The FreeState?

  1. http://www.freestateproject.org/

    the free state project is an agreement among 20,000 pro-liberty activists to move to new hampshire, where they will exert the fullest practical effort toward the creation of a society in which the maximum role of government is the protection of life, liberty, and property. the success of the project would likely entail reductions in taxation and regulation, reforms at all levels of government to expand individual rights and free markets, and a restoration of constitutional federalism, demonstrating the benefits of liberty to the rest of the nation and the world.
    comments?
    •  
  2. 28 Comments

  3. by   Roy Fokker
    Oh come on!

    Nobody is gonna join me there?
  4. by   weetziebat
    Quote from roy fokker
    oh come on!

    nobody is gonna join me there?

    brrrr!! too dang cold in new hampshire, roy.
  5. by   VivaLasViejas
    Yeah.........I'd be more than happy to join you if it were someplace a little warmer.......like Arizona.
  6. by   Spidey's mom
    [color=#993300]american conservatism
    [font=garamond, times]holding court
    [font=verdana, times]there's a crackdown over miers, not a "crackup."


    [font=verdana, times]monday, october 17, 2005 12:01 a.m.

    [font=verdana, times]i love being a conservative. we conservatives are proud of our philosophy. unlike our liberal friends, who are constantly looking for new words to conceal their true beliefs and are in a perpetual state of reinvention, we conservatives are unapologetic about our ideals. we are confident in our principles and energetic about openly advancing them. we believe in individual liberty, limited government, capitalism, the rule of law, faith, a color-blind society and national security. we support school choice, enterprise zones, tax cuts, welfare reform, faith-based initiatives, political speech, homeowner rights and the war on terrorism. and at our core we embrace and celebrate the most magnificent governing document ever ratified by any nation--the u.s. constitution. along with the declaration of independence, which recognizes our god-given natural right to be free, it is the foundation on which our government is built and has enabled us to flourish as a people.



    we conservatives are never stronger than when we are advancing our principles. and that's the nature of our current debate over the nomination of harriet miers. will she respect the constitution? will she be an originalist who will accept the limited role of the judiciary to interpret and uphold it, and leave the elected branches--we, the people--to set public policy? given the extraordinary power the supreme court has seized from the representative parts of our government, this is no small matter. roe v. wade is a primary example of judicial activism. regardless of one's position on abortion, seven unelected and unaccountable justices simply did not have the constitutional authority to impose their pro-abortion views on the nation. the constitution empowers the people, through their elected representatives in congress or the state legislatures, to make this decision.

    abortion is only one of countless areas in which a mere nine lawyers in robes have imposed their personal policy preferences on the rest of us. the court has conferred due process rights on terrorists detained at guantanamo bay and benefits on illegal immigrants. it has ruled that animated cyberspace child pornography is protected speech, but certain broadcast ads aired before elections are illegal; it has held that the ten commandments can't be displayed in a public building, but they can be displayed outside a public building; and the court has invented rationales to skirt the constitution, such as using foreign law to strike down juvenile death penalty statutes in over a dozen states.

    for decades conservatives have considered judicial abuse a direct threat to our constitution and our form of government. the framers didn't create a judicial oligarchy. they created a representative republic. our opposition to judicial activism runs deep. we've witnessed too many occasions where republican presidents have nominated the wrong candidates to the court, and we want more assurances this time--some proof. the left, on the other hand, sees the courts as the only way to advance their big-government agenda. they can't win national elections if they're open about their agenda. so, they seek to impose their policies by judicial fiat. it's time to call them on it. and that's what many of us had hoped and expected when the president made his nomination.

    some liberal commentators mistakenly view the passionate debate among conservatives over the miers nomination as a "crackup" on the right. they are giddy about "splits" in the conservative base of the gop. they are predicting doom for the rest of the president's term and gloom for republican electoral chances in 2006. as usual, liberals don't understand conservatives and never will.

    the miers nomination shows the strength of the conservative movement. this is no "crackup." it's a crackdown. we conservatives are unified in our objectives. and we are organized to advance them. the purpose of the miers debate is to ensure that we are doing the very best we can to move the nation in the right direction. and when all is said and done, we will be even stronger and more focused on our agenda and defeating those who obstruct it, just in time for 2006 and 2008. lest anyone forget, for several years before the 1980 election, we had knockdown battles within the gop. the result: ronald reagan won two massive landslides.


