Home Search
Search results for

"police"

Blog

Why Protect Bad Apples?

by Carla Gericke
written by Carla Gericke

My sign from two years ago today says: “Why protect bad apples?!?” Why, indeed…

Two years ago, I attended the Superior Court hearing about making PUBLIC the “Laurie’s List,” a secret list of bad cops. The NH AG’s office, headed by Gordon MacDonald, who was recently appointed as Chief Justice of the NH Supreme Court (read my testimony against his appointment here), was arguing that there is NO PUBLIC INTEREST in knowing which NH law enforcement officers have been found by their own police chief after a 20-page procedure to be so untrustworthy that they cannot testify in court.

You have to lie, cheat, steal or beat people up to get on the list. At that time, the “Laurie’s List” had about 270 officers on the list. I believe that’s about 10% of the full-time NH force.

Judge Temple rightly sided with Granite Staters, and in April 2019, issued an order saying the list must be released, stating there was a COMPELLING PUBLIC INTEREST for us to know who these law enforcement officers are. Doh!

The NH AG APPEALED this decision (yes, the same guy who is now in charge of the NH SC), making NH taxpayers again PAY to support an argument that the list should be kept secret from us. Rude!

I remind you the NH Constitution says: “All power residing originally in, and being derived from, the people, all the magistrates and officers of government are their substitutes and agents, and at all times accountable to them. Government, therefore, should be open, accessible, accountable and responsive. To that end, the public’s right of access to governmental proceedings and records shall not be unreasonably restricted. The public also has a right to an orderly, lawful, and accountable government.”

You’d have to be a statist to think keeping a secret list of bad cops hidden from the public they purport to serve is in any way OK.

The matter ended up in the Supreme Court last summer, where the Court finally overturned the wrongly-decided Fenniman decision from the Nineties, finding that, after almost 30 years, state agents cannot claim information placing officers on the “Laurie’s List” falls under “confidential personnel matters.” Doh!

In the meantime, cities across America burned with people protesting the profound lack of police accountability nationwide. Even here in NH, we saw marches and confrontations.

Sununu cleverly convened a “Look! We’re Doing Something!” task force called the LEACT, stacked with… you guessed it, 50% law enforcement. The commission made a few good recommendations, most of which, if I have to bet money, won’t be implemented. But, “Look! It Looks Like We’re Doing Something!”

At the start of the 2021 legislative session, along comes Senator Carson, who gallingly introduces SB39, which basically aims to REVERSE the transparency and accountability progress that took us TWENTY SEVEN YEARS TO FIX.

This horrendous bill did not have any other co-sponsors when it was introduced, but, after pro-transparency and pro-accountability activists testified to stop SB39 (me, RTKNH, ACLU-NH, etc.) several law enforcement officers jumped on the Zoom call to give, let me be polite here, very conflicting testimony about whether this bill would implement any of the LEACT Commission’s recommendations. (It doesn’t).

This bill must die if transparency is to live.

Granite Staters have the right-to-know what our government is doing in our names. Granite Staters have a right-to-know who the bad cops are. Granite Staters have a right-to-know everything and anything about our government, because if we don’t, then who do they serve and work for if it is not us?

You can follow my RTK work and other open government issues on my blog, The Art of Independence:
https://www.carlagericke.com/tag/government-accountability/
https://www.carlagericke.com/tag/open-government/

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Blog

The Free State: An Idea Whose Time Has Come

by Carla Gericke
written by Carla Gericke

Happy Porcupine Day! Know what accelerates the growth of a “libertarian safe space”? 😛 Totalitarianism and tyranny. Know what the future holds? Yep: More totalitarianism and tyranny, double-scooped and ice-f*ing-cold.

Five years ago today, a former version of myself stood before our consent-based community at a press conference in downtown Manchester to announce the Free State Project, a movement to attract thousands of libertarians to New Hampshire, had been triggered, and that it was time for people to start their exodus home.

Thousands answered that cry! Thank you!

You can read, “Triggered: Free State Project Reaches Its Goal, Tells Everyone to Move to New Hampshire And Do Something” in my book, The Ecstatic Pessimist: Stories of Hope (Mostly), but here are some highlights from my 2016 speech:

Look, the Free State Project is not everyone’s cup of tea, not everyone wants to LIVE their principles, but a large number of people are dissatisfied with the direction this country is heading—71% according to a recent poll cited on Politico—and 49% of those people expressed dissatisfaction with the federal government, 29% going so far as to say they were “angry.” Some people just want to sit around and complain—or, apparently, vote for Bernie or Trump. Others seek solutions. They want to DO SOMETHING. And that’s ultimately what the Free State Project is about: ACTION. Upping and moving to one area to concentrate principled liberty activists together to affect change. As our slogan says: Liberty in OUR Lifetime…

As more people awaken to the reality of a dystopian present, more people will seek answers and solutions, which is what life in New Hampshire as part of the Free State offers—in the future, we will see the expansion of personal and economic freedom here. People seem wary of the notion that freedom works, but what if New Hampshire can lead the way? Provide the example to show others, it’s not that scary? If autobahns work in Germany, why can’t they work here? If pot legalization works in Amsterdam and Colorado, why can’t it work here? If gambling works in Monaco—or, apparently, as long as the government runs the gambling racket like the Lotto—why can’t it work here? If deregulated markets keep Hong Kong competitive, why can’t we see more of the same here? If unfavorable tax burdens are forcing people and companies to leave certain states, why not welcome them to New Hampshire and build the Silicon Mill Yard right here?

In ten to twenty years, if we continue to embrace the principles of liberty and limited government, I know New Hampshire will stand as a wealthy, prosperous, autonomous example—a beacon of liberty—for the rest of the world to emulate. The future for the Free State Project in New Hampshire looks bright… First New Hampshire, then the world!

