 Author
|
Topic: Negative Post-Vote coverage from within NH (Read 10102 times)
|
|
jgmaynard
|
I just sent the following letter to the Keene Sentinel, Portsmouth Herald, and Concord Monitor. It specifically addresses Kathy Sullivan's comments....
Free State Project would also Preserve Democratic Values
To the Editor:
The Free State Project is coming to New Hampshire, and much ado has been made over the Project’s desire for a smaller, less expensive government. The first major ally for the FSP in New Hampshire was governor Craig Benson. So, our group has been bandied about by some as some sort of wing of the Republican Party.
   Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the vision of the Free State Project includes establishing civil unions in New Hampshire, rejecting John Ashcroft’s PATRIOT Act, opting out of George W. Bush’s dangerous “No Child Left Behind†Act, and allowing the sick and dying to use medical marijuana with a doctor’s prescription.
   We believe government has no place between a couple of any gender combination deciding what they may or may not do in their bedrooms. We also don’t believe the government should have the power to dictate what we should read, view, or which books we should be allowed to borrow at the library.
   I was shocked to hear New Hampshire Democratic chair Kathy Sullivan upset that we wish to eliminate jail terms for those caught with small amounts of cannabis. After all, is was Democratic president Jimmy Carter who, in 1977, said “Penalties against drug use should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself.â€
   We believe jails should be used for violent criminals, to keep them off the streets, and out of society. We believe in a more efficient court system, not bogged down by small drug charges, and nineteen year-olds caught with a wine cooler. We want the police to be protecting people from those who would harm our families and children. We believe in protecting the environment, including preventing the release of MTBE’s into New Hampshire’s groundwater. And most, but not all, of our members believe in a woman’s right to choose.   Â
   The Free State Project believes in those Democratic values, and we hope that Kathy Sullivan does, as well.
Our group looks forward to working with the Democratic leadership in the Granite State, as often as Republicans. In our June meeting with Governor Benson, our group told him that there were going to be many issues where we disagreed with him. The governor stated that he would â€
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: October 10, 2003, 12:05:00 am by jgmaynard »
|
Logged
|
The Light of Alexandria By James Maynard A history of the first 1,000 years of science, and how it changed the ancient world, and our world today. http://www.lightofalexandria.com
|
|
|
Zack Bass
Guest
|
I just sent the following letter to the Keene Sentinel, Portsmouth Herald, and Concord Monitor. It specifically addresses Kathy Sullivan's comments....
....
The first major ally for the FSP in New Hampshire was governor Craig Benson.
....
...the vision of the Free State Project includes establishing civil unions in New Hampshire, rejecting John Ashcroft’s PATRIOT Act, opting out of George W. Bush’s dangerous “No Child Left Behind†Act, and allowing the sick and dying to use medical marijuana with a doctor’s prescription.
I have been told that Mr. Benson favors continuing to imprison users and suppliers of Medical Marijuana. Has someone been lying to me? And I doubt that many Porcupines (certainly no libertarians) want to extend Special Privileges to one Special Interest Group by "establishing civil unions" - which still has the State imprisoning Polygamists, for example. Getting the State out of Marriage and The Bedroom altogether is the goal, and it is a goal very different from establishing one more Government intervention. It's about Trust. We aren't likely to endear ourselves to New Hampsters by lying to them about our goals. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
SethA
|
Zack, I was at the meeting with Gov. Benson at his office in June. At that time he did not say anything about favoring prison for medical marijuana users. James Maynard in the post above yours accurately related what he did say.
I was impressed with his sincerity, he does not come across as a career politician, because he isn't one. He was elected directly from a business backround.
Make no mistake, he is not a true libertairan. He is a Republican with some libertarian ideas. But he is far ahead of the other governors that I am aware of and I believe that we can work with him on many issues.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: October 10, 2003, 12:31:26 am by SLA »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Zack Bass
Guest
|
Zack, I was at the meeting with Gov. Benson at his office in June. At that time he did not say anything about favoring prison for medical marijuana users. James Maynard in the post above yours accurately related what he did say.