    the real crackup has already occurred--on the left! the democratic party has been hijacked by 1960s retreads like howard dean; billionaire eccentrics like george soros; and leftwing computer geeks like moveon.org. it nominated john kerry, a notorious vietnam-era antiwar activist, as its presidential standard-bearer. its major spokesmen are old extremists like ted kennedy and new propagandists like michael moore. its great presidential hope is one of the most divisive figures in u.s. politics, hillary clinton. and its favorite son is an impeached, disbarred, held-in-contempt ex-president, bill clinton.


    the democratic party today is split over the war and a host of cultural issues, such as same-sex marriage and partial birth abortion. it wants to raise taxes, but dares not say so. it can't decide what message to convey to the american people or how to convey it. and even its once- reliable allies in the big media aren't as influential in promoting the party and its agenda as they were in the past. the new media--talk radio, the internet and cable tv--not only have a growing following, but have helped expose the bias and falsehoods of the big-media, e.g., dan rather, cbs news and the forged national guard documents. hence, circulation and audience is down, and dropping.
    the american left is stuck trying to repeat the history of its presumed glory years. they hope people will see iraq as vietnam, the entirety of the bush administration as watergate and hurricane katrina as the great depression. beyond looking to the past for their salvation, the problem is that they continue to deceive even themselves. none of their comparisons are true. meanwhile, we conservatives will continue to focus on making history.

    ********************

    p.s. i have permission to reprint the article - guess who wrote it?








    http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/...l?id=110007417

    roy - i'm with everyone else - someplace warmer please!!

    steph
  7. by   Roy Fokker
    Sorry Steph.

    A. It ain't by and large about Conservatives. Libertarians and Conservatives stopped seeing eye-to-eye a long time ago.


    B. Got nothing to do with current judicial nomination in as much as it has to do with mounting frustration about being unable to affect the real pilotical system over the past 30 years.



    Remember how I told y'all some time ago that I couldn't make up my mind if I was a 'Libertarian' or a 'libertarian' ? Well, I suppose this is where it starts to change. We have a real opportunity of achieving, as the project itself states, "liberty in our lifetimes". Sure, I could go on living in New York (or according to my original plans, head down to Texas or Arizona) .... but will it change things at all?

    Nope.

    So rather than keep myself as an "inconsequential political entity", I'd rather be some place where like minded people and I can effect SOME change. This is a golden opportunity to show that the system works and will work if it's put into practice like it's supposed to be.

    NH is/was chosen because it already has some of the basics - low taxes, small government and lots of personal freedoms. What the Project is trying to achieve is political dominance in one State and thus prove that the model and theory work even in this modern age.

    If it means I gotta endure cold winters and snow storms - well, then so be it.
  8. by   Roy Fokker
    Oh and I just had to say:

    [FONT=Verdana, Times]The court has conferred due process rights on terrorists detained at Guantanamo Bay.
    It's actually in line with the Constitution Mister. Convicted murderers have due process rights. Everyone is equal before the law.
    [FONT=Verdana, Times]
    [FONT=Verdana, Times]
    It has ruled that animated cyberspace child pornography is protected speech, but certain broadcast ads aired before elections are illegal
    Is Rush still drugged up on Oxy? Where did he pull this one from? Child porn has been and always has been illegal.

    [FONT=Verdana, Times]
    [FONT=Verdana, Times]
    it has held that the Ten Commandments can't be displayed in a public building, but they can be displayed outside a public building
    Yes and it can't be done so on public ground. Hey Rush, how'd ya like it if I placed a large crescent and star on the grounds of the US Capitol ?
    [FONT=Verdana, Times]
    [FONT=Verdana, Times]
    For decades conservatives have considered judicial abuse a direct threat to our Constitution and our form of government. The framers didn't create a judicial oligarchy. They created a representative republic. Our opposition to judicial activism runs deep. We've witnessed too many occasions where Republican presidents have nominated the wrong candidates to the court, and we want more assurances this time--some proof. The left, on the other hand, sees the courts as the only way to advance their big-government agenda. They can't win national elections if they're open about their agenda. So, they seek to impose their policies by judicial fiat. It's time to call them on it. And that's what many of us had hoped and expected when the president made his nomination.
    Oh please! The Republicans didn't need any help to advance their own "Big Government". Somehow when the government grows under the GOP it's justified but when the Democrats do it it isn't.