Finally, I have always believed, and continue to believe, if we build it, they will come. As we continue to build on our early, impressive successes in the Granite State, the federal government will continue its brazen overreach, whether it is police state tactics like national surveillance, police militarization and lockdowns, or the unconstitutional wars taking a toll on millions of innocent lives across the world, or them trying to get their grubby little paws on OUR internet...

After 2020, who can deny how prescient my words were? It is now abundantly clear to any thinking human being that government thinks we are their property and slaves, that they can dictate our every move, and even tell us if and when to leave the house and what to wear when doing so. If I am not free to decide for myself what steps to take in my own life, am I really free? Who owns me? Who owns YOU?

Can we stave government overreach in New Hampshire? I firmly believe we can (and are). I remain 100% OPTIMISTIC about our prospects in the Free State of New Hampshire… But we need reinforcements… We need YOU!

As the boot of the state smashes down more and more, as they grab more control, as they manipulate more media and minds and spread more fake news, as they call us more and more alarming names, and try to silence and even de-platform us, we will continue to grow…

“Nothing else in the world…not all the armies…is so powerful as an idea whose time has come.”

–Victor Hugo

Our time has come. We will continue to attract like-minded, well-informed, brave, proud INDIVIDUALS who are willing to bandy together and say, Look, there are 49 other places in America you can go play ‘Socialist and Commie.’ Here in New Hampshire, we’re not playing. We are living. We are living our lives in freedom because Liberty Lives in New Hampshire! Join us!



0 comments
2 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Blog

Reversing Fines and Penalties Against Businesses (HB 63 Testimony)

by Carla Gericke
written by Carla Gericke

Dear Honorable Committee Members, 

My name is Carla Gericke, former Republican state Senate candidate in District 20. I live in Manchester, am an immigrant from South Africa, and am an author, activist, and attorney. I am writing today to ask you to SUPPORT HB63, and I ask that this email testimony be submitted into the permanent record for this bill.

I have been following the outlandish unconstitutional response by New Hampshire’s governor to the COVID situation with much alarm, having seen this sort of government “emergency power” overreach as a child growing up in a police state, where the little guy always got bamboozled by the all-powerful, unconstrained state. 

What I saw over the past year should never be repeated in our great state, and I ask you to SUPPORT HB63 to help reverse the harmful, unnecessary, unilateral, and unconstitutional actions taken by one man acting like a king. 

Governor Sununu spent the last year issuing scores of executive orders based on an incorrect reading of the situation. According to the state’s own data NO EMERGENCY has existed in NH because the All-Cause Mortality Rate remains on trend, meaning there is no discernible pandemic death rate spike.

I further submit that even if an “emergency” exists, no Governor has the authority to suspend the US and NH Constitutions, which, shockingly, is what Governor Sununu’s executive orders claimed to do by eliminating the right to assembly, worship, and free speech. Even more shockingly, and, as an attorney, tragically, the Courts played along. Executive Order #65, which institutes penalties and fines against people trying stay in business, is especially egregious, as is the arbitrarily enforcement of this order by the AG’s office against some businesses. 

HB63 aims to right this wrong by voiding or reversing such fines and penalties. 

Now that President Biden has said there’s “nothing we can do about COVID,” it seems time for our legislature to follow suit and SUPPORT HB63 to get New Hampshire back on track and stop punishing people for trying to make a living.

Mistakes were made, but now that we have a better sense of the actual risks, where they lie, and whom is most vulnerable, let’s work together to fix the problems that were inadvertently created by the governor’s orders. This starts with SUPPORTING HB63 to reverse the penalties and fines instituted arbitrarily against productive Granite Staters. 

Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Carla Gericke
West Manchester

0 comments
1 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Blog

NH Needs a Right-to-Know Ombudsman, Now!

by Carla Gericke
written by Carla Gericke

Copied below is my testimony submitted in support of HB481 to establish a RTK Ombudsman.

Dear Committee Members,

Please support HB481 to establish a Right-to-Know Ombudsman.

My name is Carla Gericke, former Republican state Senate candidate in District 20. I live in Manchester, NH, am an attorney, and serve on several nonprofit boards, including Right-to-Know NH (RTKNH), a nonpartisan, statewide citizens’ coalition that works to improve government transparency and accountability.

RTKNH supports this bill and will be submitting testimony in support, so I am testifying in my personal capacity as a citizen. 

Sadly, despite strong language in the NH Constitution regarding a citizen’s right-to-know, New Hampshire ranks very poorly for open and transparent government.

In 2015, the Center for Public Integrity found in the category of “Public Access to Information,” New Hampshire earned a grade of F, and ranked 49th out of 50 states. In the category titled “In practice, citizens can resolve appeals to access to information requests within a reasonable time period and cost,” New Hampshire received a score of 0. [Report HERE].

Surely with the NH Constitution stating that the government should “at all times” “be open, accessible, accountable and responsive,” we can do better than zero?

Why is it that Granite Staters do not have access to public information in a reasonable time frame and/or at a reasonable cost?

(1) Because the burden on citizens to resolve Right-to-Know complaints is very high. When state departments, for whatever reason, deny a RTK request, citizens are forced to file a lawsuit in Superior Court. This is intimidating, expensive, and time consuming.  
(2) Municipalities seem mis- or ill-informed and/or lack proper training about citizens’ Right-to-Know. They now regularly, as a matter of course, deny requests without any solid legal footing, forcing citizens into the courts. Some departments are even on record as saying filing Right-to-Know requests is regarded as a “hostile act.” This view is unacceptable.  

In 2017, a task force was convened to try to rectify New Hampshire’s lack of open government. After months of meetings, stakeholders from different sides unanimously agreed that citizens need an easier, cheaper, faster grievance resolution process which reduces cost for all parties. As a result, establishing an independent Right-to-Know Ombudsman position was recommended. (Final report HERE.)

Initially, I was against this notion, thinking, “Here we go again, instead of fixing a problem, we’ll just end up growing government.” But in the past four years, as I have struggled with my own open record requests, been denied access to police body camera footage (did you know police body cam footage is secret in all but a few situations? Yeah, me either!?!), and watched high profile and expensive cases wend their way through to the NH Supreme Court, I have changed my mind. 