Maybe he said it elsewhere. At any rate, "Reaper" has told me that he is sure that Mr Benson is opposed to the legalization of even Medical Marijuana. I'll check with him to see where he got that erroneous notion. And "johnadams" has said, in response to Reaper's claim, that he knows that Mr Benson: > ... supports reinstating New Hampshire’s ban on adoptions by gay men and lesbians.
> Supports NH's school Pledge of Allegiance requirement (including the "under God" phrase) and school prayer. During the gubernatorial debate, Benson asked his opponent (Fernald) why he voted against the NH Pledge-of-Allegiance-bill which also allowed NH public schools to set aside time for school prayer (not just a moment of silence, mind you).
> Promised to implement a school voucher law which would allow state funds to be spent on religious schools (a mixed bag law from a libertarian perspective, which would move toward privatization of schools but violate church-state separation in the view of many), despite the strict no-establishment language found in the New Hampshire Constitution, declaring that “no person shall ever be compelled to pay towards the support of the schools of any sect or denominations†and that “no money raised by taxation shall ever be granted or applied for the use of the schools or institutions of any religious sect or denomination.†|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: October 10, 2003, 12:40:05 am by Zack Bass »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Brian Kelley
|
As one can see in the confusion over Governor Benson's positions, and in some of the press concerning FSP, it is quite easy to misconstrue or distort the aims of this project.
That's why it is a little disconcerting to see Mr. Maynard presume to state his positions on specific issues as if they were the official, unified positions of the FSP on these questions.
FSP members have diverse views on every specific issue. This project is designed to espouse certain principles, which every member holds dear, and which allow varying viewpoints on specific issues. The other five letters to the editor of the Monitor did not have the ring of "the official position," while this one does.
I believe Mr. Maynard sincerely wants this project to succeed. Although he is running for office, and wants publicity, I humbly submit that there is no unified FSP position on MTBE release levels in New Hampshire. Speaking for oneself, not the entire FSP membership, will surely lead to less misrepresentation and misunderstanding concerning our aims.
It's important that we concern ourselves with the way we are perceived, and the inevitable public quarrels that will arise among us from letters to the editor that make us sound like lock-step Republicans will only hurt us. Mr. Maynard, please consider this request an amicable suggestion, and not malicious criticism, as it is intended to further the goals we, and all FSP members, sincerely hope to achieve.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: October 10, 2003, 02:43:20 am by Brian Kelley »
|
Logged
|
For some years I have been afflicted with the belief that flight is possible to man.
- Wilbur Wright
|
|
|
|
SteveA
|
Promised to implement a school voucher law which would allow state funds to be spent on religious schools (a mixed bag law from a libertarian perspective, which would move toward privatization of schools but violate church-state separation in the view of many), despite the strict no-establishment language found in the New Hampshire Constitution, declaring that “no person shall ever be compelled to pay towards the support of the schools of any sect or denominations†and that “no money raised by taxation shall ever be granted or applied for the use of the schools or institutions of any religious sect or denomination.†So did New Hampshire get a free pass on the Establishment cause? Or are state constitutions allowed to ignore the U.S. Constitution? (Oh man, here we go again  ) So you set taxes at 100%, then give the money back and noone can spend it on any religion. I can't believe a state constitution would be allowed to specifically deny religious schools. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...." How does "No taxes can go to religious schools" not regard religious establishments and the free exercise of religion? Get government out of the mind-control business You know this could be an excellent argument to say that the state cannot support publicly funded schools. If publicly funded schools are disallowed from containing religious materials but the U.S. Constitution disallows discrimination against a religious establishment, then the only "fair" solution is no public money to any schools. There, it's all equal now with no discrimination against religion and doesn't violate either constitution. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: October 10, 2003, 04:51:30 am by SteveA »
|
Logged
|
"Fruitless, born a thousand times, lies barren. Unguided inspiration, yields random motion, circumscribed in destination, going nowhere. Guidance uninspired, always true in facing, stands immobile. But fixed upon that destination firmly and with inspiration lofted; beget your dreams."
|
|
|
|
LeRuineur6
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Please donate $5 to $10 per month to the Liberty Scholarship Fund!"Noncooperation is intended to pave the way to real, honorable, and voluntary cooperation based on mutual respect and trust." -Gandhi
|
|
|
Karl
Guest
|
That's why it is a little disconcerting to see Mr. Maynard presume to state his positions on specific issues as if they were the official, unified positions of the FSP on these questions.
