Elizabeth McKinstry on MSNBC 7/27/2003

Elizabeth McKinstry on MSNBC July 27 2003

• Clip 1 (Quicktime 20.1M)

• Clip 2 (RealVideo 1.6M)

• Clip 3 (RealVideo 9.9M)

• Clip 4 (Quicktime 11.7M)

• Clip 5 (Windows Media 19.2M)

Taking freedom for Granite

Taking freedom for Granite
Libertarians shake it up! Or, my weekend with the Free State Project

LANCASTER, NH — Last November, Russell Kanning — a big, shambling man prone to furtive whispers and gleeful giggles — relocated from California to New Hampshire. He made the move under the auspices of the Free State Project, an ambitious plan to pack the Granite State with tens of thousands of libertarian activists who pledge to make it their home. Kanning no longer works as an accountant; instead, he mows lawns in Keene, which lets him get paid under the table, tax-free.

His real vocation, though, is fighting tyranny. Earlier this year, Kanning traveled to the Manchester airport and — carrying only pocket-size copies of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence — tried to board a Southwest Airlines flight to Philadelphia. There was just one catch: he refused to take off his shoes, and insisted that he not be frisked. (He also declined to provide identification.) As a result, Kanning was promptly arrested and jailed; a few days later, he pled guilty to a trespassing charge.

Why did he do it? "We're not going to be free if we keep cowering at the airport," Kanning explained as he stood outside his tent at PorcFest 2005, the Free State Project's annual shindig. "When you watch people shuffle through there with their socks and their bags — dude! This is freedom?"

In most places, Kanning would be dismissed as an extremist. But here at PorcFest 2005, he was a celebrity and a hero. (The porcupine, a friendly little creature you don't want to mess with, is the project's designated mascot.)

"We need to start a revolution," Kanning told me near the end of our conversation. "In the last revolution, we had to get to the point where we said, 'No, no, I'm not paying taxes. Here's your tea.' The thing I want to do this time around is see if we can do this without shooting anybody."

A SIMPLE PLAN

If things work out the way they're supposed to, thousands of libertarians who share Kanning's outlook will be flocking to New Hampshire in the next few years. The Free State Project was the brainchild of Jason Sorens, an earnest, baby-faced Yale PhD who received a hero's welcome in Lancaster. Sorens's epiphany was simple: move a large number of libertarians to a small state, where they can go about remaking the political landscape as they see fit. Libertarians who sign the project's Statement of Intent — so far, about 6600 in number — aren't agreeing to live in the same community, or to work toward a specific set of goals. They are, however, agreeing to move to New Hampshire no more than five years after the total number of signers reaches 20,000. (New Hampshire got the nod after Free Staters chose it over several other states in a popular vote.) Once they've arrived, the theory goes, their libertarianism will permeate culture and politics — from school boards to the state legislature — leading to the advent of "liberty in our lifetime." At least, that's the idea.

The Free State Project is still in its early stages, but it's also off to a bit of a slow start. Four years in, the 20,000-signature mark looks awfully remote. And only 100-some Free Staters have already made the trek to New Hampshire from points west and south. But their faith in the project's potential seems both boundless and unshakable. Last Saturday evening, as a libertarian hard-rock outfit serenaded the 500 Free Staters gathered at Rogers Campground and Motel, I asked Amanda Phillips, the project's president, what she hoped its legacy would be in 20 years. "I would love to see New Hampshire as a beacon of liberty for the rest of the country and the rest of the world," replied Phillips, who is attending Harvard Law School this fall. "A place for the rest of the country and the rest of the world to look at and say, 'Look, this is how these libertarian ideas will work in practice.' And they're going to work well. And many of them already work well."

