« Carols plan vs reality on guns | Main | Bias Polls »

Rep Chase Limits On Freedoms

Having forgotten the original offense Rep Chase made that Steve had written about on his blog found HERE, so I was doing some web searching to find her original statements.  In doing so I uncovered a statement I find rather telling.

State Rep Chase wrote:

“Free Staters are the single biggest threat the state is facing today. There is, legally, nothing we can do to prevent them from moving here to take over the state, which is their openly stated goal. In this country you can move anywhere you choose and they have that same right. What we can do is to make the environment here so unwelcoming that some will choose not to come, and some may actually leave. One way is to pass measures that will restrict the “freedoms” that they think they will find here.”

Her statement calling for measures restricting freedom on a minority of people spawned a petition signed by 120 people, some of whom don't even live in NH calling for her removal from office or censure.

While some of the 120 people actually were free staters, some weren't but that didn't stop the left from attempting to claim they were all free staters and that this action represents the entire free state project.  This of course deflects the focus away from her original statement and instead puts the FSP on defensive, typical tactic from the left.

But I'm burying my lead here.  In searching for details on her statement I can across a statement from State Rep Jim Splaine found HERE.  Before quoting him, let me preface by saying he was one of the leaders in NH calling for equal rights and freedoms for gays and helped push same sex marriage in NH.

Theyz are a funny bunch of peoples. Cynthia Chase should be given a commendation for being honest, and re-elected to another term.

Kind of weird that a “group” of people who try to make us feel they’re for a “free” anything want to shut up those who question their motives and so-called “ideals.”

Time to ignore them, except of course we can’t — we have to keep an eye on them, otherwise they would want to take democracy and freedom away from more of us so they can get their own way for their own selfish purposes. Therein lies the danger of their “project.”

So freedom for him and his kind are ok but someone who dare calls out for measures to limit freedoms on another minority is something that should be commended?  Really Jim?

Need I remind Rep Splaine that many free state members were also very vocal in supporting his push for same sex marriage, mind you there were others who feel as I do (and for the record I'm not a FSP member) that we'd be better going the opposite way getting government out of the marriage business.

He defends the act of wanting to limit the freedoms of the FSP members by claiming it is they who want to take freedoms away from others.  What freedoms do they want taken away?  The freedom to use government to force others to fund the things you want against their will?  The freedom to use government to force people into acting and doing what you feel is in their best interest?

And as for taking our "Democracy" away, we are NOT a democracy.  Our founding fathers warned us of the dangers of a democracy calling it two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.  Majority rules equal majority tyranny over the minority.  As a homosexual, Jim of all people should understand the importance of rules to protect the minority from the majority.  Or would he rather see same sex marriage put up to a state wide vote (ie pure democracy) and live with the results of the outcome?

Of all the people coming to the aid and defense of Rep Chase it is Jim Splaine who I am most shocked by because he of all people I would have thought would have condoned anyone wishing to pass measures to limit the freedoms of a minority.  I also find it interesting that he calls her statements "honest", so Jim do you wish to limit on certain minorities as well but just lack the same courage she has to admit it?

Hey Jim, let's change the group she's refering too and see if you still think the statement deserves a commendation and is worthy of someone being re-elected:

“Homosexuals are the single biggest threat the state is facing today. There is, legally, nothing we can do to prevent them from moving here. In this country you can move anywhere you choose and they have that same right. What we can do is to make the environment here so unwelcoming that some will choose not to come, and some may actually leave. One way is to pass measures that will restrict the “freedoms” that they think they will find here.”

I'm sorry but her statement is offensive regardless of which group you put in the blank and ANYONE who dare claim that they think that government should pass measures to restrict freedoms of another group is someone not fit for office. And the fact that the Democratic party not only doesn't see the problem with this statement but is also defending it and that a leading homosexual activist likewise fails to see the problems with it, shows how hypocritical they are.

Statements like hers are what lead this country to the days of black only entrances and seating and signs like "Irish need not apply".  I don't want to see us ever return to that and I do agree with the petition that anyone who thinks that way should be removed from office.  Government is not there to limit freedoms of those you disagree with, it's only job should be making sure your rights are not stepped on by those who disagree with you.

