Gaming out the ways DC & friends may try to undermine NH Independence Amendment

What are your suggested solutions to these projected scenarios:

  1. Legislative services refuses to process the amendment when it is handed to them by the rep(s).
  2. Someone or another tries to claim, and maybe enforce the claim, that such a proposal is not allowed because of the oath reps are forced to take to U.S. Constitution
    (My suggestion is to point out that it may be the only remaining effective way to uphold that constitution, which does not ban independence drives. Other methods of making D.C. follow it… like enthroning new presidents or voting for Ron Paul…have not had the effect of bringing them back within Constitutional boundaries. They ignore most of that…at least this is a peaceable reaction they can’t ignore. And since when are the people who might bring this up…focused on following constitutions?)
  3. Folks demonize selected supporters of the proposal…focusing on the messenger rather than the message.
  4. Pro-Washington faction or Washington itself pressures committee leadership, House leadership or state bureaucracy to take action of its own, the latter with appearance of plausable deniability on the part of DC.
  5. Hacking of pro-independence folks or financial/employment interference with them

And what are some other scenarios you have thought of?

1 Like

will be interesting

Others I thought of later:

  1. Someone tries to intimidate the sponsors into removing their names or failing to remove the CACR from the consent calendar. The latter could prevent a vote of the full house, but I think it just takes one rep and/or the prime sponsor to keep this off the consent calendar
  2. Committee members, perhaps under intimidation of some kind, reword the amendment with hostile intent toward its original meaning. This is probably the most likely scenario.

These below are more likely to happen if and after we get traction:

  1. Re-arresting Ian and Aria, or initiating law enforcement against key activists who are pushing this forward. Probably on unrelated state/local charges to make it look like a coincidence. Or something made up to make the target look bad. Be brave, padawans!
  2. Making people sick with plausible deniability. Feds don’t have a huge history of doing that but they did have a plan to try and bio-contaminate the whole island of Cuba apparently.
  3. False flag attack… i.e. govt harms someone and says "The Anti-Federalists did it! "
  4. Court challenges, state judges striking it down, then maybe fed, etc.
1 Like

If we succeed with NHexit, I will no longer be a “domestic terrorist” to the FBI.
I am hoping for International Man of Mystery.

Russell can you post detials here about your experience of being labeled a domestic terrorist and any appropriate links . I’d like to call talk radio about it. if they accuse you of all people , it reduces their cred…but only if people know it happened.

1 Like

I know I am labeled that by the FBI, since they called and left a message mentioning that.
I was arrested for being too close to a Planned Parenthood in South Dallas.
The call from the FBI came 4 months later.

I was eventually (after many months) convicted … or maybe no contest … and given no sentence. I only spent 1 night in jail (that is how long it took to “process” me in Dallas).
I have not heard from the FBI since then.
I think that is the new term they are using for all of us politically incorrect Americans.


) “court challenges”… can’t believe i didn’t think of that earlier. edit I guess actually i did lol

1 Like

This is an historic time. There is so much anger about the current tyranny, I believe we will have a lot more support than originally expected.

In connection with that, and to follow up on Dave’s original post:

There seems to be a ton to do. Collect more writers, marketing experts, PR people to help put our position out in a positive way. Continue to grow the groundswell of support for separation, to make sure the bill at least gets to the floor for a vote.

Start working on alliances to ensure a peaceful process, including economic and/ or military obstacles that may be enacted to obstruct even the consideration, let alone implementation of independence.

Show that the logistics can be managed and that threatened or possible military / economic sanctions will not stop the people of NH from Living Free.

Unlike Alu, I can see the possibility (likelihood) of made-up stories to “justify” military intervention or occupation of NH, maybe closing (“securing”) all of our borders, about how even the suggestion of NH independence could pose a threat to “national security.” And we know they can do whatever they want, with or without an actual excuse, however far-fetched. Am I way off base thinking they might compare us to Waco and claim that we must be stopped/controlled?

So, is our military defense viable? Do we have tacit or explicit agreements from local sheriffs, police and groups like the NH National Guard to stand with us against possible aggression by the feds? From other countries? NATO? What will it take to make these arrangements? Is this quote accurate: “The best defense is a good offense”?

I keep coming across more and more Patriot groups but no apparent significant coordination among them.

The next step for the feds on the covid front?
I was in the health care workers’ zoom call with Pam Popper earlier this evening, which included a comment that the government is likely to come after our children next. Take them from their “unfit” parents b/c the parents won’t go along with forced vax mandates / masking, etc, etc, etc. This sounds quite plausible to me.

Just my two cents. I will be paying more attention to these ideas as I continue to talk with more and more allies and spread the word about independence.

1 Like

our defense is civil disobedience, legislation, media…. Later if need be prison labor strikes and other jail activity like Vlad Bukovsky did in Soviet Union. Some of us will presumably end up locked up or otherwise harmed as retaliation for doing this independence stuff. But Catalonia and Estonia didn’t need military defense against their occupiers…and if they’d used that type of defense their chances of success would have dropped dramatically. Google Erica Chenowith to see her research on violent vs. nonviolent indepdendence movements and how the latter type is 2x as successful over the last 100 years.

As Bukovsky put it, we’re soldiers, not victims… but we need to be soldiers the way he was… not the way George Washington was.