It's challenging — to put it gently — to imagine a future in which a bunch of New Hampshire libertarians tutors the rest of humanity on political fundamentals. For one thing, the Libertarian Party (LP) has never shown signs of becoming a national political force in its own right. The LP's political high point came in 1980, when the Ed Clark/David Koch presidential ticket garnered about 921,000 votes, or 1.1 percent of the national total. Since then, the party's presidential nominees have struggled to hit the half-percent mark; in 2004, Michael Badnarik topped out at just over 397,000 votes, or about a third of a percent. Part of the problem is that the libertarian umbrella covers widely disparate elements: there are anti-taxers, gun-rights advocates, civil libertarians, Ayn Randians (a/k/a "objectivists"), polyamorists ... the list goes on and on. All agree on one thing — they don't want to be messed with — but that may be all they agree on.

To be fair, not all small-L libertarians (or, to use the preferred Free State phrase, "freedom-loving people") identify with the Libertarian Party. Rabid tax-haters can ignore the more unsavory elements of the GOP and vote Republican; indeed, the ability to capitalize on anti-tax sentiment is a key part of the current Republican ascendancy. Conversely, libertarian types who see civil liberties as paramount, or who want to stave off any reduction of reproductive rights, can hold their noses and vote Democratic.

But while the major parties may have claimed the loyalty of salad-bar libertarians like these, they'll never have the allegiance of purists like those in the Free State Project. For these men and women, the imperial arrogance and puritanical impulses of the Bush administration are repugnant. But so is the abiding Democratic commitment to some form of welfare state — and most state governments, which keep on taxing and spending and regulating education and banning smoking, are no better. (New Hampshire is a welcome exception: there's no income tax and no mandatory car insurance, and guns can be carried freely and openly.) In fact, for most Free Staters, politics in today's United States is utterly debased.

For die-hard libertarians, however, this sorry state of affairs could be a blessing in disguise. After all, the worse things get, the more likely people are to realize that libertarians have the answer. And the past few weeks — which saw the US House and Senate reaffirm the Patriot Act, and the US Supreme Court deal blows to medical marijuana and private-property rights — have given Free Staters plenty of new ammunition with which to make their case. "I think the real problem we have is, it's the frog in the boiling water," said Seth Cohn, an affable techie who left Oregon with his wife in 2004 and now lives in New Hampshire. "Until the water gets hot enough, nobody jumps out. And if it turns up slowly enough, nobody ever jumps out. The water's gotten pretty hot — and there are some of us that will want to go ahead and say, 'No more'"

Badnarik — the ex-presidential candidate, and a registered Free Stater — takes this argument even further. "I think the Libertarian Party will be the primary political party," he told the Phoenix in Lancaster. "I think the existing government has stepped on its own feet publicly, and disturbed the American public so dramatically, that the cat is out of the bag."

Clad in an Air Force One-logo polo shirt, and looking like a cross between Mike Dukakis and David Copperfield, Badnarik promised to do his part for the coming libertarian renaissance in 2006, when he'll wage a soon-to-be-announced campaign that will "open the floodgates" and "shatter the rumor that Libertarians can't win." This will keep him in Texas for a few years — but as a committed Free Stater, he considers New Hampshire his home-to-be. "I'm not very happy about snow, and I love Texas," Badnarik says. "But I love liberty more. And if moving to New Hampshire is going to help me create an environment where I can make my decisions, and government works for me, then I consider that a very small sacrifice to make."

FREEDOM ISN'T PRETTY

It's impossible, after hanging around PorcFest for a couple of days, not to feel genuine admiration for the men and women involved with the Free State Project. In today's United States, it's cause for celebration when half the electorate simply turns out to vote. Contrast that with the commitment shown by the Free Staters, who are literally abandoning their old lives to build new ones based on political principles they hold dear. Furthermore, while the frequent anti-tax griping in Lancaster probably wouldn't endear the project to most liberals, the ever-widening scope of the Bush administration's "War on Terror" has made libertarians' darker dystopian visions seem less far-fetched than they used to be.

Still, it's hard to imagine the Free State Project inspiring a true mass movement — and though it may sound odd, the problem is largely aesthetic. At the risk of painting in too-broad strokes, and with apologies where appropriate, the Free Staters are, on the whole, a somewhat dorky bunch. They tend to look like people you'd see at a Star Wars or Dungeons and Dragons or Mensa or Linux convention; the big difference is, they're packing heat. (Hip-holstered handguns were one of the hottest accessories at PorcFest.) Maybe this is inevitable: libertarians are still a marginal subculture, and marginal subcultures tend to attract individuals who, for whatever reason, are uncomfortable in the mainstream. But if the Free State Project wants to become the national focus for current and potential libertarians, a more polished public image wouldn't hurt.