I think it is important to give some deference to current residents of New Hampshire. All of the issues James mentioned in his letter are things the vast majority of free staters would agree with. As for MTBE release levels, most free staters, once familiar with the issue, would likely agree with James' position. For an explaination of the MTBE issue: New Hampshire sues over MTBE |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Reaper
|
I just sent the following letter to the Keene Sentinel, Portsmouth Herald, and Concord Monitor. It specifically addresses Kathy Sullivan's comments....
....
The first major ally for the FSP in New Hampshire was governor Craig Benson.
....
...the vision of the Free State Project includes establishing civil unions in New Hampshire, rejecting John Ashcroft’s PATRIOT Act, opting out of George W. Bush’s dangerous “No Child Left Behind†Act, and allowing the sick and dying to use medical marijuana with a doctor’s prescription.
I have been told that Mr. Benson favors continuing to imprison users and suppliers of Medical Marijuana. Has someone been lying to me? And I doubt that many Porcupines (certainly no libertarians) want to extend Special Privileges to one Special Interest Group by "establishing civil unions" - which still has the State imprisoning Polygamists, for example. Getting the State out of Marriage and The Bedroom altogether is the goal, and it is a goal very different from establishing one more Government intervention. It's about Trust. We aren't likely to endear ourselves to New Hampsters by lying to them about our goals. I researched this matter thoroughly about a year ago when the "great state debate" was just starting to heat up. I spent many hours typing various combinations of words into google trying to find some reference, any reference to Craig Benson's position on medical marijuana. It took me quite a long time but I finally found a web page with a transcript of a debate between the Republican candidates for governor in which Benson participated. Each candidate was asked if they would support the right for patient's to use medical marijuana in cases where nothing else would relieve their symptoms. Each candidate said they would, EXCEPT Benson who said he WOULD NOT. At the time I found it I posted a link to the web page with the transcript on this forum. The fact that it was and is so exceedingly difficult to track down the governors view on the matter makes it clear to me he does not wish it generally known, as it is very unpopular. Most Americans if asked that same question would respond yes, it's the only logical and only compassionate answer. So, this guy Benson is clearly cut from old school conservative cloth, mandatory prayer in school, public funds for religious institutions and drug warrior. He is NOT an ally of liberty. He may want to let you keep your money but he's damn well gonna tell you how you may live your life. With 17% of NHers being non religious that could make him vulnerable. Not that getting rid of him would be bad IMO. I just wanted to step in and verify that yes, Benson is opposed to medical marijuana. Is it possible he has changed his mind in the last two years? Of course, but if he did he's keeping it a secret needlessly as every other Republican candidate made no secret of it so there would be no need to do so. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: October 10, 2003, 04:30:22 pm by Reaper »
|
Logged
|
Reaper
Proud member of the FSP's lunatic fringe!
"If we turn from battle because there is little hope of victory, where then would valor be? Let it ever be the goal that stirs us, not the odds."
|
|
|
BillG
Guest
|
Jason wrote here in response to the Concord Monitor editorial: The libertarian philosophy supports SLAVERY? Jason wrote in his letter to the editor to the Monitor: "[P]hilosophically, [libertarians] would be prone to support slavery and
reject government intervention to prevent it."Â This is the most egregious
falsehood of them all. I am a Concord resident and I read the editorial and I think many of you may have missed the point on the issue of slavery... I believe what they were saying is that the TERM "Free State" was used during the lead-up to the Civil War vs. "Slave State" and that at least you would be on the right side of the debate (with the use of the term) but the philosophical argument used by the "Slave State" advocates DURING THAT TIME was one of state's rights decided by popular sovereignty - which if libertarians had been around DURING THAT TIME might have argued for.... here is the excerpt in question: "a term, incidentally, that at least puts the Libertarians on the right side of the slavery debate, although philosophically they would be prone to support slavery and reject government intervention to prevent it." What am I missing? I think there is truth to the statement as I understand it...certainly Jason should know this issue cold as a secessionist scholar. maybe they should have said "would HAVE BEEN prone"... |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: October 11, 2003, 07:44:12 pm by BillG (not Gates) »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
BillG
Guest
|
Zack, I was at the meeting with Gov. Benson at his office in June. At that time he did not say anything about favoring prison for medical marijuana users. James Maynard in the post above yours accurately related what he did say.
