Scenes Outside US Senate Debate in NH: Kauffman Protest, Joa Arrested after Bolduc Lies

Free Keene already published the damning video showing General Don Bolduc, the republican candidate for US senate in NH, lying to police to have Joa from “Breaking the Flaw” wrongfully arrested. The story and video have gone viral yet right wing publications have largely ignored the truth of the video that proves Joa never touched Bolduc. Meanwhile, Joa has filed complaints against Bolduc with Goffstown police, as Bolduc was the one who committed assault against Joa and then made false reports to police.

Bolduc has continued to lie, even after walking back his claim that he was assaulted.

Now, you can see this longer form video showing various scenes from outside the senate debate at St. Anselm College, including libertarians protesting Jeremy Kauffman being excluded from the debate, but mostly focusing on the entire arrest and subsequent release of Joa:

Should be an interesting case when it goes to trial. Joa’s arraignment is at Goffstown District Court at 8:15am on December 1st.

UPDATE: Joa has released his first-person, unedited video of the whole arrest scene. (more…)

LPNH Hosts “Defend the Guard” Rally in Concord on 9/11

This weekend, on 9/11, the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire organized a rally in front of the State House in Concord, to support the “Defend the Guard” legislation. Defend the Guard, if passed, would prohibit New Hampshire’s National Guard from being deployed to active combat without a formal declaration of war by Congress.

Multiple people spoke at the rally, which was attended by over 40 people, including veterans Derek ProulxBen Weir and Justin O’Donnell. Plus, Foundation for NH Independence President Alu Axelman, Naturalist Capitalist host Reed Coverdale, and LPNH candidate for US Senate Jeremy Kauffman also spoke.  Here are all their speeches:

Free Software: Something Most Libertarians & Socialists Agree On? Or Almost

On Tuesday a democrat in New Hampshire’s house introduced a bill in support of free software. The House Bill (HB) 1273 would be a step forward for software freedom. It proposes to help protect the user freedom of New Hampshire residents in a number of important ways.

  • Prohibits the state government from requiring residents to use proprietary software, whether in remote court appearances, tax filings, standardized test-taking, coursework in public schools, or matters relating to any state benefits
  • Forbid employers from using non-compete clauses to prevent their employees from contributing to free software
  • Prevents state agencies from mandating the use of non-free JavaScript
  • Prohibits NH law enforcement from participating in the investigation or prosecution of copyright claims brought by proprietary software developers against free software developers
  • Forms a state commission to promote the use of free software in state agencies

Now much of the legislation is a bit wishy-washy with no real teeth, but there are some parts that in theory if passed could have a beneficial impact on our freedom. Other parts could be a little more problematic for those who are libertarian and do not believe in the use of violence to achieve social and political objectives (outside that of a defensive nature anyway). Fortunately most of the bill is tailored toward government and is more defensive in nature than not. Some not so great parts would likely also not have much real world impact.

One part in particular should get libertarians everywhere excited. While it probably was not intended by the legislator proposing the bill, a democrat, it would none-the-less be an amazing step forward in reducing the harm of violent thugs in government. The bill would ensure that users have the right to access the source code for any device utilized in the creation of evidence. This would in effect result in evidence being thrown out whereby the government could not produce the source code to the device that created it. Evidence from such devices as radar guns would no longer be valid in court for all practical purposes. The reason for this is that the suppliers of such devices will not release such source code and thereby prosecutors won’t be able to comply with the law. Before the socialists get upset by this though it’s something everyone should be concerned about. It’s already well known that these devices are full of bugs and this would likely result in evidence being invalidated everywhere if the code were released- not just in NH- and so the device manufacturers would never want to do this short of significant improvements to the code. The solution is to pass this in more states and force manufacturers hand-else let this stand as a means of eliminating a law that should not be in that there is no party that can actually show injury.

To have any real chance of seeing this pass the legislation would likely need to be significantly trimmed. Some parts are problematic such as the forbidding of employers from using non-compete clauses to prevent their employees from contributing to free software for instance. This would likely be unpopular with many state legislators who otherwise support software freedom while also supporting ones right to negotiate a contract free of government interference. Maybe there is a way to put this into law that were more freedom-focused, like letting such terms be unenforceable via law, but either way much of the legislature isn’t going to want to interfere in the private affairs of employee-employer relations either way. I suspect this is likely to have little impact in either case given non-compete clauses within the free software world are already taboo and many of us (myself included) would not sign (or require it) such in an employment contract.

One interesting aspect of the bill is that it would prohibit NH law enforcement from partaking in investigation or prosecution of copyright claims against free software developers. While I can in good conscious support this and would go farther to argue for the elimination of copyright it’s unclear to me where this is currently an issue. Maybe it’s connected to the breaking of digital restrictions such as would be the case with something like DeCSS. A free software program that breaks encryption on commercial DVDs. This falls under copyright law and might be prosecuted by state agencies although that said it’s normally a federal offense. State law enforcement can generally however prosecute federal crimes as I understand it or otherwise partake in federal investigation and prosecution thereof. Of which is more common I do believe with civil asset forfeiture cases.

In spite of some of the issues with the legislation a small contingent of libertarians showed up to more or less in support the legislation as well as others from the free software community. One Jon “maddog” Hall, the Board Chair for the Linux Professional Institute, for instance came out and spoke in favor of the legislation.

