So When Will Democrats Start Calling Me A Free Stater?
Wednesday, January 25, 2012 at 09:10AM 
All Democrats have narratives. New Hampshire Democrats are no different. The typical left wing narrative is designed to brain wash you by using the media to repeat the latest chest-beating tantrum, using sound bites, puff pieces, editorials, and press releases, to create a long term perception disguised as truth. Did I mention that New Hampshire Democrats are no different?
There is a new narrative in New Hampshire. This narrative infers that, despite the Democrats own treacherous policy record they are still a better gamble than those other people who are just plain scary. Really scary. Extremists. Those… Free Staters.
This is the politics of fear we always hear about, also an invented left wing narrative, executed by the same progressives who simultaneously claim to be victims of it. But facts are stubborn things. And when you can’t run for State office (or any office) on what you actually believe in–big spending, huge deficits, nanny-state policies, and all the stifling taxes and fees you enacted the last time you were running things–well, fear is all you have left. So fear it is.
Their Goal is to make you fear Free Staters and then tie all New Hampshire Republicans to them. Organized efforts by the left to begin the narrative have always been there but only began to look viable after the Liberty movement helped New Hampshire kick the Democrats to the curb without cab fare like some one-night stand we woke up with after a long night we can barely remember, or more accurately, just wish we could forget.
The Narrative itself started to appear publicly as an intimidation tool during Honey Puterbaugh’s campaign for an open NH House seat; and unless you are deaf or blind, you will have noticed that it keeps coming up. “So and So” is a Free Stater. Extremist. Fringe. Bad!!!
Free Staters may actually replace TEA party activists in New Hampshire as the new bugbear “keyword” of the left. I can see it now. Limousine liberals with their one genderless designer child, telling them stories about how if they do not behave like good little propagandized, big government, central planners, that the ‘Free Stater under their bed will come out while they are sleeping and turn them into a self reliant, free market capitalists.
“No Mommy, I don’t want to leave the collective. Don’t let them make me think for myself! No! Aaaahhhhhhh!”
So that’s the new deal, and it is only here in the Granite State. If the New Hampshire left views you as a thorn in the side of their collectivist agenda, you might be a Free Stater. (Having visions of a new Jeff Foxworthy routine…If you favor liberty and self reliance…yoouuu….might be a Free Stater.)
The Democrats are, of course, assuming no one really knows what a Free Stater actually is. Lord knows they have no idea, nor do they care to know. Liberty is a threat to their agenda, that is all they need to understand. But their narrative vision of a Free Stater (for general consumption) is that of some risky, extremist, pot smoking, anarchist, who exposes their breasts in the park.
But when I think of extremist, pot smoking, anarchists, who expose their breasts in the park I think of sixties radicals whose offspring (biologically and ideologically) are now fishing for votes by dissing their own “speaking truth to power” political heritage. Isn’t big government liberalism the new establishment and isn’t it the Democrats who are defending a status quo; the large, cumbersome, income guzzling welfare-industrial complex, oppressing us with their power hungry tax and spend-a-genda, and a goal of turning everyone but them into the little guy. Progressive, my ass.
My second vision of extremist, pot smoking, anarchists, who expose their breasts in the park is filthy, obnoxious occupiers, aided and abetted by the same Democrat party organs (as small as they may be), but with the added bonus of violent crime.
While some Free State Project advocates have been known to subscribe to loose drug and public exposure policies (which many hypocritical democrats might defend as free speech), none of them–even those legally carrying firearms–ever tried to start a riot like those prevalent among the sixties radicals now driving establishment left wing policy; whom desperately desire a fresh round of civil disobedience (from the occupy movement) on the same scale as that of their inspired youth.
Not only do you have to be un-informed not to see the layers of hypocrisy for what they are, you have to be stupid as well.
But every successful left wing narrative requires the average voter to be at least half as stupid as Democrats believe them to be. Yes, fair citizen, they think you are stupid. Give me a better excuse for why they feel compelled to run every aspect of our society and our lives from some central location populated with the ‘brightest “left wing” minds–(more accurately described as a room full of dim compact fluorescent bulbs.)
These are people who are convinced that you have no idea how to earn or spend your own income. You don’t know what is good for you. You have no idea what you should stay away from. You do not know how to eat, heat your home, get around town, or fight off the darkness. You can’t be trusted to find the right insurance plan that meets your needs. You have no idea what speech is, free, or otherwise. And you shan’t (Shan’t? No Kidding) be permitted to donate to charities of your choosing, because damn it–you never choose planned Parenthood, the Human Rights Council, green energy boondoggles, democrat candidates campaign coffers, or any of those other left wing water carriers.
You are just a paycheck for them to tap. Just an average voter. And if you object to their goals or their methods, at least in New Hampshire in 2012, they might have to call you a free stater.
So what about that? What do Free staters really want? Here’s their oath.
I hereby state my solemn intent to move to the state of New Hampshire. Once there, I will exert the fullest practical effort toward the creation of a society in which the maximum role of civil government is the protection of life, liberty, and property.
Wow that does sound risky. A government like the one the Founders wanted; whose intrusions are limited? States, cities, towns, even individuals, free to manage their own affairs in their best common interest? That’ll never work.
Do you know what this oath is about? It’s called ‘Choice” (aka: freedom). Not the choice made for you by people who claim to know what is best but one made by you and your family, friends, and neighbors–even the neighbor who borrows your tools and never brings them back–in the close proximity of a limited common interest. That’s it. That’s the whole deal in a nut shell.
But the Democrats wouldn’t want that to get out to the public. For them that is risky. If the average New Hampshire resident knew that the Democrat Party of New Hampshire was instilling fear of a state government limited to protecting life, liberty, and property, well….we might rightly assume that they were advocating the opposite. Oh Snap! They are.
