Dave Ridley talks with William Kostric in New Hampshire. Ridley Report
Recent Forum Posts
- Victim's come in all shapes and sizes: Robert L. Lamontagne's wrongful conviction April 2, 2025 penguin
- Robert L. Lamontagne vs. The State of New Hampshire: I've Appeared March 31, 2025 system
- A new American civil war March 31, 2025 Leif_Alexander
- Please, Show Some Decency March 21, 2025 system
- Demand Letter to Keene Police RE: 91-A Compliance March 17, 2025 system
Other Cool Sites
William Kostric – Good Job Man! You took Chris to the cleaners… You had a very clear and mellow tone which C Matthews HATES! You exposed him further, that is a talking piece to the far left wing establishment.
Thank you for clearly outlining the connection of our rights – people better wake up or they will realize that America is no longer the land of the FREE.
The priest deserves major kudos for granting Kostric 'sanctuary' on the private church grounds. And Kostric makes a great point that it would have been great if there had been 100 liberty activities open carrying at the protest. Kostric did an outstanding job, especially given the circumstances, with the Matthew's interview.
William, you did a spectacular job. Congratulations!
Stupendous job, William!
Nice interview Dave and William. I'm curious as the location of this interview.
Mr. Kostric really impressed me. It would be nice to have an email address for the priest that granted sanctuary, I would like to send him a note of thanks.
This thing is going pretty viral, there is already a William Kostric for Congress facebook page out there which was formed and already has over 50 members from individuals from outside the FSP.
<blockquote cite=""> Mr. Kostric really impressed me. It would be nice to have an email address for the priest that granted sanctuary, I would like to send him a note of thanks. I think that the priest was somehow connected with the Portsmouth police department. At the rally the cop who took William aside said that he had talked to the police chief and the chief was a member of the church and somehow got permission through that connection. A man was at the rally that was rumored to be the priest from the church and was dressed in plain… Read more »
what's wrong with you all – he is clearly a nutter
What's wrong with you Stu – You are clearly a nutter.
Someone asked about the Greek Orthodox priest's email… I believe it is…
revangelopappas@yahoo.com
Would be nice if we all sent some thank you notes.
no – you are all the nutters!
Well argued, Stu! I'm convinced now: William is clearly a nutter, and so am I.
yes you probably are! Carrying guns to town meetings – that's gotta be insane behaviour!
What did one nutter say to the other nutter? Don't be a Dick…..ahahaha i know not really 🙁 . made me laugh a lilbit
Great job Mr. William! Very nice standing your principled ground under pressure from that professional shill.
Great job Will.
And good job to the NH police for being sane about it and major good job to the pries for granting sanctuary.
It cracks me up to see people just freak the fuck out at the sight of a peaceful man with firearm while dozens of men with firearms and costumes wonder about harassing people.
I was amused when Mr. Kostric mentioned something about "our rights being taken away" by President Obama. Chris Matthews asked him which specific rights are being taken away and he could not name one. That is so typical of you tea-bagging nut jobs. Can any of you freaks who are lining up to kiss Kostric's ass tell me what rights are being taken away by the 7-month old administration? And don't say gun rights because there is not one lawmaker or otherwise influential person who wants to take your guns away. So please tell me which rights the evil President… Read more »
How about the right to purchase my own health care as I see fit, or to purchase none at all? That, of course, is a lesser "right." The foundational right – the axiom of freedom – is the right to property, the right to self-ownership.
which specific rights are being taken away None. Zero. Zip. Nada. You can not take away rights. You can only violate, or infringe upon, them. Mr Obama is one of millions of government officials who sanction and perpetuate the idea that aggression to get what they want is ok as long as it's done with good intentions. So he's not the only one doing it, just the most prominent one. What rights is he violating or helping to violate? The right to life: he hasn't lifted gun control restrictions. The right to work: he hasn't lifted laws against undocumented immigrants… Read more »
Nobody's taking away your right to buy your own health care. I'm sure any insurance company will be happy to sell you a plan any time you want (and I'm also sure they'd be more than happy to charge you exorbitant prices), or not, if you don't want to. And the right to property? What the hell do you mean? Are you saying Obama is going to take your property away? What evidence do you have that we are going to lose the right to self-ownership? I want evidence, not some fear-inducing statements gleaned from listening to Glenn Beck.