We need a Right-to-Know Ombudsman ASAP. Even though there is some expense to hiring this position, which will be borne from the Secretary of State’s office, the savings from expensive lawsuits and attorney’s fees should easily counteract this. Also, sometimes we have to incur an expense to fix a problem, and with the courts overwhelmed, and slow, an Ombudsman seems like a reasonable compromise to increase government transparency, which in turn increases accountability. 

Speaking of accountability, this legislative body has now had several years to pass this bill, and transparency is getting worse, not better. Please don’t make it almost thirty years, like with Fenniman, before we start to fix what is clearly a growing problem.

Let’s move in the right direction. Let’s establish a cheap, fast, easy, streamlined, credible, and impartial way for citizens’ to ensure our government is “open, accessible, accountable and responsive” to us. 

This bill also includes a sunset clause, so on the off-chance we find the Ombudsman is not serving Granite Staters well, we can change course. Let’s give this a try in the meantime! 

I ask that you support HB481. Thank you for your time. 

Sincerely, 
Carla Gericke
West Manchester  

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
BlogIn the Media

Q&A from “Third Parties in the US Political System: What External and Internal Issues Shape Public Perception of Libertarian Party/Politicians?”

by Carla Gericke
written by Carla Gericke

I was looking for something else, but ran across this thesis dissertation Q&A from a few years ago, and thought I’d share.

From “Third Parties in the U.S. Political System: What External and Internal Issues Shape Public Perception of Libertarian Party/Politicians?” by Jackie Fiest.