Reader Comments (12)

Rick -- the 'freedoms' the so-called "Free State Projectos" want is to avoid their responsibility to others, to make government broke, and to avoid rules and regulations that in their self-centered mindset don't apply to them.

I don't need to speak for Cynthia Chase -- she has shown herself very capable of that and I'm sure she could deteriorate your attack on her in any venue you should choose. But speaking for myself, I want to encourage anyone and everyone who wants to share the values of New Hampshire's people to help thy neighbors and make us all succeed together to come to our state. The "Free Staters" just want to take over our government, and that's one of the clearly stated purposes of the group in "selecting" our state.

They didn't target us because they like New Hampshire or our people or our principles -- they targeted us as small enough for them to take over. Therein lies their group's danger to us and our democracy.
January 31, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterJim Splaine
Ya Rick, do as Jim 'Splaine says, cuz he knows what's best for everyone else, so when he has control of the guns of government, you better believe his first order of priority it to tone down the clip capacity of those who just don't want to bend over and take his vision of a responsible, caring Nanny. Help thy neighbor: vote democratic so they can take people's stuff and make the serfs do what Government Class elites demand that they do. Gee, Massa Jim, now that's what I's calls freedom!

Alternatively, and a much thriftier solution: why doesn't Jimbo Baggins take a short-bus ride – train if you prefer to maintain your publik transportation street creed – with his new bestest friends Cyndi and lil timmy and enjoy the fruits of their labors down in MA-MA Land, no heavy lifting required.
– C. dog, always thinking of how to help out the less fortunate Libotomized
January 31, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterC. dog
Jim, you and many other democrats love to make general statements as in your first paragraph but I fail to see any specifics.

Have you ever been to a gathering of free staters? Other then by name do you actually know any of them?

You claim they targeted us because we're small enough to "take over" but that's not true. I'd advise you to get more information before making out right false statements like that. They choose NH because the NH way of life, our current legal system and current laws are closest out of any state to what they see as perfection.

Yes there are anarchists who want zero government and some of them are very outspoken but they are a very small minority of the people who make up the free state project.

Rather then make general claims that they want to avoid responsibility and attack our way of life let's hear some actual examples of what they've actually done... not what random people have said they want to do but what they actually have done.
I can site some...

1) They started the Liberty Alliance Rating system which looks at every bill and every roll call vote and rates them on a scale of pro freedom vs anti freedom allowing voters to become more informed about who wants to take their current freedoms away. I do recall Jim, that you were rated a constitutional threat to which you claimed you were proud of such a rating.

2) They have set up scholarship funds (putting their money where their mouth is) for people who want school choice outside of government run schools.

3) They have found foolish laws, such as a law requiring someone to get permission from local governing boards before putting on a puppet show for money, and through sometimes silly public demonstrations they draw attention and discussion around the absurdities.

4) They do open carry clean ups along roads and highways. Picking up litter while carrying a fire arm at their side to accomplish 2 things... show we can clean up our environment without the need to pay government unions to do it and secondly to get the public over its irrational fear of guns.

So far the only example I've seen from any of the Democrats attacking them is "Free Staters believe they should have the ‘freedom’ for women to walk by middle school students topless". In a quick search I've found a number of Democratic party groups promoting the concept of "topless equality" for women. And in at least 2 states bills republicans have called "crazy" were put up by Democrats to allow topless sunbathing for women. So is it ok when the Democrats put up these bills but somehow the free staters are evil for suggesting the same things Democrats themselves have openly pushed for? Seems a bit hypocritical to me.
February 1, 2013 | Registered CommenterRick Barnes
"Pro-freedom" and "anti-freedom" is a matter of perspective, Rick. The so-called "Republican Liberty Alliance" ratings are so biased that being on the lower end of what they consider "freedom" means that you're for more freedom than they are.

Did they rate the freedom of choice as "freedom?" Or marriage equality as "freedom?" And I support the Second Amendment -- AND the freedom to not have to have my next door neighbor armed to the hilt, especially if he's got a mental condition -- much more than some of the so-called "pro-freedom" advocates.