Then again, the Free Staters seem to appreciate this challenge. Another discussion at PorcFest centered on whether to sign with an advertising agency — one run by a Free Stater who'd offered his services at reduced cost — in order to develop a more sophisticated marketing campaign. This would risk compromising the project's DIY ethos, but it could also be a boon for recruitment. The stewardship of Phillips — a smart and photogenic woman with a knack for framing libertarianism in feminist terms — could help as well.

Time will tell. The sober outsider's assessment is that the Free State Project will, at best, peter out a few years from now and join the long list of failed American political and social experiments. But as long as the Free Staters press on, there's an outside chance that something truly revolutionary is happening an hour north of Boston.

Adam Reilly can be reached at areilly@phx.com

Free State Project

Home page for the political experiment dedicated to creating "Liberty in our lifetime."

Michael Badnarik

Still cast as a presidential site, this will soon be converted to plug Badnarik's upcoming run for federal office, a campaign Badnarik promises will foster a national libertarian renaissance.

National Libertarian Party

Plenty of info on the self-styled "Party of Principle."

Bureaucrash

Grassroots organization dedicated to pro-libertarian public actions. Plus, there's plenty of merchandise here for liberty-lovers — check out those T-shirts ($17.76, natch).

More media articles about the FSP

These media articles are maintained on a non-commercial basis by The Free State Project, a non-profit organization, for historical, educational, scholarship, and research purposes. (For information regarding "Fair Use", see US Code Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 107).

Care for Some Tea?

Care for Some Tea?

Many people have clever quotes displayed in their homes and offices. These sayings can be as simple and traditional as a cross-stitched "Home Sweet Home," or as modern as motivational posters bearing admonitions from super-achievers and role models like Lance Armstrong. Me? I have bumper stickers taped to the side of a cabinet. They include such politically charged gems as "Ted Kennedy's Car Has Killed More People Than My Gun" and "Apes Evolved from Creationists," and those with personal meaning or entertainment value for me like "Even Chaos Has A Pattern" and "The Two Most Common Elements in the Universe are Hydrogen and Stupidity." But of all the bumper stickers I display, one is daily becoming more and more my favorite. That's the bumper sticker that says, "It's Time for Another Tea Party."

229 years ago, the Declaration of Independence was written, wrangled over, and signed. On July 4, 1776, it was printed; on July 5, a Philadelphia newspaper announced its adoption. On July 8, it was read aloud at the State House in Philadelphia. That evening it was read again, this time to members of the militia gathered on the Commons. Over the course of the month of July, 1776, newspapers published the content of the document, and people celebrated with "loud shouts, huzzas, firings of muskets, and the tearing down of the British emblems." (This, and much more information as to the history surrounding the Fourth of July, is available in the online Fourth of July Celebrations Database, courtesy of James R. Heintze.)

The Declaration of Independence wasn't by any stretch of the imagination the beginning of the troubles the Colonists had with the British Crown. It was, instead, the final resort of men who had done everything that they could to avoid a war and a separation from their mother country. Appeals had been made to King George III in letters and via representatives from the Colonies; protests, including the infamous Boston Tea Party of 1773, were mounted. But neither reason nor civil disobedience made much of an impression on the Crown, and when the Colonists at long last realized that the King was immovable, they took a last and drastic step.

Although there were many reasons that the Colonists were unhappy with British rule, a synopsis of the most provocative of those reasons can be seen by simply reading the Bill of Rights (some of the rights enumerated are duplicates of rights theoretically enjoyed under British rule since the signing of the Magna Carta; that King George III ignored them only increased the antipathy Americans felt toward him). It's thus more than a little ironic that Americans, who are currently under the rule of another man named George, should find the very rights they fought to restore and retain once again in substantial jeopardy. (To be fair, the loss of civil liberties in America has stretched out over a timeframe that's much longer than those relatively few years George W. Bush has been in office, though the losses have accelerated on his watch).