Fiest: First question would have to be if you are okay with my using your name in this thesis?
Gericke: Yes
Fiest: Early on, what prompted interest in first politics and then libertarianism?
Gericke: It would be fair to say, I was always a bit of a rebel. My father was a South African
diplomat, so I was raised in a home where current affairs was always a topic. I first got involved
in politics as a small-time anti-apartheid activist, mostly through creative endeavors like writing
articles critical of the regime for an underground newspaper I founded with some friends at
University, and writing and performing in a play at the Grahamstown Arts Festival, the largest
arts festival in the Southern Hemisphere. I did attend some marches, and was present at Nelson
Mandela’s historic inauguration in 1994. While I was completing my law articleship–a 2 year
“intern” requirement after you finish your law degree to be admitted to the South African Bar–I
also started taking Legal Aid Board cases, representing underprivileged defendants in townships
around Pretoria. I was shocked by how cruel the system was, and that has always influenced my
libertarian views on criminal justice. After winning a green card in the lottery and immigrating to
America, my husband and I settled in Silicon Valley, and after the Internet Bubble burst, and we
both lost our jobs, I was forced to explore why this had happen (like, WTF???) and studied
theories about how the economic bubble had started and why it crashed and burned… and this
led me deep into libertarian thought and Austrian economics (the rabbit-hole of the Internet was
new and minty-fresh back then in 2000), which in turn led me to the Free State Project, and the
rest, as they say, is history… I was a staunch Ron Paul supporter in 2008 and 2012, and here in
NH, he came second in both the Republican and Democrat primaries both times (double check
this, but I think it’s accurate). Libertarianism, simply put, makes sense to me. It is the only
rational, logical explanation I have found for the best way to organize society, with the nonaggression principle playing the core part for me.
I believe we are the neo-peace movement. Government is the world’s biggest bully, and we have
a duty to stop the violence. That is what I am dedicating my life to.
Fiest: What made you want to run for office? Had you run for any local or state offices before
running for senate?
Gericke: I’m a strong supporter of states’ rights, and would likely never run for federal office. I
ran in 2016 and 2018 for NH State Senate in District 20 as a Republican against a now 11 term,
80 year old Democratic incumbent. I hadn’t run for any political office before.
Fiest: I know that you’re very involved with your local libertarian community. I’m familiar with
your battle all the way to the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals on the right to film police. And your
entanglement with the Concord, NH police of their attempting to buy a Bearcat saying
libertarians were domestic terrorists. I truly believe that you walk the walk when it comes to
being a libertarian. What prompted you to run as a Republican despite this? Did running as a
Democrat ever enter your mind?
Gericke: I ran as a Republican because I wanted to win. The duopoly, and the corruption that
goes with it, is too strong to win as a Libertarian candidate. The NHGOP’s platform is fairly oldschool Republican, so is still fairly libertarian (although there are some dumb stuff on there too).
Many Free Staters and prestaters in NH identify as Republican, and we’re building a strong
liberty caucus within the party. I would not be surprised if the NHGOP becomes the most
libertarian GOP in the US (if it isn’t already).
Running as a Democrat is something I vaguely considered but decided against… mostly because
in NH, the Democrats vote party-line, with very little deviance or independency, and while my
principles align with them on a lot of issues, like criminal justice reform, drug policy reform,
ending the death penalty, anti-crony-capitalism, etc., I don’t agree with them on economic policy
at all (taxation IS theft!), and the NH Democrats HATE free staters, so I doubt I’d be welcomed.
My district is strange in that it encompasses a big part of Manchester, our largest city, which
swings heavily left, and Goffstown, which is rural and +8 Republican. In this 2018 race, my
district had a swing of 10-15% to the left, but, despite this, I increased my take by 2%, which to
me means my message must have resonated with some of the voters, regardless of their party
affiliation.
My opponent can’t live forever, I don’t have a strong sense of “party affiliation” (being a
libertarian immigrant), and I may either run again as a Republican, switch to Democrat if it
makes sense, or, most likely, run as an Independent in the future. Most Granite Staters are
Independents, and as the two party system continues its death swirl around the swamp drain,
more opportunities will present themselves for people to take new and perhaps radical
approaches.
Fiest: How did you plan to apply your libertarian principles in your role as senator of NH?
Fiest: Principles means sticking to what you believe, so I would have voted to shrink the size and
scope of government, and to increase personal liberty. In NH, we have an organization called the
NH Liberty Alliance that was started by free staters and philosophically aligned locals who
provide a weekly “Gold Standard” to advise pro-liberty legislators how to vote on upcoming
bills. I would have used that as baseline guidance.
Being a state senator also provides a more legitimate platform to spread the ideas of liberty and
individualism. I was looking forward to being that voice!
Fiest: Can you tell us about your time as president of the Free State Project and what this project
is about?
“NH Magazine, May 2011
She traveled the world as the daughter of diplomats and went on to practice law in South Africa
and California, but Carla Gericke’s life changed when she heard the call of the Free State
Movement for like-minded people to flock to N.H. and promote greater liberty and less
government. She helped organize two recent Porcupine Festivals – the Free State equivalent of an
Old Home Day – even earning the title “The Quill Queen” (note quill crown, left), and was just
chosen as the movement’s new leader. In this exclusive interview, we found her not to be at all
prickly.
How does one become the leader of the Free State Movement? Are fisticuffs involved? Duel at
dawn, actually. I’m afraid the truth is rather more mundane: the Free State Project’s board votes
on candidates and someone wins.
What do you think is your primary qualification for the post? My royal lineage, replete with quill
crown. The porcupine is our mascot – porcupines are peaceful creatures you want to leave alone –
and after I organized the last two Porcupine Freedom Festivals in Lancaster, I received the
moniker of “Queen Quill.” As the first queen of the movement, I was the perfect candidate to
take over. More seriously, in a decentralized organization like ours, you have to be able to
balance folks’ differing viewpoints and strong personalities, fondly referred to as “herding cats.”
Iz good catz herder.
Since the Free State movement is not political, does that mean you always get to give straight
answers? Er, em, uh, yes.
So give it to me straight. How’s the movement going? This is an exciting time for us. We have
crossed the halfway mark to recruiting 20,000 liberty lovers to pledge to move to New
Hampshire to create a more free society. I appreciate this sounds scary to some, but think of us as
localization on steroids, as wanting to create an even more prosperous state than New Hampshire
already is–a Yankee Hong Kong, if you will. More than 800 activists have already moved, and
we are hard at work in our communities to create a society based on voluntary exchange, free
from state coercion. As government grows and becomes more intrusive, I believe we will
continue to gain momentum. We also have strong local support, with Friends of the Free State
signing up all the time.
Any particular high and low points over the past few years? As an organization, the Free State
Project does not take positions on what participants do once they get here. It’s more the vehicle,
the “bus” to convince liberty-leaning individuals to move. Once in New Hampshire, people
exercise individual activism in different ways. They run for office–twelve participants are now
state reps–they do localized outreach like volunteering at fire departments, they form non-profits
like the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance that rates representatives according to their voting
records, they manage successful businesses, and they practice civil disobedience in the spirit of
Gandhi and Martin Luther King. The media tends to focus on the latter because it is by its very
nature more controversial, but rest assured Free Staters are good neighbors who like ice-cream
too.
Any second thoughts about choosing New Hampshire as the Free State? Absolutely not. I have
lived all over the world, and I love it here. New Hampshire has so much to offer: a ready-built
individualist culture–Live Free or Die, Baby!–and it is consistently named one of the best places
in America to live. With its low crime rate, favorable gun laws, healthy living, buoyant economy,
low taxes and no personal state income tax (which I view as a form of slavery), it is the perfect
place for productive people to settle
Seems like the Free State Movement could use an anthem. Is there a song that you always play at
rallies? We’ve played the Super Secret Project’s “Granite State of Mind” at functions and it
always goes over well. How can you not love lyrics like: “I’m the new Salinger/Cuz I could live
anywhere/But I choose to live here.” This really resonates with me.”
I’m being lazy, but here’s a good resource about the FSP (from 2014, so probably a bit out of
date, but should be good starting point for you):
Fiest: Why do you think they are so few women in libertarian politics? What do you think we
can do to bring in more?
Gericke: I will answer more comprehensively in a sec, but when a reporter from the New York
Times asked me something similar, I retorted: “Well, you are asking an IMMIGRANT WOMAN
who is running a 20K strong libertarian organization made up mostly of men that…maybe we
should just start by acknowledging I exist, and that it’s not such a big deal one way or the
other?”
Libertarianism appeals to logical, rational people. Few men, and, frankly, fewer women, are
logical and rational. So that’s one (BIG) hurdle. Also, mal-education is now built into statist,
government-run schools, so less people can think critically, which makes our jobs harder.
In a speech in NYC years ago, I explained the M/F composition this way: “We have a lot of
Spocks, we need more Captain Kirks.”
I am both of these things, but definitely more fly-by-the-seat-of-my-pants-it-will-all-work-out
Kirk. We need to make our messaging less Spock-like, less about “being right” (logical and
rational) and more about feelings and emotions… YES, we need to learn to appeal to emotion
(without fraud, of course), because we can actually win this way. For example: An average mom
might actually like the message of libertarianism if it’s explained in a way that makes it clear the
government is bad, and personal choice is good… through something like food freedom… like
how bad the Standard American diet is, and through explaining the distortion of ingredients in
our food (making them less healthy) because of sugar and corn subsidies… At the heart, it’s an
economic argument, but you can make it without sounding like a Nobel Prize winning
economist, yanno?
Women may traditionally also be less good at self-promotion or less comfortable in a public role.
Certainly for me, I had no idea how toxic the online asshole libertarian environment could be.
E..g. We banned Chris Cantwell in Fall 2013–years before he became “the crying Nazi”–and
I took the flak, I was the problem, even though I was right, and I’m still waiting for
someone to be like, ‘Good fucking call, Carla.’ 😛
We need more women thought-leaders to step up. We need more women role models. We need
to celebrate and encourage the ones who put themselves out there. We need to be pushier about
getting speaking slots. We need to demand equal treatment and perks on the speaking circuit. I
LOVE IT when new women movers come to NH, and tell me I inspired them to move. I need to
finished my goddamn book. 😛 [I did, and you should buy your copy of The Ecstatic Pessimist: Stories of Hope (Mostly) today! On Amazon or directly from me.]