I was impressed with his sincerity, he does not come across as a career politician, because he isn't one. He was elected directly from a business backround.
Make no mistake, he is not a true libertairan. He is a Republican with some libertarian ideas. But he is far ahead of the other governors that I am aware of and I believe that we can work with him on many issues.
I think the more salient fact is that Mr. Benson is a practicing Roman Catholic and some of his views...for instance he vigorously supported a parental notification requirement before a minor could receive an abortion...reflect this strong bias. So, this guy Benson is clearly cut from old school conservative cloth, mandatory prayer in school, public funds for religious institutions and drug warrior. He is NOT an ally of liberty. He may want to let you keep your money but he's damn well gonna tell you how you may live your life. With 17% of NHers being non religious that could make him vulnerable. Old school conservative of the "Yankee" variety here in NH is of the "live and let live" type. What you are describing is more like the "Moral Majority" variety...Libertarian on economic issues and Christian Moralist on civil liberties issues. So, you've got half a loaf with Benson... |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: October 11, 2003, 07:50:49 pm by BillG (not Gates) »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
JonM
|
I believe what they were saying is that the TERM "Free State" was used during the lead-up to the Civil War vs. "Slave State" and that at least you would be on the right side of the debate (with the use of the term) but the philosophical argument used by the "Slave State" advocates DURING THAT TIME was one of state's rights decided by popular sovereignty - which if libertarians had been around DURING THAT TIME might have argued for....
here is the excerpt in question:
"a term, incidentally, that at least puts the Libertarians on the right side of the slavery debate, although philosophically they would be prone to support slavery and reject government intervention to prevent it."
What am I missing?
I think there is truth to the statement as I understand it...certainly Jason should know this issue cold as a secessionist scholar.
maybe they should have said "would HAVE BEEN prone"...
So you're suggesting that Libertarians would have supported the kidnapping of citizens of foreign nations, and the subsequent forced labor under threat of torture and death that they and their descendants were subjected to? That flies in the face of even the most basic goal of the FSP, to ensure a government's maximal role should be to defend individuals from force and fraud. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Zack Bass
Guest
|
... the philosophical argument used by the "Slave State" advocates DURING THAT TIME was one of state's rights decided by popular sovereignty - which if libertarians had been around DURING THAT TIME might have argued for....
Libertarians would support the right of a State to be free from Federal interference, but not its right to enslave anyone involuntarily. Any journalist who spent five minutes looking at a description of libertarian philosophy would know that. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
BillG
Guest
|
... the philosophical argument used by the "Slave State" advocates DURING THAT TIME was one of state's rights decided by popular sovereignty - which if libertarians had been around DURING THAT TIME might have argued for....
Libertarians would support the right of a State to be free from Federal interference, but not its right to enslave anyone involuntarily. Any journalist who spent five minutes looking at a description of libertarian philosophy would know that. Zack - the "anyone" you are speak about were actually consider "no one" back then...as a matter of fact they were thought of as "property" and the exact same argument used today against violation of "property rights" was used back then to justify slavery. So is it unreasonable to surmise that there would be clasical liberals back then who would make this argument - there were a number who did - right? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
JasonPSorens
|
"Classical liberalism" that supports owning other human beings as property is a contradiction in terms. The only possible ideology that could support this view is collectivist. In the 18th and 19th centuries, those who supported slavery indeed tended toward collectivism, while those who opposed slavery tended toward classical liberalism.
If you define liberalism as any view that incorporates any idea about "property," then Marxism, welfare statism, fascism, and every other ideology that ever existed is also "liberal."
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Audio signature (MP3) "Experience has shown that it is difficult, if not impossible, for a populous state to be run by good laws." --Aristotle, The Politics
|
|
|
|
 |
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