    I gotta get to school but those are somethings that stood up to scrutiny immediately.
  9. by   arciedee
    I wish they would have picked some state other than mine.
  10. by   Roy Fokker
    Quote from arciedee
    I wish they would have picked some state other than mine.
    Atlast! I was hoping for someone from NH to say that!

    Pray tell "Why not NH?"

    Simple honest quetion. No "Right" or "Wrong".

    Time for political machinations is long past - it's about time we had honest discussions
  11. by   arciedee
    Quote from Roy Fokker
    Atlast! I was hoping for someone from NH to say that!

    Pray tell "Why not NH?"

    Simple honest quetion. No "Right" or "Wrong".

    Time for political machinations is long past - it's about time we had honest discussions
    Mostly I have issues when non-natives want to come in and tell us how to run things no matter what their political affiliation. Not to say there isn't room for improvement, but we do a pretty good job of taking care of ourselves without anyone trying to turn us into some utopian state (their version of utopia, of course).
  12. by   Spidey's mom
    Roy - actually there was a case that the Supreme Court got involved in about child pornography.

    [FONT=Verdana,Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]The First Amendment and "Virtual" Child Pornography
    [FONT=Verdana,Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]By Michael Landau
    [FONT=Verdana,Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Summary: The U.S. Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional the Child Pornography Prevention Act, which made illegal certain computer-generated sexual images. The Court said the law violated the First Amendment. This article explains the historical background of legal attempts to regulate pornography and what the Court's opinion means for Internet communications.





    I'm not sure this is the case that Rush is talking about - I'll go search his site. But, the Supremes did do the above.

    I don't care if it is computer generated or actual kids - child pornography is NOT something our founders meant to be protected speech.

    Truly sad . . .

    steph
  13. by   Roy Fokker
    Quote from stevielynn
    Roy - actually there was a case that the Supreme Court got involved in about child pornography.

    [FONT=Verdana,Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]The First Amendment and "Virtual" Child Pornography
    [FONT=Verdana,Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]By Michael Landau

    [FONT=Verdana,Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Summary: The U.S. Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional the Child Pornography Prevention Act, which made illegal certain computer-generated sexual images. The Court said the law violated the First Amendment. This article explains the historical background of legal attempts to regulate pornography and what the Court's opinion means for Internet communications.





    I'm not sure this is the case that Rush is talking about - I'll go search his site. But, the Supremes did do the above.

    I don't care if it is computer generated or actual kids - child pornography is NOT something our founders meant to be protected speech.

    Truly sad . . .

    steph
    I can see the argument for that.

    Who is being harmed for it to be declared "unconstitutional" ? Using children in porn is wrong because a child cannot consent to sexual acts.

    If "virtual porn" is unconstitutional - then virtual murders and killings a la movies and games are also unconstitutional.

    Shouldn't Lolita be banned?

    Why, even using sex toys in videos (or otherwise) would be wrong - after all, how can you get consent from a machine?

    Personal views on what is acceptable porn or not is irrelvent. The founders never even fantasised about the porn industry or video games for that matter - but that doesn't diminish their ideals any less.

    One could argue that killing a child is just as bad as raping one. But nobody seems to have issues with horror movies where kids are murdered on screen. Nobody is harmed in the making of virtual porn - child or adult. Nobody is being forced to watch it - why is this even an issue?

    And yes, before anybody thinks I am condoning child porn - please read my post again.
  14. by   Roy Fokker
    Quote from arciedee
    Mostly I have issues when non-natives want to come in and tell us how to run things no matter what their political affiliation. Not to say there isn't room for improvement, but we do a pretty good job of taking care of ourselves without anyone trying to turn us into some utopian state (their version of utopia, of course).
    I say that is a fantastic PoV

    Something to think about eh?

    "No, we don't like your kind 'round here!"

close