Fiest: Another person I’m interviewing has talked a bit about steps that some Democrats and
Republicans have taken to keep libertarians off the ballot in the state of Arizona. Having to
obtain ungoldly amounts of signatures, and things along those lines. Were you met with any of
these roadblocks, and, if so, how would you have handled this?
Gericke: The NH Libertarian Party regained ballot access in 2016 for the 2018 election… and
then lost it again. In NH, you have to get 4% of the governor’s race to retain ballot access.
Unfortunately, in 2018, the LPNH didn’t do the work, or field feasible candidates. They failed to
fundraise in any significant way (which, sadly, is an important metric). The person who worked
the hardest in 2016 to get ballot access, Max Abrahamson, switched back to Republican in 2018,
which certainly couldn’t have helped. Until the LPNH becomes more professional in their
operations and takes themselves more seriously, it’s going to be an uphill slog.
Fiest: According to the LP website, there are 177 Libertarians (or small government
conservatives, if you wish) holding some kind of public office in the U.S., but they are all local
positions. Various school boards, utility boards…but very little at the state level and there are
currently no Libertarians in Congress. Why do you think that is?
Gericke: The Leviathan hates freedom, grows and thrives under socialism like the parasite it is,
and they will do everything in their power to stop our message of individual liberty. It’s that
simple. Unless there is a radical overhaul of how the system works (and there are some
interesting things cropping up, look at this, fyi:
https://www.facebook.com/RepresentUs/videos/410253132875542/), only efforts like the FSP
will be viable. Most of us have already given up on the federal government, and we’re here to
make a difference on a state level. I serve as president of the Foundation for NH Independence, a
501c3 nonprofit that educates Granite Staters on the benefits of more independence from the
federal government. As I have been saying for years: Make America States Again! It’s for the
children! 😛

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Blog

Please DO NOT Confirm AG MacDonald as Chief Justice

by Carla Gericke
written by Carla Gericke

Following please find the letter I sent to the Executive Council regarding the potential appointment of Gordon MacDonald as New Hampshire’s Supreme Court Judge. If you’re interested, you can participate in this process in three ways, sent to me from ReBuildNH: “1) Go to the meeting on the 21st in person (they’ll probably make you wear a mask—resist if you are so inclined), 2) attend the meeting using their call-in number, or 3) email the Executive Councilors (gcweb@nh.gov) and give them your reasons why Gordon MacDonald should not be trusted with the highest judicial office in New Hampshire.”

***

Dear Councilors,

I ask that this email be read into and form part of the official record. I, Carla Gericke, former Republican State Senate candidate in District 20, ask you to vote AGAINST Gordon MacDonald’s nomination as New Hampshire’s Supreme Court Justice. 

On top of the fiasco created by Sununu’s unConstitutional Emergency Orders, fully supported and enforced by the AG, for which there is NO LEGAL JUSTIFICATION, you should NOT confirm MacDonald based on his appeal of Judge Temple’s 2019 order to release the secret list of bad cops, aka, the Laurie’s List.

If, as MacDonald claimed by filing the appeal, he believes Granite Staters have no right to know which law enforcement officers have been found by their own police chiefs after a 20+ page process to be too corrupt to testify in court–officers who lie, cheat, falsify police reports, and use excessive force–then what sort of Supreme Court judge will he be? MacDonald’s misreading of this issue is so egregious, the NH Supreme Court late last year remanded the case back to the lower court, saying this information is, of course, in the public interest and must be disclosed. Due to MacDonald’s decision to file the appeal, his actions directly protected known bad actors for several extra years, years during which we have seen massive social unrest due to lack of police accountability or any appetite for real policing reform. This lack of judgement has wasted tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars in unnecessary legal fees, and, rightfully, led to a deep mistrust in the justice system. 

I remind you, the NH Constitution says: 

[Art.] 8. [Accountability of Magistrates and Officers; Public’s Right to Know.] All power residing originally in, and being derived from, the people, all the magistrates and officers of government are their substitutes and agents, and at all times accountable to them. Government, therefore, should be open, accessible, accountable and responsive. To that end, the public’s right of access to governmental proceedings and records shall not be unreasonably restricted.  The public also has a right to an orderly, lawful, and accountable government.

MacDonald has proven time and time again, he will protect the Establishment at the expense of the people he purports to serve. In fact, thinking people might argue it is a de facto conflict of interest for a former Attorney General to become a Supreme Court Justice because he will be incapable of protecting New Hampshire’s citizens against Constitutional overreaches by the state. We need a bench with judges who serve the law, not politicians, their cronies, and unions. MacDonald, through his own actions, has proven he is not up to the task. 

I ask you to vote AGAINST Gordon MacDonald as New Hampshire’s Supreme Court Justice.

Thank you for your time. 

Sincerely, 
Carla Gericke 
Former Republican State Senate Candidate, District 20

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
BlogGuest Blog

Open Letter from an American Coward by Sarah Chamberlain

by Carla Gericke
written by Carla Gericke

My friend Sarah Chamberlain wrote this essay on Medium, and I wanted to share here too. If you only read one thing today, let it be this.

Please save, screenshot, etc., then boost.
I don’t usually ask for my content to be shared. What I am about to say though is perhaps the most important thing I will ever say in public, and in the present landscape of the internet, there is a very high probability that it is being silenced or erased even now as you read it. So, I am asking you to please, save an offline and/or archived copy of this letter RIGHT NOW.

If, once you’ve read this letter, you feel that it has any value or interest whatsoever, please, as a personal favor, send it on through whichever channels, to whichever people you feel safe doing so.

If you think what I say is absurd, please share my letter with your friends so you can all laugh at me.