1 Like

Just thought of another trick they might pull or may have already pulled:

) Gag orders and/or National Security Letters. The latter is where feds come talk to you or send you a note demanding info and then forbid you from talking to the public about it. There was a thingie on 60 minutes about it. Greg Surbey of Nashua had something like this happen to him about 12 years before he disappeared, there is a separate thread about that here on shire forums.

I guess there is a partial gag order on former Keene resident Rich Paul…can anyone name some useful quotes from him since he’s gagged?

Looks like we may have successfully navigated around #1 as of a few days ago, thanks to loyal and possibly gutsy behavior by legislative services in their apparent decision to correctly craft the bill.

1 Like

most famous gag order in history

Acts 4

13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and had perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marveled. They recognized that they had been with Jesus. 14 Seeing the man who was healed standing with them, they could say nothing against it. 15 But when they had commanded them to go aside out of the council, they conferred among themselves, 16 saying, “What shall we do to these men? Because indeed a notable miracle has been done through them, as can be plainly seen by all who dwell in Jerusalem, and we can’t deny it. 17 But so that this spreads no further among the people, let’s threaten them, that from now on they don’t speak to anyone in this name.” 18 They called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus.

19 But Peter and John answered them, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, judge for yourselves, 20 for we can’t help telling the things which we saw and heard.”

21 When they had further threatened them, they let them go, finding no way to punish them, because of the people; for everyone glorified God for that which was done. 22 For the man on whom this miracle of healing was performed was more than forty years old.

Oh here’s another one I hadn’t thought of…

) maybe they start a war with some foreign Power to distract everyone and gin up temporary support. Probably they’d only do this if lots of states are following our lead… “our” meaning TX/CA/NH

) Ernie Hancock has suggested they’ll use one of the Fed constitutional amendments , the 14th i think? and its complex insurrection provisions. What’s the saying… you’re responsible for your own actions but no those of your tormentors.

) Plus…they’ve probably been planning on this for a long time and have off the shelf action items they will pick from.

) Oh and Alu suggests they’d do a blockade. Maybe like U.S. vs. rhode island in the 1790 era.
Ultimately, these pushback options are scary, but that is what makes whole endeavor worth doing, interesting enough to capture the world’s imagination.

1 Like

this stopped Jefferson
and 911 slowed down the fsp

In a war-weary and finally seemingly a little skeptical nation, wouldn’t they really need another near-9/11-level event – and surely domestic again – to gin up sufficient support for foreign adventurism today, though?

Isn’t a blockade an internationally-recognized “act of war”? Maybe we should send Franklin to negotiate with the French for support…


Critics of a National Divorce between the American states have no arguments in favor of the Union itself. I have yet to hear a critic of National Divorce lay out a case of how great our federalist system works, how great the federal government functions, how our system of checks and balances keeps one branch of government from usurping power from the other, or in general how great our representative democracy works either in terms of providing adequate representation or ensuring that the will of the people be done.

Here are some options I learned about from recent study of the Quebecois experience:

) Central government there apparently dumped a bunch of money on the factions which support it
) It also rushed citizenship for people that it thought would vote against independence.

Not exactly war crimes but that’s apparently what they did with the money purloined from Quebec residents.


To your first point: I think Americans are tired of foreign wars. Right after 911, when the US was considering going into Iraq, polls showed that not quite half of Americans were in favor of a war in Iraq. Once Washington decided to go, the great majority of Americans supported a fast war, perhaps a week to a month. Then things dragged on and on, and there were anti-war rumblings from all quarters. Then there was a call for expansion of the military into Afghanistan and other places, it became something of a religious war, and people began protests in earnest. I believe that “start[ing] a war with some foreign Power”, now, would probably increase secessionist activity.

To Ernie Hancock’s suggestion: I have already posted a discussion about 18 USC 115 elsewhere, that’s the section of the US Code that deals with matters of treason, seditious conspiracy, rebellion, insurrection, etc. It is necessary for overt acts to be committed before any of these charges can be leveled. That doesn’t mean that they couldn’t push a lesser charge to get to the same ends.

To your third point: My discussions with Daniel Miller from the Texas independence movement leads me to believe that the federal government has already gamed out their own responses, and have found no realistically workable responses to any secession scenario. Having even a few states with strong independence groups would likely (in my opinion) force the federal government to back down if it came right down to it, if only to prevent all-out civil war in the U.S.

You might also want to look at the following article about Iceland’s independence. It was World War II that gave Iceland the opportunity to secede from the crown of Denmark. That happened in 1944 - the war in Europe didn’t come to an end until May 8, 1945.

Then again, look at the current situation in the U.S. military. There are fewer than 2,000,000 active and reserve men and women in the U.S. military. Many (most?) of these troops are not combat personnel, but rather support personnel. The United States is not prepared to fight a war against all the states who might want to secede, even if they wanted to. Even states that did not want to secede would probably recoil in horror at the thought of the U.S. military attacking ANY state, and would immediately prepare their state militias for defense against any federal military incursion into their own state.

In the final analysis, I think that the US, and perhaps others in NH, would use pressure, and bluff to prevent secession, but in the long run, they don’t really have the ability to prevent secession.

1 Like

very interesting