The First Amendment promises freedom of speech, including (in fact, especially) political speech. It also says Americans have the right to freely assemble and to petition the government for redress. Yet protesters at the Democratic National Convention in Boston were relegated to a prison-like fenced area a block away from the convention site; at the Republican National Convention in New York City, more than 1,800 protesters were arrested – many of them subsequently "held incommunicado for 48 hours and longer under filthy and abusive conditions" – but only a few failed to see all charges dismissed or be acquitted. The Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform legislation, which effectively muzzles political speech by advocacy groups, is yet another curb on political speech, and one which lies squarely at the feet of a president named George who promised he wouldn't sign it, but then did.

The First Amendment ensures that the government won't establish an official religion or interfere with the freedom of Americans to worship as they see fit. But the Bush administration's so-called "faith-based initiative" does a little of both. In a column written about the program in 2003, columnist Tom DeWeese points out that government funding equated to government control, and that some religious groups were already being told they had to hire employees without discrimination based on religion – which, DeWeese went on to say, made the group just another charity rather than a Catholic charity, for example. Other groups receiving federal funding are using the expanded services they can now offer to serve as an opportunity to evangelize, thus interfering yet again with the freedom to worship as the individual sees fit. The money itself, of course, is an effective "donation" of federal money to promote a specific religion. (Ooops, George W. Bush is almost entirely responsible again!)

The Second Amendment says that the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed." That's a right that's been steadily eroded since the 1930's, and even in the supposedly pro-gun Bush administration, isn't really gaining ground. Gun sales records which are supposed to be destroyed when the applicant passes a background check are being held; various databases sought and promoted by government officials will prove to be gun registration whether they're called that or not. Whatever the mandate, the fact is that purchase records apparently aren't being destroyed (in 2002, Attorney General John Ashcroft defended the early destruction of such records, and then schizophrenically refused the FBI permission to look through the database to see if the 9/11 terrorists had purchased guns – records which couldn't exist had they been destroyed).

In fact, a database of those who've purchased guns has probably existed for quite some time; even without such records, point-of-sale paperwork must be held for twenty years (when saying the FBI couldn't look through NICS records, John Ashcroft helpfully pointed out that even if database records were destroyed, dealer records would still remain and "government agencies like the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms could still track down illegal gun purchases through those records.")

Meanwhile, some states don't allow you to carry a firearm at all, while those who do (with the notable exceptions of Alaska and Vermont) require you to jump through a variety of paperwork hoops before you can do so. The regulations are even worse in some places, such as New York City, Chicago, and our nation's capital where it's next to impossible to have a gun at all. It may be that more of us would do well to take note that the "shot heard 'round the world" was fired on April 19, 1775 when King George's men were sent to confiscate firearms from the Colonials.

In the Fourth Amendment, Americans are protected from unwarranted searches. King George's soldiers were wont to simply barge in and check things out in Colonial America, and the Founders were in no mood to let their new government take similar advantage. Unfortunately, for reasons of expediency and because it was permitted to do so by a complacent public, exceptions were made to various aspects of the Fourth Amendment in the name of the War on Drugs. Outside of consent, there are now any number of exceptions to the need for a warrant in a search, some of which stem from the War on Drugs but others of which exist because "they're for your own good" or "for your safety" or, worst of all, "for the children."

The Supreme Court has ruled more than once that drunk driving checkpoints and subsequent searches are okay, as are many other types of vehicle searches; in Louisiana, permission to search was given to police by a person not even a resident of the premises, and a Circuit Court upheld the results of the search. Forfeitures have become an attractive way for law enforcement agencies to make money, never mind whether or not the goods or money being taken have anything to do with the commission of a crime (it takes a strong stomach to spend much time at the FEAR – Forfeiture Endangers American Rights – web site).

The Fifth Amendment right to silence (a person cannot be forced to incriminate himself) was effectively taken from us with the Supreme Court's 2004 decision in the case of Hiibel v. Nevada; the right to private property was eviscerated by the June 23, 2005 Supreme Court ruling that determined eminent domain could be used to take property from one private entity to give to another richer private entity.