If you think that what I say is evil, please share it with your friends so you can all rage at me.

If you think I deserve to be punished for what I say, please send my letter on to the “authorities” or to any person you think might hurt me for writing it. At least then, those people will have a chance to read it.

I am
an American, a New Hampshirewoman, a lover of liberty, and a happily married mother of four beautiful children. I have a wonderful life, a bright future, and could not ask for any greater blessing than those I have already received.

My enemies are
in a word, communists. Modern communists do not usually call themselves such. They do not talk about workers rising up and seizing the Means of Production.

Instead, modern communists adopt a rhetorical stance where they assume that all people and all property are ALREADY COLLECTIVIZED, then calmly discuss what WE should do:
– What WE should ALLOW people to own.
– What WE should ALLOW people to do.
– What WE should ALLOW people to say.
– How WE should ALLOW people to use their property.
– How WE should ALLOW people to conduct their businesses,
– … and WHO should be ALLOWED,
– … and WHERE.
– How WE should ALLOW people to raise their children.
– Who should be GIVEN which roles within society.
– etc.

The issue under discussion is always something sympathetic, something most decent people would like to see fixed: Intergenerational poverty, police brutality, environmental degradation, bigotry, violence.

But the solutions modern communists put forward are rarely passive, and they are never liberating. If a problem can be solved by individual action, voluntary charity, by the free market, or by the passage of time, that is never seen as good enough. In fact, nothing that fails to increase the power and control of governments or certain institutions (or to grow the people’s dependence on them) is ever regarded as a solution at all.

The people who do the work of modern communism, debating and voting on these “issues of the day” are mostly not aware of what they are doing. A majority of them are decent people who want real problems addressed. But their thinking is confined to a multiple choice question presented by prestige media and schools where only oppressive proposals are listed as options.

Even those higher up the food chain, the ones who create the policy proposals or set the bounds of debate around them are not usually conscious of the way they are manipulating the public. They are hobbled by a theory of history (care of the school system) where the past is merely a series of dragons slain by government policy, where everything is “systemic”, and where the free choices and conscientious actions of individuals have no meaningful effect.

This is how the enemy operates.
In order for modern communists to have the latitude to execute their plans, they need every citizen to be as weak and dependent as possible. They especially need the middle tiers of management, professions, and bureaucracy to be filled with minimally competent placeholders who owe their position to political and institutional favor. These sorts of people, since they are only able to achieve their present position through the system, are more pliable to coercion and less likely to see freedom in any aspect of life as promising or beneficial.

As a consequence, modern communists wage eternal war against every wholesome and sustainable aspect of life, society, and culture which gives people or communities strength and independence. They see it as desirable to destroy the natural optimum which people discover through freedom and competition and replace it with fragile, orchid-like solutions which could not thrive without government and/or institutional intervention:
– Those with demonstrable skills must be replaced by those with credentials.
– The self-employed must be reduced to the status of employees.
– Property must become regulated or burdened with tax and debt, and wherever possible, wealth must be rendered intangible as abstracted financial fictions constructed of laws.
– People must come to rely on government programs for security where they previously relied on themselves and each other.
– The traditional family and organic communities it forms, such as churches, must be invaded, defanged, and delegitimized to leave people at the mercy of authorities.

To a modern communist, “freedom” means the opportunity for individuals to choose some fundamentally maladaptive way of life and be protected from consequences, encouraged and subsidized by power.

The weaker you are, the more useful you are to those in power. Those who choose to be weak and dependent where they could be healthy and independent are collaborators.

This is what I see happening.
The American public has come to accept all the components of totalitarian states.
– We have come to accept a militarized police.
– We have come to accept ideological indoctrination in schools.
– We have come to accept mass surveillance.
– We have come to accept speech codes.
– We have come to accept the rewriting of history to serve the interests of the ruling party.
– We have come to accept the tarring of political dissidents as “terrorists”, “extremists”, and “White Supremacists.”
– We have come to accept the State telling us when and where we can meet.
– We have come to accept the State shutting down our places of worship.
– We have come to accept the idea that parents should have no special authority over their children.
– We have come to accept the manipulation of thought through the manipulation of language.
– We have come to accept the radical reordering of society by government in the name of crisis.

In the 2016 election, the full-throated manipulation by the mainstream press, academia, and the political establishment was so intense, and so obvious, that many people (myself included) who did not consider themselves “conservative” voted for Donald Trump just to poke a finger in the eye of Leviathan. So many people did so that his margin of victory exceeded the margin of cheat, and he was actually able to become president.

In the intervening years, the modern communists of both parties (though more so the Democrats) and those same media and academia mandarins have only doubled down on their commitment to subjugating the public and clamping down on our personal freedom and political prerogatives. Somehow, in losing electorally, we are to believe that their mandate for runaway collectivism and authoritarianism was strengthened.

Now, in the 2020 election, the fraud and manipulation became so glaringly obvious that, at the time of writing, at least 47% of all Americans, regardless of party loyalty, understand that the election was stolen and Joe Biden is illegitimate. Somehow though, it is still a long shot that Donald Trump, the person who has done more to expose the mendacity and incompetence of the ruling party and institutions than anyone else, will be seated as President.

Every one of those Americans who understands this must realize that this is it. This is the last moment for the American Republic, the last time we will even have a glimmer of a chance of an honest election result, and the last time any opposition to modern communism will be afforded space in the public square. And yet, neither I nor most of you are going to do anything about this situation that might risk our present status or comfort.

This is why I won’t yet act.
Unfortunately for me, the crisis has come either too late or too early. Our family has four young children, a single income, and a base of assets which could be easily lost but probably never replaced. We are maximally vulnerable to the sorts of attacks which collectivists bring against those who fight back.

Even so, if the fight were on, if the majority of Americans who this past election shows are opposed to creeping collectivism were on the march, I would risk it all to join them. No comfort, no wealth, not even life itself is as important as preserving the possibility of human freedom. The hive-society prison which is being built around us must be demolished at any cost.