Jon “maddog” Hall is the Board Chair for the Linux Professional Institute

The main theme surrounding the hearing seemed to be that of software security and the cost of implementation. New Hampshire’s head of IT for instance also spoke from what appeared to be a purchased lobbyist point-of-view. Declaring more or less that it would be of significant burden and cost to transition to free software (while saying they’re already using free software humorously). The opposing side of course pointed out the truth in that there is always a cost to migrate from one release of a program to another, but it’s not significantly different from that of migrating to free software. Not to mention that while free software isn’t about price, but the liberty, security, and control, this twisting and confusing of the bill was quite disingenuous. The long term costs are reduced as no license agreements need be acquired. Commercial support is generally available too despite the head of IT trying to confuse the reps by comparing commercial software to free software. These are for all intensive purposes one and the same. You can acquire commercial support from Redhat for instance for free software and even much of Microsoft’s own code is based on free software. This bill was about libre, not gratis where libre means freedom, and gratis means price.

While the head of NH IT argued against free software on the basis of features, commercial support, and security the reality is these are more often than not mute points given features can be added to free software unlike the proprietary software he favored. Security bugs can be fixed not at the whim of a particular company, but that of either, you, the community, or the commercial entity you contract with for said free software (example: Redhat). Yes- you can buy free software and many companies do. Just because something is libre doesn’t mean you can’t or shouldn’t pay for its development/support. And unlike proprietary software free software can be seen, read, and audited by third parties with or without the consent of the company producing it (once released). These are the things that ensure security- not anti-virus software or proprietary software vendors of which the former is a kin to putting up a fence and expecting it to stop ants from coming onto your property. The head of IT didn’t stop there- even implying that free software was insecure through association with Bitcoin. While not said outright during the hearing he referenced recent socially engineered attacks on municipalities. Somewhat recently there were reports of municipalities being ‘hacked’- which were in reality social engineering attacks primarily involving the traditional banking system. It was only after the attacks occurred and the money paid by employees of the municipalities to criminals overseas that said money was utilized to purchase Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies. If there is a flaw- it’s not the software- and it’s certainly not the result of it being libre.

Video Of The Hearing On House Bill (HB) 1273

VIDEO: NH Statists Hold ANOTHER Lengthy Seminar on Free State Project’s Threat

NH Statists FREAKING Out About the FSP

NH Statists FREAKING Out About the FSP

In a strong unintended endorsement, the New Hampshire democrats had yet another online meeting tonight to expose the Free State Project‘s migrants for infiltrating the republican party, winning dozens of state house seats, and our various other tremendous successes.

Despite claiming our numbers are small, the entire video conference – put on by former state reps, at least one of whom migrated to NH – was all about how well-organized our decentralized freedom migration has been. The statists are extremely concerned about the Free State Project, as evidenced by the fact that they have held multiple such meetings like this over the last several years. They used to be held in person but now they are too frightened of catching a cold to meet in real life, and it’s easier to keep the liberty activists out of the discussion this way.

The former state reps giving the presentation believe that there’s some secret big libertarian money funding activists to move here, which is totally false. Otherwise, they have clearly done a LOT of homework to learn as much as they can about this movement, because it is working. We are a peaceful threat to the status quo and they hate that liberty is rising in New Hampshire.

Thankfully, YouTuber and NH resident Dr. Karlyn Borysenko live streamed the event on her channel for hundreds of live viewers, so you can watch the democrats’ whole presentation. It’s basically a 90-minute promo piece for the Free State Project.

Nowhere else in the other 49 states are the people in power actually worried about libertarian activists. The reason they aren’t concerned, is because libertarians are completely ineffective. The reason we’re so ineffective elsewhere is because there are so few of us, spread across the entire country. That’s the reason the Free State Project was formed. It was a good idea and two decades later it’s a proven success. The statists are very, very scared.

Watch the whole hilarious seminar here – this link jumps you to 35 minutes into Karlyn’s stream where the democrat presentation begins:

NH’s Boogaloo Boys are Libertarians – Not White Supremacists or Right Wingers

Libertarian NH Boogaloo Boys

Libertarian NH Boogaloo Boys Demonstrate Outside NH State House

American mainstream news media has been reporting this weekend on the massive buildups of armed government goons at state houses across the United States. Expecting massive armed demonstrations of Boogaloo supporters, some of the state gangs locked down their capitol areas completely while others, like New Hampshire, took it easy and only had state troopers parked around and walking the state house property in pairs. By comparison, the New York Times said Massachusetts’ capitol had hundreds of officers wearing helmets and carrying batons.

However, around the country, barely anyone showed up. Some liberty activists said they wouldn’t attend because they believed the events were federal honeypots designed to gather information about freedom-lovers. Others foolishly believed that exercising their right to bear arms would mean their rights would be more likely taken from them. Luckily, in New Hampshire, five Boogaloo Boys showed up with rifles front slung. They were well-spoken and self-described as Libertarian, with one even talking about the Non Aggression Principle to the large number of reporters that were present.

One Boogalooer even educated the media people on gun safety and basics, with the photographers crazily shooting pictures when the Boogaloo Boy showed a magazine loaded with bullets. The news media was informed on the history of the Boogaloo – the name is based on the Eighties breakdancing movie “Breakin’ 2: Electric Boogaloo”, with the members describing their group as a real-life meme. They also explained the origin of their Hawaiian shirt dress code, which came about after social media sites started to crack down on any groups referencing Boogaloo. The social media crackdown on the term forced them to use code words that were similar, like “Big Igloo” or “Big Luau”, which naturally led to the shirts.

The Boys acknowledged there are also female Boogalooers and said they do not tolerate any white supremacists in the Boogaloo. Their signage and message was pro-peace. Despite describing themselves and their movement as mostly Libertarians, the New York Times reporter Ruth Graham still mislabeled them “far right” in her story. Concord Patch reporter Tony Schinella filed a more detailed report including video.

Vincent from Shire Free Media also filed this package showing excerpts of what was a lengthy discussion between the media and the Boogaloo Boys: