Concord forbids Tea Party protest – New Hampshire – 844-292-1318 New Hampshire legal aid

Sponsor: http://HomelandStupidity.US – A demonstration you might never have heard of if it hadn’t been banned. Anti-Obamacare demonstration forbidden by Concord government, similar demonstration regulated in Rochester.

More info:

Video in part from htttp://

How u can buy an advert on the Ridley Report:

Many images from: –
please donate to them if practical at:

tea party parties ron paul coalition ridleyreport protest demonsration banned new hampshire forbidden staters health care reform insurance cops coppers concord police free state project audit the fed bill laws rules ordinances law enforcement officers nh paul hodes carol shea-porter jeanne shaheen dave ridley federal reserve judd gregg report liberty fed feds live free or die prohibition libertarian.
Video Rating: / 5

20 thoughts on “Concord forbids Tea Party protest – New Hampshire – 844-292-1318 New Hampshire legal aid”

  1. The last 3 presidents have been "doing away " with our Bill of Rights? We aren't suppose to expect government to go by the rules anymore. If you object to this expect to be tazed and possibly killed. Others will not come together and help you because they are beating you and not them. The major media will convince voters that a vote for Ron Paul is a wasted vote. Prepare to go farther into socialism. How much more do the rich want from you? They want "more". How much more? ..they want.more…

  2. I thought I was a Republican, then I discovered I was conservative. Then a funny thing happened on the way to the Tea Party. I discovered I was a Libertarian.
    We live and we learn. Keep up the good work!

  3. When Tactikalguy1 sues, nobody fucking laughs. When the people he has helped sue, nobody laughs. I've spoken with Tactikalguy1. He he offered to help Dave Ridley, and DR turned him down. Why? Because, as DR admits, he scoffs at attempts to actually use the constitution as it was intended to be used, as a defense against government.

  4. The reason FreeSters are losing their interest is because


    Either search "Pastor Sanderson." "Search Tactikalguy1" or go back to watching American Idol. People are sick of watching you people martyr yourselves. It ain't heroic to sit in a cage, you morons.

  5. watch?v=e_eqtFD6760



    Every state in the union will be free before NH, you pussies.


  6. You seem like a really honest, sincere guy. Just remember that most forms of evil through history, involving violations of persons or property, were considered necessary at the time.

    The current system lands people who've harmed nobody and nothing in jail for decades. It forces people like me, who consider the wars (for example), to be outrageous and immoral, to fund them anyway. If I don't fund them, I get locked up.

    This is not moral — as I'm confident later generations will recognize.

  7. @seanredsky

    I wasn't referring to racial minorities, I was referring to political minorities — although in some cases they are the same thing.

    Our current system is based on the notion that the majority owns the life and property of members of the minority, and may dispose of them as they choose.

    Infrastructure can and should be funded in better ways. I think we'd be far, far better off if we stopped imagining that theft or other abuse becomes moral when it's perpetrated by a majority.

  8. @ninjabunnyman I'm a member of the minority as well. Incase you haven't checked out my page, i'm a Native American. Every American, regardless of race or ethnicity is entitled to the same liberty and freedom. Taxes are required to fund infrastructure. Sure, it sucks to pay taxes when you're already broke…but without that revenue, we'd all be worse off. The real problem is when tax revenue is misallocated (which is a crime). All in all, we are blessed with a good system. Take care bud.

  9. @seanredsky

    Without approval from a majority of the politicians, that is.

    They take money from minorities, against their will, on a routine basis. I know, because I'm a member of the minority. If I don't send them cash, they will ultimately send armed men to my home.

    I share your preference for local government over federal … they're far more accountable, and far less abusive. But much of what they do is still wrong.

    We need to start working to apply moral standards consistently.

  10. @ninjabunnyman Do you attend budgetary meetings in your municipality? Those meetings specifically address which funds are going where. There is no room for anyone to spend anything without approval. We're talking about state and local here, not federal. Federal is a different creature altogether.

    Your perception of what is happening and what is actually happening are two entirely different things. If you truly want to understand how and why things are done they way they are, get involved. 

  11. @seanredsky

    Well, recklessness is a matter of opinion, but they certainly forcibly take other people's money and spend it on what they want, and they certainly place their own restrictions on the use of the property they acquire and maintain with those funds.

    What would happen to me and one of my neighbors, if we decided to get together and treat another of our neighbors this way? We'd go to jail.

  12. Yes, it would be a crime if it were true. Fortunately it is not. The notion that the majority 'forcibly' takes people's money and recklessly spends it on whatever they want is untrue. Public monetary funds are meticulously monitored. Also, noone is excluded from using anything to which they contributed. Anyone and everyone is required to obtain a permit prior to hosting any organized event at the public park. The permit notifies authorities of the event and keeps others from interfering with it.

  13. @seanredsky

    "Collectively" — meaning that the majority violate the property rights of the minority. They forcibly take their money, spend it on what they want to spend it on, then exclude that same minority from using it without their permission.

    This would be considered a crime in any other context.

  14. @ninjabunnyman Which piece of legislation are you citing to corroborate your statement about the state violating their property rights? The residents of Concord collectively pay taxes to fund many things, including but not limted to the park. However, they also collectively decided that people must obtain a permit prior to conducting certain activities there. The council is the elected voice of the people, this is why their vote is valid. This is also why the police officers authority is valid. 

  15. @seanredsky


    The state enforced liquor monopoly, and business licencing laws, are clearly what I was referring to.

    It's a violation of their property rights. They were forced to pay for that park, therefore they have a right to use it.

    If the politicians wish to decide who can and can't use the park, they should pay for it with their own money.

  16. I haven't the slightest idea what you're referring to at this point bud. At any rate, if the folks in the video wish to protest, that is their right to do so. However, the people of the city of Concord have decided they must obtain a permit prior to doing so. This is for many reasons. If they wished to address the issue before the council, they certainly had the right to do so at the next council meeting. The ordinance is not a violation of anyone's 1st amendment rights.

  17. @seanredsky

    People often believe that these kinds of violations of their neighbor's personal rights, or property rights, are necessary in order for society to function effectively. I think that if one really examines the issues, one usually finds that the opposite is the case — that there are absolutely viable, usually far more effective solutions, and that the current policies are causing at least as much harm as good.

Comments are closed.