But when I look around me, I see many people who are paralyzed as I am. We know that the fight for our republic is unavoidable, and that the time is now, but do not see a nucleus of resistance to which we can pledge our lives, fortunes, and sacred honors without it being tantamount to suicide. We are watching and waiting for someone else to be that nucleus.

Most people who have not committed to the cause of freedom are not conscious supporters of modern communism. Some hold out the futile hope that things will all go back to normal, others have convinced themselves that what is happening is inevitable and cannot be opposed. Both are dead wrong. As open struggle against collectivism, communism, authoritarianism, and globalism rises, both of these positions will weaken, and support for freedom will grow.

If you have the courage to act where I do not,
here is what I WILL do:
– If you speak out against them, I will listen.
– If you act against them, I will not stand in your way.
– If they portray you as uncool, cringey, old-fashioned, unintelligent, or low-class, I will not laugh at you or think less of you.
– If they call you a racist, sexist, xenophobe, homophobe, Nazi, granny killer, etc., I will not believe them, nor will I care.
– If they call you a terrorist or an extremist, I will not assume that you are in the wrong.
– When they ask me questions, I will lie, forget, or evade as I am able.
– When they tell me their version of history, I will smile and nod and know they are liars.
– If they dispossess you, I will share what I can.
– If they martyr you, my children will learn your name as that of a hero.
– If you have the courage to be shameless in opposing them, you will be honored in my house.

This is what I will remember.
1. The universities and the class of “experts” and “professionals” to whom they grant legitimacy have no constitutional role in the American Republic. No amount of schooling grants one authority over others, and no consensus among the educated should have the force of law.

2. The guarantee in the Constitution of “Freedom of the Press” is not a grant of authority to the legacy media or to professional journalists. It is, in fact, a right belonging to the people: WE have the right to publish and disseminate views and information the same as those who work for newspapers or television networks.

3. The Intelligence and Defense establishments of the US exist to secure the rights and liberties of the American people. The US has constructed a vast apparatus to deploy force, subvert or overthrow governments, and disseminate propaganda, but these activities are only legitimate when they are directed OUTWARD. When the geopolitical capabilities of the US government do not act to empower the American people and sustain our Constitution, they are just as criminal as the same actions taken by private citizens.

4. Law enforcement and defense against violence is the responsibility of each and every person. Even though we have become accustomed to having these services provided by professionals, they remain our right and our personal responsibility.

5. Education of the young is the responsibility of parents and natural communities. Even though we have become accustomed to having this service provided by professionals, it remains our right and our personal responsibility.

6. Provision of necessities such as food and shelter is the responsibility of each and every person. Even though we have become accustomed to these goods being delivered by a vast and interconnected economic machinery over which we have little control, it remains our right and our duty to provide for ourselves and those we care about.

7. Though peace, prosperity, happiness, and a long life are all wonderful conditions to experience, they are not what makes a human life worthwhile. Humans have dignity and value insofar as they are free agents struggling and striving to obtain these ends. “Treating someone as a human being” does not mean coddling them and providing for them like you would a child or a pet. It means getting out of their way and leaving them the freedom and latitude to provide for themselves.

8. Whoever relinquishes their freedom to obtain comfort or security is not acting as a human, but as an animal. Because our fates are all intertwined, such a person is betraying all of us, and does not deserve our concern or regard.

— Sarah Chamberlain

Original link to source on Medium.

0 comments
1 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Blog

Notes From Six Feet Away #3

by Carla Gericke
written by Carla Gericke

On Monday, I attended a couple of Manchester events regarding COVID. At the first, hosted by Respect NH event, several business leaders lamented the terrible situation they find themselves in: permanently shuttered parts of their businesses, disloyal employees who chose the dole over work, having to act as the “mask police” even when they 100% don’t want to, etc. The second event, hosted by ReBuild NH, was a deep dive into NH’s COVID numbers and some interesting data points from doctors, healthcare professionals, and OSHA certified specialists (who, in case you are wondering, recommend against people being forced to wear masks to prevent the spread of this virus). This led me to today’s mask mandate musings:

1. Are members of Rage Against the Machine wearing masks?

2. How quaint does “Employees must wash hands before returning to work” sound now?

3. Thanks to Governor Chris Sununu’s mask mandate, I’m going to have to close my UPS Store account where I have been a loyal customer for years and years. I asked if they would be willing to bring packages to the car if I called from outside, and they said no, and that they were unwilling to have “philosophical debates about masks. It’s mandated, that’s that!” This is what happens when you force private businesses to become agents of the state, and since they are, I will treat them accordingly.

4. Laundry detergents contain known carcinogens that should not be inhaled. What are you washing your mask with?

5. Wearing masks generate billions of bacteria in and around your mouth and nostrils. Our environments are now being over-sterilized, like hospitals. Know what else hospitals have? Staph-resistant bacteria. Know what that is? Things that don’t respond to antibiotics.

6. 99.6% survival rate for the seasonal flu.

7. Mark my words: The trade-offs aren’t going to be worth it, and we’re going to be paying for this government overreach for generations to come. For shame!

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
BlogElection 2020

Victory for Freedom of Choice: No Mask Mandate in Manchester

by Carla Gericke
written by Carla Gericke

If you have been watching the advent of petty little tyrants and Control Freaks who think they can demand what you wear when you leave the house, you may be as surprised as I am that the City of Manchester voted last night NOT to implement a citywide mask mandate. Thank you!

Said Alderman Mike Porter: “We’ve all received, I don’t know how many emails – hundreds I guess – and phone calls. I personally wear a mask. I strongly encourage it. We’ve already heard from the public – they do not want this.”