Concerning zoning regulations, the Alliance folks have been against any legislation that strengthens the authority of government boards and commissions that create reasonable regulations as to what can be done with private land. If we don't have such regulations in our cities and towns, my "freedom" to enjoy where I live is vandalized. If someone can build a junk yard next to someone's home, that takes their neighbor's rights away.

So, I put very little credibility to the interpretation of what's free or not in the "Republican Liberty Alliance." Rate me as a non-believer in them.
February 2, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterJim Splaine
Rick -- to answer your observation about the so-called "Free Staters," let's take a look at the original "Free State Manifesto" in which Jason Sorens, its founder, presents the intent of the group:

“Once we’ve taken over the state government, we can slash state and local budgets, which make up a sizeable proportion of the tax and regulatory burden we face every day. Furthermore, we can eliminate substantial federal interference by refusing to take highway funds and the strings attached to them. Once we’ve accomplished these things, we can bargain with the national government over reducing the role of the national government in our state. We can use the threat of secession as leverage to do this."

I submit, Rick, that government is "we." We need to share -- to pool -- our resources in a society to provide for roads, bridges, schools, fire and police protection, necessary public buildings, courts, and all the other many good things government -- we -- does and do.

Regulations are needed in allowing us to live together. Regulations on food safety, the environment, the workplace, and even zoning requirements are important as well. 'Freedom' means many things, including the freedom from being abused, or used, by someone else who is bigger or richer or stronger.

So I stick with my observations with which you apparently differ: "the 'freedoms' the so-called 'Free State Projectos' want is to avoid their responsibility to others, to make government broke, and to avoid rules and regulations that in their self-centered mindset don't apply to them."

Their words do them in. By the way, some "Free Staters" put their own interpretation on what the organization means to them, and they're not so deeply immersed in the selfishness and self-centeredness of the group as others. I just wish they'd take a good look at the group itself and break way from it. I think, in time, that will happen -- because as a great man once said something like, "You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time."
February 2, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterJim Splaine
Jimbo Baggin's definition of freedom is really quite simple: make stuff he wants for himself and his associatepaths free by taking it from others. Notice how he's always phrasing his love of Nanny in such glowing terms: reasonable regulations, sharing, responsibilities, pooling resources to provide what the cohesive unified group wants ... what WE want. Why, it's as if we're one ol' big happy beehive full of worker bees fully content to slavishly toil away for the good of the drones like Jimbo and his queen bee. Of course, for any sentient ape, this fairly tale quickly falls apart once one starts dissecting the terminology. Who decides reasonable? Sharing now includes forcible taking of property at the end of pointy guns? Private property means "the community" decides what you get to build on "your" land?

In Jimbo Baggin's world, there are not minorities, just one big happy family of the Majority. Bottom line, in Jimbo Baggin's world, free means you're free to work our a$$ off to support the lifestyle to which he and his fellow drones have become accustomed. Oddly, this world of "Free" has largely been accomplished down in MA-MA Land. Wonder why Jimbo Baggins just doesn't take the short-bus ride down there to live in harmony with HIS community? Clearly, the boy has Mommy Separation Syndrome that has manifested into fully fledged Nanny Fetish. I bet there's plenty of Social Workers in Cambridge that will engage with him to work out these issues.

Jimbo Baggins: this week's cuddly candidate for adoption by loving liberals in MA-MA Land. Won't you share your love and your stuff with Jimbo in a caring, supportive environment. P.S. He prefers if you remove the crust from his wholegrain, gluten free, ostensibly organic toast.
– C. dog, Executive Coordinator, Massachusetts Lapdog Rescue & Adoption Association
February 2, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterC. dog
Typical liberal response from Jim:

Free speach = hate speech if conservative speech
Hate pseech = free speech if mouthed by liberals.

Jim is not a complicated guy.

What you see = what you get.

Up is down.
Down is up.

February 3, 2013 | Registered CommenterEd Naile
Your very first example shows you clearly do not understand how the rating system works.