I think you are too emotional right now to recognize the evidence, which is all around you. It's also probably a very new concept to you, and it is usually very difficult to grasp. It's a somewhat unintuitive concept when coming from the culture and society that we've grown up in. I'll say that if the govt takes my money without my permission (i.e., taxes), then the govt is taking away my property, is infringing upon my right to self-ownership. You're right in saying that Obama himself is not taking my property, but he is the "leader" of this govt,… Read more »
I am too emotional? Please. I have not been "angry, aggressive and rude". That would describe the behavior of the right-wing kooks of the last few weeks. The fact is that the tea-bagging fringe is full of nothing but lies and fear. Fear of the "Hitler" President. Lies about "death panels" and Obama not being a citizen. I am sorry if you think I'm rude but the truth can hurt. You are trying to intimidate by showing up with guns, by screaming and by making death threats. You are all tools of the right-wing of the GOP, which desperately wants… Read more »
@Skeptic:
You said:
• "What the hell do you mean?"
• "the tea-bagging fringe"
• " That is so typical of you tea-bagging nut jobs."
• "Can any of you freaks who are lining up to kiss Kostric’s ass"
That sounds aggressive, rude, and angry to me (as well as passionate and emotional, in general).
Now these crazy birthers are bringing weapons for shooting the President. It is all the fault of Reagan for kicking of you schizophrenics out of the StateMentalHospitals.
You are an American Hero William Kostric.
Thanks.
Anyone who thinks we're right-wing tools of the GOP obviously hasn't been following Free Keene for very long or they'd recall when we were ripping into Dubya, arguably a lot harder than we ever picked on Obama. You guys are just spouting your talking points like a broken record. I'm sure it's very comforting to hear it over and over again from your friends on your liberal websites, but it rings very hollow here amongst liberty-lovers who see the left and right sides of the political spectrum as nothing but tools of the State for manipulating people. Republicans and Democrats… Read more »
An American hero? You people are truly pathetic.
Sorry Mike, I didn't realize you folks were so sensitive. Wouldn't know from all the tough talk at these town halls.
I'm very impressed with the cogent way Kostric was able to handle himself with Chris Matthews. I was a little nervous just before I first clicked play on the video, but seeing it all the way through was very reassuring. However, while I agree with all of William Kostric's rationale for bringing the gun, I do wonder whether it might be somewhat risky to mix open carrying with other forms of protest. Most open carriers do it as a stand-alone thing as they go about their normal business and it also reminded me of something that Marc Emery said in… Read more »
This is making news here in the UK! Good job Will, I think you came across well in your interviews and look respectable in pictures which is always good. Definitely need to see more protesters open carrying!
Ron Paul addresses this situation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YpM60Kvwmk
As someone not in NH yet I have to say. I've been noticing a ramping up of news coverage coming out as a result of the activism. I think it's a good sign that here at free keene, there are these people passing by like the person named, "skeptic." If people like this are coming by who have absolutely no idea what free keene is or the liberty movement. It gives me encouragement that there are a lot of liberty lovers checking out the liberty movement that is happening in NH. This will hopefully translate into more signers and eventually… Read more »
Jon Stewart just eviscerated this half-wit during the open segment of this evening's "The Daily Show". What must it be like to be so desperate and pathetic that ANY attention you receive is processed as salutary?
"George Donnelly "You can not take away rights. You can only violate, or infringe upon, them." Really, Georgie? Seems to me you don't know too much about reality and rule of law. try this scenario: You are driving down the highway and are pulled over for not having a license plate. You refuse to identify yourself, so the cop arrests you. He then firsks you and finds you have a gun. It is legally owned. He takes you to the staion, and locks you in a cell. Does he allow you to take your gun to the cell with you?… Read more »
In your scenario, the rights have only been violated. Not taken away. I deeply enjoy and care for – even love – the country that is America. It's pretty darn neat! But by that I just mean the people and the land. The government is not included in the country. The rule of law is not an end. There can be bad laws and good laws. The constitution is just four pieces of parchment, signed (as a contract) by no one. It either enabled this or it failed to stop it. We need to get back to natural laws. Do… Read more »
Kudos to Kostric for a masterful job on Hardball!