There were people at the time the Constitution was written who were worried that there was no Bill of Rights. Others were concerned that writing a Bill of Rights might cause officials to someday determine that the only rights the people had were those that were written down. The latter is the short explanation for the existence of the Ninth Amendment which says that, just because it's not written here, doesn't mean the people don't still have certain rights. Yet how many arguments have many of us heard from the mouths of our friends, neighbors, lawyers, and even politicians that include the words, "It's not in the Constitution that you can..." The Ninth Amendment, at least for the purposes of actually protecting any rights, is almost certainly at least as damaged and gone as are several of the others.

The Tenth Amendment, of course, makes the condition of the Ninth look healthy. Under the clause of the Constitution that says Congress has the authority to regulate interstate commerce, judges and Congressmen alike have usurped virtually unlimited powers. The recent Supreme Court decision that said federal laws supercede state laws in the matter of medical marijuana was just the latest nail in the coffin of the Tenth Amendment.

Finally, it's impossible in any discussion of civil liberties to avoid mention of the misnamed USA PATRIOT Act and its proposed expansions. With its negative impact on First, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment rights, this single piece of legislation has circumvented more of the Bill of Rights – and more thoroughly – than the collective unconstitutionalities of the last several decades. This one, too, bears the fingerprints of George W. Bush, especially when you consider not only his own support of the law but his appointment of one of the PATRIOT Act authors to the position of Attorney General.

Though we can blame George Bush for some things, merely because the current George-in-charge will be gone in three years doesn't mean that the next president – whether he be Tom, Dick, or Hillary – will do anything but continue on the course that the last hundred or so years worth of presidents have set us on. We can't afford to pretend that merely seeing George Bush leave the White House will restore our freedom unless we're as set as the politicians seem to be on losing it entirely.

So here we are, 229 years after the Declaration of Independence. Most of us have written letters to Washington with little effect; some of us have even visited Washington and received just about the same result. We've signed petitions protesting this regulation or that proposed action, and seen the rules adopted and the actions undertaken. We've protested, and found ourselves forcibly shuttled aside or arrested for our troubles. It could be that the time for armchair discussion is over, and the time for concrete action is here.

Joseph Banister knew that, and his exoneration on federal charges is proof positive that an individual can take a great risk and make great gains accordingly. The property owners in New London, Connecticut knew that and, with their loss, they've won a very real battle to inspire hundreds of thousands of property owners across the country to stand up and defend their rights. Those in the Free State Project, Free State Wyoming, and Free West Alliance know that, and are determined to make whatever sacrifices are necessary to restore freedom one small part of the country at a time.

This July, let's remember the month long celebrations of our forefathers by considering not merely what they did, but why. They saw grievous injuries to their rights and liberties, and they ended up winning freedom for their posterity even though they had to risk their property and their lives to do so. In the face of the grievous injuries to liberty we see once again today, will we have the commitment and the courage to risk some hard work and perhaps some hardship to stand up and win it back? In the words of a certain bumper sticker, methinks it's time for another tea party...

The Declaration of Independence: The First Public Readings http://tinyurl.com/9yk3b

Fourth of July Celebrations Database http://tinyurl.com/9upwc

Convention Demonstration Zone is a Dark, Shadowy Place http://tinyurl.com/dxuyw

Videos expose false arrests at 2004 Republican Convention protests in New York http://tinyurl.com/98tr3

The Faith-Based Initiative is a Trojan Horse http://tinyurl.com/a52n4

Ashcroft Defends Proposal to Toss Gun Records http://tinyurl.com/9ng8k

An Opinion On The Technical Considerations Of Gun Owner Registration Via The National Instant Check http://www.gunowners.org/bitec.htm