They have made it clear that they do not touch anything having to do with abortion because libertarians on both sides have successfully argued their side is the "pro freedom" side.
If you do not believe it is a life, then it is pro freedom to allow that woman the right to abort.
If you do believe it is life, your rights end when they impact anothers and pro freedom is protecting that human life.

Beyond that, freedom is NOT subjective. Your rights end where mine begin. Just because I don't like what you do with what you own does not mean "pro liberty" gives me the right to create rules forcing you to do or act the way I want you to.

I find it funny how many here claim the banner of being the "pro freedom" side yet they are the first to call for limitations on "freedoms" as in Rep Chase's case or how Jim defends limiting freedoms on those who he disagrees with and defense Rep Chase's speech as "good". Or even Rep Vaillancourt who himself in an article defending free speech shows his own hypocrisy by censoring those he disagrees with because they post points he cannot counter.
February 4, 2013 | Registered CommenterRick Barnes
Rick -- your own statement shows that you don't know what "freedom" is. Freedom includes many things in a civilization, including my right to be "free" from abuse by others who might be richer, stronger, bigger, more "powerful" -- or more selfish and self-centered -- than most of us.

Thus, the reason for zoning laws, minimum wage laws, public education, taxes, environmental regulations, food safety requirements -- even car and gun regulations (and speeding laws and where you can use those guns) -- all which could and would be termed "anti-freedom" by the zealots in control of the Republican Liberty Alliance Rating System.

Fortunately for America, we have a democracy that protects us from those who would otherwise like to own the bank on being able to define "freedom" within their own mindset, in their own way, and thus limit or take freedom away for...the rest of us.

Fortunately for you, you have the right to continue to define "freedom" any way you wish, and to make your case to the public, as I do. You can continue to cheerlead for the raters of the Republican Liberty Alliance and support just those self-centered principles they have, and those candidates they endorse; I and others have the right to be tipped off by those ratings as to some of the candidates we wouldn't want to support, and therein lies some of our successes last November.
February 4, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterJim Splaine
In Jimbo Baggin's world, freedom means that his Nanny protects him from anything he finds unpleasant: a crossly worded statement, an inappropriately painted house, a mean old gun. "Aunty Em, Aunty Em, there were witches and scarecrows that could talk ... and flying monkeys – Oh my!"

In Jimbo's world, it only takes a plurality – if that – to force the masses to do what the government uber class thinks best. That's how Jimbo redefines freedom in his 1984 Government abridged dictionary. Fortunately for Amerika and Jimbo, de Tocqueville's nightmare has come true just in time for his dotage, until the money runs out.
– C. dog contributes nothing to Grate States but derision and scorn
February 4, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterC. dog
Where can I find this 'Republican Liberty Alliance'? Google shows no hits.

Is Jim Splaine making this up?

Why is he talking about what Jason Sorens said 10 years ago and then reworked?
Most 'freestaters' probably haven't read it.

Does Jim Splaine stand by everything all Democrats say?
February 4, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterWhere?
Your definition of "freedom" is "zoning laws, minimum wage laws, public education, taxes, environmental regulations, food safety requirements -- even car and gun regulations"?

You've left me speechless. I'll just leave it at that and let others debate you if they wish on the definition of "freedom". Meanwhile you can go on bragging how proud you are of your F rating (or was it constitutional threat?) and you can continue to claim that Rep Chase calling for limits of freedoms on minority groups is an example of "good speech". But every time you do I'll be writing up drawing attention to it.

There is no "Republican Liberty Alliance". Jim is confused about the NH Liberty Alliance (www.nhliberty.org). This is a group made up of Democrats, Republicans and others who site and rate each bill. They welcome members of the public to sit in on their bill reviews and there's no hidden agenda. As each bill is reviewed they ask 3 basic questions about it...

Is it constitutional?
Does it expand the size, cost, and power of government?
What will be the unintended consequences?

It's that basic. There is no party affiliation, no bias lean... it's either a yes or no to each of those questions.

Jim's stance is that only republican bills would answer yes to those questions where Democrats would answer no. Personally I see that as a major flaw with the Democratic party.
February 5, 2013 | Registered CommenterRick Barnes

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.