"In your scenario, the rights have only been violated. Not taken away." No violation: your rights are LIMITED by, at minimum, running up against OTHERS' rights. "I deeply enjoy and care for – even love – the country that is America. It’s pretty darn neat! But by that I just mean the people and the land. The government is not included in the country." Except that it is: "The United States of America" is first and foremost a legal construct — "As system of laws, and not of men" — John Adams — constituted in its Constitution. "The rule of… Read more »
your rights are LIMITED by, at minimum, running up against OTHERS’ rights. How is your right to life limited by others' right to life? A right to life is not a right to other people's production to sustain your life, so there is no conflict. And if there is a conflict, it is not a right. It isn’t merely a “contract”: it is also the blueprint for the gov’t. And it was signed by most of the Framers. And ratified by a majority. Love it or leave it — but didn’t give us the crap that you represent or revere… Read more »
your rights are LIMITED by, at minimum, running up against OTHERS’ rights. "How is your right to life limited by others’ right to life?" Thanks for the admission: you're both law-illiterate and deliberately dense. Why do you limit others' rights to the generalization of "right to life" when they also have the same "right" to COERCE you by uninvitedly putting a gun in YOUR face? "A right to life is not a right to other people’s production to sustain your life, so there is no conflict." There is a conflict, though you choose to deny it when it is others'… Read more »
JNagarya, you've descended into incomprehensibility. If you want to lay out your argument in a clear, direct and rational way – absent ad hominem – I'd love to engage you. Otherwise, no thanks. I have more important things to do than be insulted. ;D
Just to assist you in keeping you on track: you assert: “The rule of law is not an end. There can be bad laws and good laws.” And then you assert: “The constitution is just four pieces of parchment, signed (as a contract) by no one.” I'll keep it simpler than 101: law 100: As constitutions are implemented by means of statutes, and you reject the Constitution, then you reject all implementations of it, both "good" and "bad". Thus you reject not only the Second Amendment — on which you base your COERCIVE rejection of the Constitution INCLUDING the Second… Read more »
"JNagarya, you’ve descended into incomprehensibility." Ad hominem effort to avoid the issue noted. The reality: I have an actual education in actual law; you do not. Your's is the same unoriginal pseudo-law gibberish spewed for over twenty years by the anti-intellectual, intellectually-lazy and -dishonest law-illiterates who asserted the same self-serving sociopathy as Tim McVeigh and his ilk. "If you want to lay out your argument in a clear, direct and rational way – absent ad hominem – . . . ." Ad hominem noted. "I’d love to engage you." What is clear is that my clear and direct autopsy of… Read more »
George,
I'm looking at your clock; looks like it's been thoroughly cleaned.
Regards,
Ann
Jnagarya, Rights are given by God (or natural law), even the founders recognized this. They can be respected or violated by Government, never created or destroyed by them. The fact that people disagree on what rights they have does not mean that those rights do not exist, any more than the fact that most thought the world was flat a thousand years ago made it so. The law does not change morality. It was immoral to hold slaves in 1840, no matter how legal it was, and it was moral to help free them no matter how illegal that was.… Read more »
George,
I’m looking at your clock; looks like it’s been thoroughly cleaned.
Regards,
Ann
_____
There is, of course, a way to look at it that is wholly from Georgie and his ilk's "perspective":
They have declared themselves outside the law, therefore admit to being outlaws.
The only difference between "criminal" and "outlaw" are their respective spellings.
"Comment by Paul — August 13, 2009 @ 4:21 pm "Jnagarya, "Rights are given by God (or natural law), even the founders recognized this." No, they did not. In fact, they knew that "natural law" is a subjectivism that cannot be verified or relied upon objectively. Had they believed as you FALSELY assert, they wouldn't have bothered enacting non-"natural" L-A-W. As for "God": stop the bullshit: for one, I'd ask you to prove that fantasy is more than subjective conjecture — with objective evidence — but we both know that you cannot. In addition, the Founders/Framers secured freedom of conscience… Read more »
Great job William. I cheered while listening to you on hardball. GOOD WORK. You mentioned a very ironic point, that obama is considered a constitutional scholar… I guess you need to know the constitution well, to go against it.
Ann, please don't make me laugh any more. I'm still in stitches over the MSNBC meltdown video.
Wow this comment section was derailed pretty badly.
Thank you William Kostric I think you did fine on hardball seeing as the host is not great at interviewing people he does not agree with.
And a big thank you to Dave Ridley for doing another wonderful video.
<blockquote cite="JNagarya"> No, they did not. In fact, they knew that “natural law” is a subjectivism that cannot be verified or relied upon objectively. Had they believed as you FALSELY assert, they wouldn’t have bothered enacting non-”natural” L-A-W." Uh, "When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they… Read more »