Damn straight, Skippy! The public does not want Manchester to devolve into East Berlin. If you want to wear a mask, wear one, if you don’t, don’t. It’s really that simple! Thank you to all the aldermen who did the right thing and voted for freedom and against tyranny. Read more at the Union Leader, Manchester aldermen reject citywide mask mandate…

The City did vote for a mask mandate in government buildings, but carved out exceptions for voting, which leads me to believe they KNOW their mandates are unConstitutional and will not withstand legal scrutiny.

Said Alderman Roy: “We already know there’s not going to be any enforcement or any consequences. Let’s talk about the unintended consequences – we know Nashua has a mask ordinance, and they’re in court. It’s a useless ordinance. People need to be able to make their own choices.”

Here’s the letter I submitted to the City of Manchester on Monday:

Dear Manchester City Officials,

In a free society, we each get to decide according to our own risk profiles how we care to behave, meaning if you want to go out in public while wearing a mask, wear one, if you don’t, don’t. It’s really that simple!

Forcing people to do things to their bodies against their will should never be tolerated. It is unConstitutional and immoral. You do not own me, my body, or my decisions about what I wear in public. If I wanted someone to tell me how to dress when I leave the house, I’d move to Saudi Arabia.

If you want to persuade me to behave in a certain fashion voluntarily, you need to make a credible, cogent, and convincing case. You cannot do this, because New Hampshire’s COVID data and the data on mask efficiency does not support your suggested mandate at all.

The data clearly shows that vast majority of NH’s fatal cases are in LTC facilities; the survival rate of the disease if contracted, as President Trump, Nashua’s Mayor Donchess, and Mayor Craig’s own daughter can attest, is more than 99%. The City’s proposed mask mandate has now been on the agenda for several months… where is the health “emergency”?

A mask mandate panders to irrational fears. It encourages a snitching class. It asks too much of our law enforcement, who are on the record saying they do not want this. Frankly, a mask mandate sounds like nasty, totalitarian, dystopian, Control Freak nonsense to me. Making our police officers enforce such nonsense pits them against law-abiding citizens, which seems unwise at a time of already heightened tensions.

If you proceed with the implementation of a Manchester mask mandate, I have no doubt you will be sued both as representatives of the City and in your personal capacities for violations of our civil liberties. I implore you to do the right thing now, and just say “NO” to this mask mandate proposal.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,
Carla Gericke
Republican State Senate Nominee in District 20
Ward 11 Manchester Homeowner and Voter

0 comments
2 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
BlogElection 2020

Manchester Again Debates Mandatory Masks Carrying $1,000 Fine

by Carla Gericke
written by Carla Gericke

Several articles appear in today’s Union Leader regarding the City’s attempt to reintroduce a mandatory mask mandate with a $1,000 fine that will be enforced by police and fire, leading to unnecessary confrontations with the public.

Drew Cline of the Josiah Bartlett Center, New Hampshire’s free market think tank, gets it right, when he asked “When is a mask mandate warranted?” saying, in part:

“Manchester aldermen are considering a mandate that would carry a $1,000 fine. City Health Department Director Anna Thomas told aldermen the point of the ordinance would be to educate the public about the importance of wearing masks.

No, the purpose of a public relations campaign is to educate. The purpose of a mandate is to force compliance. And the purpose of a fine is to punish.

Manchester Community College charges only $215 per credit. For $1,000, you could take a course in the Health Sciences curriculum, say, Probability & Statistics, learn more about the value of mask wearing, and still have $140 left over…

A mandate is an extraordinary measure to be reserved for the most extraordinary emergencies. New Hampshire’s infection rate remains well below 1 percent, its hospital capacity high, its voluntary mask wearing common. Even if mask mandates are comforting, it’s hard to make the case that they’re necessary to protect public health at this time.

And that — necessity — is the determining factor. The coercive power of government is not a tool with which to fine-tune people’s sensibilities. It is a last resort to be deployed when all other options are exhausted and the consequences of inaction are most dire.”

In “Both sides weigh in on Manchester mask proposal ahead of meeting” several City aldermen express their concerns with a mask mandate:

“Ward 8 Alderman Mike Porter said his opinion on the mandate hasn’t changed in the weeks since it was first proposed,

‘I strongly oppose a face covering ordinance in the city,’ said Porter over the weekend. ‘I strongly encourage everybody to wear a face covering but will not vote to mandate it. A plain reading of the proposed ordinance places an unnecessary burden on our already overburdened police and fire departments, and has the potential to create negative contacts between the public and our first responders.’

Porter added he strongly opposes the language involving ‘up to a $1,000 fine.’

‘This ordinance will only encourage a form of mask vigilantism by the public,’ said Porter. ‘The ordinance will create more problems than it solves.’

Other aldermen share Porter’s concerns.

‘I don’t support the ordinance as written because it is too onerous,’ said Ward 7 Alderman Ross Terrio. ‘I will consider a less restrictive ordinance that focuses on education over fines and is limited in what areas are covered.’

‘We should be meeting at City Hall and the mandatory mask ordinance is not needed, as people are doing safe things on their own, and there literally would be no enforcement,’ said Ward 12 Alderman Keith Hirschmann. ‘Seems this administration is following a national agenda.’

‘While I encourage people to wear a mask when they cannot socially distance themselves from others, I stand firm in my opposition to the government mandating an unenforceable ordinance demanding they do so,’ said Alderman-at-Large Joe Kelly Levasseur.”

In “‘High-risk’ behavior by some blamed for Manchester aldermen going remote” the aldermen set themselves up for a lawsuit by admitting they simply don’t want to face the public:

“‘High-risk behavior’ by members of the public is being cited as the reason Manchester’s aldermanic meetings will now be held remotely, after officials said the health and safety of staff and others were put at risk…

Ward 8 Alderman Mike Porter reacted to the decision in a social media post.

‘If elected officials can’t meet in person at City Hall — appropriately socially-distanced, wearing masks when moving about … then clearly masks are not the answer,’ he wrote. ‘Furthermore, if this is the precedent then schools should also be fully remote. If we as elected leaders can’t meet in person then kids and teachers should not meet in-person.’”

0 comments
1 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Close