So while the liberty movement is trying to give you back more power over your income and your life (Your money, your voice, your choice), the New Hampshire Democrat party is trying to take more of everything (it’s their money, no voice, their choice). No. Stick to the narrative. The Free Staters are extreme.
They are? Are you sure this isn’t just more Democrat projection?
The same Democrats wailing at the Free State Project are also trying to run Democrat Maggie ‘The Red” Hassan as a moderate for governor. Take note. If the Democrat parties definition of a political moderate is Maggie ‘The Red’ Hassan, then moderates want socialized medicine, higher taxes, less personal freedom, bigger deficit ridden government, the end of home-schooling and education choice, statutory regulation of political speech, the rights of criminals over home owners on matters self defense, and the right to execute unborn babies from conception until live birth abortion. They also do not want you to have any say in whether or not you should pay for it. All of it.
So is a society in which the maximum role of civil government is the protection of life, liberty, and property” look better or worse than the petri-dish sample of reality that is the lefts fantastical moderate-narrative of one Maggie Wood Hassan? And if Hassan is their idea of a moderate, what about the rest of the Democrat party?
/whisper… it is the Democrats who are the extremists. (And even they know it.)
That might explain why they think it a good idea to declare Speaker Bill O’Brien a member of the Free State project. Speaker O’Brien stands up for what he believes. He does not back down. I suspect that he is not the least bit interested in compromising with liars, thieves,and baby killers. And I think Bill O’Brien may be more conservative than I am. Which means that conservatives, who get along fine but still have policy differences with the Free State Project, should expect to be lumped in with Free Staters as well.
Sound’s like Left wing prejudice to me. So Democrats are Bigots? (I knew that but I’m glad we had time to talk about it.)
Because if sharing an interest in a government that does not meddle or micro-manage the average persons life, sells as a negative on the left, the question we should be asking is why wont Democrats admit publicly that their idea for government is exactly the opposite and not much different than that of progressive icons like Hugo Chavez, the Castro Brothers, Mao, and even Stalin?
Oh…that’s right. They can’t run on what they believe. They’d lose. So like an abusive spouse they have to lie. “Don’t worry baby. I’ll buy you something nice. And I’ll never hurt you again. I promise.”
Whack!
Cross posted: So When Will Democrats Start Calling Me A Free Stater?
Reader Comments (4)
First off, Democrats have been actively going after free staters since day one. I've lost count of how many articles I've read on different left wing sites declaring the free state project dead or drawing focus to some extreme act and attempting to link the entire movement to it.
But that's a moot point.
What I actually take exception to is this statement:
"But their narrative vision of a Free Stater (for general consumption) is that of some risky, extremist, pot smoking, anarchist, who exposes their breasts in the park."
Before diving into my exception let me preface by saying while I'm not a free stater (I lived in NH before the movement started), I do fully support them and I've been to many functions and know many free staters including one couple who claim to be the first free staters to move to NH. Their movement is basically made up of anyone who wants less government and more liberty/ freedoms then we have today. Many Republicans agree with them which is why they seem closely aligned with Republicans however their members include many Democrats including at least 1 that I'm aware of who served as a state rep. Their support is very broad ranging from anarchists who want zero government (whom I personally disagree with for the record) to minarchists who want minimum government, Constitutionalists like myself, or any number of people who fall under the umbrella of wanting smaller government then we have now.
Which brings us back to your original statement... you state that as if being someone " risky, extremist, pot smoking, anarchist, who exposes their breasts in the park" is a bad thing.
Liberty starts with one basic idea... we own ourselves and hence are free people.
If we weren't free then we'd be slaves and thus have no liberty.
Being free and owning ourselves would give us control over our own lives and bodies (note: abortion is a fuzzy topic most free staters wont touch because it comes down to where life begins, once it's a life then taking it is taking another's liberty but that's off topic).
Being in control of our own bodies also gives us the freedom to put what we want in our bodies or on them as well.
Outlawing drugs strips away the freedom of someone to have control over what goes into their own body.
Outlawing nudity forces people to put things they may not want on their body.
Taking away these personal liberties creates a level of slavery where people no longer have freedom over themselves.
The only valid argument for government is to protect us from others intruding on our liberty. The old saying is your freedoms end where mine begin so unless you can show that something I am doing is harming you then you are stripping away freedom and liberty. That's the basic idea of the free state project.
And facts are obviously not relevant to the nature of a left wing narrative, so in this context any reference to their perception for the sake of the narrative is meant (by me)to infer hypocrisy and the lefts double standard.
As to park related activities, I do not believe that I judge them in any context other than the lefts hypocrisy. And I only reference them indirectly as perception (not fact) to demonstrate that hypocrisy. I never actually claim that this is who FSPers are or what they stand for or what value the acts contain. In fact, the only concise statement I make about a Free stater is the oath.
The operative text that follows the oath is this:
""Do you know what this oath is about? It’s called ‘Choice” (aka: freedom). Not the choice made for you by people who claim to know what is best but one made by you and your family, friends, and neighbors–even the neighbor who borrows your tools and never brings them back–in the close proximity of a limited common interest. That’s it. That’s the whole deal in a nut shell.""
Given the context I do not see how that description would deny the right to any acts (including drug use or baring breasts) if agreed upon within the proximity of a limited common interest; in this case local government.
And yes, there are Free staters who are Democrats. But if all Democrats were like Free staters there would be no need for the left wing narrative from the State Democrat party. While I look forward to a day when an FSP Democrat state party chair runs the office in Concord, I am not holding my breath. Until then I will use Alinsky rules to ridicule the party until it evicts the real extremists in New Hampshire--the Socialist Progressives.
– C. dog delves into political anatomy