski didn’t commit actual rape although he did have sex with someone underage. My memory may be in error though. I know France and its people were overwhelmingly supportive of the guy which I thought was quite bizarre given where things have gone in the US.

  17. I’ll definitely say that I don’t know enough about what happened, but I’ll remain skeptical for now. There are too many claims of rape for me to believe that it’s not anything more than another false claim. Regretting have had sex with someone after being convinced by others does not make for a genuine case of rape. If you want me to take your seriously you don’t wait years to report or make an accusation. There isn’t any evidence at that point. It’s just character assassination. You want my sympathy you are going to need to report it immediately and follow proper procedures for evidence to be gathered. It’s already a low barrier for a conviction. I expect at least evidence of actual sexual activity occurring before I’m going to to convict someone of such serious crime.

  18. Delays in reporting a rape is a problem, isn’t it kk? Of course Geimer didn’t wait until 2019 to level her accusations against Polanski. She did it way back in 1977 – the same year as the incident in question. Weird, huh?

  19. @Bob

    You’re missing the point

    You can feel as morally superior to Sam Seder as you want, but 99/9% of people aren’t libertarian & the vast majority of people who watched or listened to Sam’s interview with Daryl aren’t going to be libertarians, nor will they ever be having listened or watched that interview as they’re more likely to thinks libertarians are complete lunatics.

  20. What a outstanding selling point, zx81! You’re right! We should be commending these guys, not criticizing them! After all, it’s completely sane and principled for Sam Seder and his viewers to vote for a government that steals from the rest of the unwilling populace!

    Say, I’ve got an even better idea, zx81! Why don’t we just stop trying to share the same system of government and go our separate ways? That way you guys can have all the food stamps and government housing that you want, and the rest of us can have our freedom back! Whaddya say, buddy?

  21. Drac I wasn’t criticizing libertarianism I was criticizing how it was being presented if you can’t grasp that you’ll never win people over or even convince them to leave folk alone

  22. @ZX81, thank you for your explanation and not criticizing libertarianism. I may be guilty of misunderstanding your point.

    I don’t know if I’m morally superior to Sam Seder, but I’m confident the ideas I embrace are. Sam Seder is good at being the “smartest guy in a room” full of ignorant people.

  23. I’ve had many more less-than-civil conversations with the left than Bob probably has, zx81. So I tend to be a little less forgiving.

    Anyway, it’s unlikely that the left can ever be convinced to leave us folks alone. They know all too well that they’d starve in the streets without hard-working taxpayers to keep them fed and housed. And who’s better at forcing the rest of us to give them those things than politicians elected exclusively for the purpose of stealing the rightful property away from us? I don’t want to share a system of government with these people.

  24. Drac…. Are you somewhere where you can do that? I dont know if you. are a FSP’er, …or are somewhere where you can live unfettered by those things

  25. That’s a stupid question David. You know as well as I do that there’s no such place. But I don’t think there’s anything wrong with like-minded people gathering territory to create one. And there’s certainly nothing wrong in defending that territory from people who seek to destroy it.

  26. It’s not a stupid question.
    At all. But obviously it made you push aside your generally civil tone opting for name calling and defensivness

  27. So getting to where you are heading or wanting to go is stupid.
    The notion of actually achieving it absurd.lol
    If you read what I asked, part was if you were a fsp’er..

  28. No, David. You asked me if I’d discovered a place where our enemies would leave us alone. That is a stupid question. And I pointed it out in that way because I wanted my next point to hit home.

    I’ll reclarify. What I think is far more absurd is the notion that we should just play fair and give the left access to a shared system of government. They don’t play nice. So why should we?

  29. I made a mistake addressing your idiotic ass, directly.
    No add hominem is not argument.
    You can assert that it is till your blue in the face! Fuck you!
    No go fuck off!
    Where is the block button. I guess I touched on some cognative dissonance…
    Done talking to your stupid ass

  30. You’re misinterpreting what I’m trying to say here, David. But if you think it’s best to admonish me anyway with your own measure of the silent treatment, then by all means, do carry on.

  31. When the level of discourse starts getting lowered by add hominems… The discussion is OVER..You can call it the “silent treatment” and say “carry on” all you want …later

  32. My goodness, David. Don’t you think you’re being a tad overdramatic here? You’re starting to act out just the way Jacks does. And that’s the kind of behavior I wouldn’t think anyone would want to emulate.

  33. The tone of the discussion changed because of you …ok dumb ass .. now go fuck off

  34. No one is emulating anything you stupid fuck

  35. And yet your posts just keep getting increasingly hostile, now don’t they David? Perhaps you should make yourself a little nightcap to calm yourself down? It’s never good to go to bed angry you know.

  36. Maybe you should get a grip on your condescending, patronizing tone and delivery and realize you arent up there

  37. There is a community-minded spirit behind my scornful demeanor, David dear. I’m sorry that you haven’t been able to suss out my well-meaning intentions.

    Anyway David, it’s good to see that a few days of emotional decompression has finally brought some improvement to your sour disposition. You’ve been very touchy these last few days, haven’t you? I hope this means that you’re ready to suspend the hostilities? Whaddya say, buddy? I’m willing to bury the hatchet if you are!

  38. Fine…lol

  39. That’s the spirit, David!

  40. “Jumping Jacks” writes, “I have other opinions of people, places, objects, does that still make me someone who uses violence against people?”

    No, it doesn’t. What makes you someone who uses violence against people is trying to force those opinions on other people via government, even when they are not violating anyone else’s rights or causing any harm to others or their property.

  41. Oh, and…

    Go Darryl!

  42. Starchild – No, I do not “force” anyone to accept my opinions. I do not control the government or how laws are made and enforced. If libertarians came up with a bill or law and it passed, that law would have to be enforced. Who’s going to enforce it? The police? Government?

    I suggest don’t be a hypocrite. Writing the statement you made is a logical absurdity.

  43. “If libertarians came up with a bill or law and it passed, that law would have to be enforced.”

    Say Jacks, remember when NH’s libertarians did exactly that and voted to make it legal for pharmacies to sell naloxone to anyone?

    Wow, that was an unexpected turn of events, wasn’t it? I mean just imagine! The NH government was forced – and by the voters of all people – to allow drug addicts unhindered access to life-saving medication!

    Oh, and remember how mad you were about that? Boy, it’s almost as if you thought it was going to signal the Rapture or something. Instead, it just prevented a lot of drug addicts from dying from overdoses. Wonderful stuff that naloxone, isn’t it?

  44. My objection to this guy’s candidacy is very simple. He’s a very inept worker. No follow through. Unable to follow up on tasks assigned to him. Bad attitude as well. And he’s a gullible guy as well. In other words, its relatively easy to fool him. Not recommended. New Hampshire deserves better than this guy.

  45. Jumping Jacks – You don’t do it directly. You rely on people in government to commit aggression for you.

    If you didn’t, at heart, realize there’s something odious about that, you wouldn’t have needed to pretend, as you did in the sentence I first quoted, that the allegations against you were simply based on you having opinions that people here disagree with.

    You can have all the misguided opinions you want – the issue is not you and your opinions, the issue is when you attempt to use government aggression to impose those opinions on others.

Care to comment?