Battle at Lexington Green, 1775 http://tinyurl.com/8smhy

Other Types of Warrantless Searches http://tinyurl.com/d9zu6

Kiss The Fourth Amendment Goodbye! http://tinyurl.com/8e32h

Forfeiture Endangers American Rights http://www.fear.org/

Dudley Hiibel Case (at PapersPlease.org) http://tinyurl.com/do5bn

Kelo v. New London: Lawsuit Challenging Eminent Domain Abuse in New London, Connecticut http://tinyurl.com/asaws

Supreme Court allows prosecution of medical marijuana http://tinyurl.com/92m8f

Tax activist wins in federal court http://tinyurl.com/dpuxg

Free State Project http://www.freestateproject.org

Free State Wyoming http://www.freestatewyoming.org

Free West Alliance http://www.freewest.org

###

Lady Liberty is a pro-freedom activist currently residing in the Midwest with her two cats and many, many books. More of her writings and other political and educational information is available on her web site, Lady Liberty's Constitution Clearing House [http://www.ladylibrty.com].

ladylibrty@ladylibrty.com

More media articles about the FSP

These media articles are maintained on a non-commercial basis by The Free State Project, a non-profit organization, for historical, educational, scholarship, and research purposes. (For information regarding "Fair Use", see US Code Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 107).

You missed the boat on Free State

You missed the boat on Free State

To the editor:

You had a chance to print a community-based story on the local Free Staters exploring the human face of the project. What drives people to give up their old lives to move to this state and start over again'? Can it really be a desire for self ownership and a life free of coercion? That is the real story.

Instead you chose a patchwork interview and website hash of misquotes and poorly reported misconceptions concerning this nation's, and our project's, core ethical beliefs. A divisive strategy driven by a need to provoke conflict instead of opening communication channels.

Will Stewart had the opportunity to engage in real journalism at a level where his story was being lived. However he declined, or was ordered, not to accept our invitation to join our meeting as a true journalist would have. Instead a photographer was sent to record the gathering. By the time of the meeting Will's story was already pre-written. No human element desired.

Free Staters accept these offers to disclose our convictions and hopefully avoid the misperceptions hyped in your story. We're in the same ship as every other American. We're as concerned as others about the looming crises facing this state and nation. If this ship goes down so do we all for only the wealthiest can afford a lifeboat. For this we are endlessly caricatured by the press but seldom honestly portrayed.

Before condemning our solutions, at least legitimately hear us out. You missed that opportunity this time around. We have a traditional view of community-based solutions that never make it to the table for discussion because the media lacks the ability to set aside their prejudices. How sad.

We'll keep trying though. I have faith that there is a principled media dedicated to fairness still alive somewhere. If you ever want the Porcupine Perspective on local or state issues you know where to reach me.

Quality of life score: 0 (nothing new here)
Comments: Hippo's commitment to journalistic integrity is trumped by scare tactics debasing true communication.

Calvin D. Pratt
Goffstown

More media articles about the FSP

These media articles are maintained on a non-commercial basis by The Free State Project, a non-profit organization, for historical, educational, scholarship, and research purposes. (For information regarding "Fair Use", see US Code Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 107).

Flier labels officials 'Libertarians'

Flier labels officials 'Libertarians'

WINCHESTER -- A flier naming two Winchester selectmen and their secretary as Libertarians found its way anonymously around town and stuck in at least one selectman's craw Wednesday.

The flier claims several Winchester officials, including board secretary Dawn Lincoln, school board member Bill Campbell, and selectmen Brian D. Moser and Susan M. Newell are Free State Project members and supporters. The flier also says that Free Staters want to close all public schools; eliminate social security; reduce government by getting rid of all public services including police, fire, ambulance and highway services; legalize drugs and prostitution; and replace town services with private companies.

Moser issued a statement at the board's Wednesday meeting.

"These lies are being made in an effort to stop those of us who are trying to make this town a better place," Moser said.

"Whoever wrote this: Go to hell."

According to its Web site, The Free State Project is a movement to get 20,000 Libertarians to move to New Hampshire and "exert the fullest practical effort toward the creation of a society in which the maximum role of government is the protection of life, liberty, and property."

Free Staters say they believe in less taxation and regulation and the expansion of individual rights and free markets, the Web site says.

Lincoln said she is an active member of the Free State Project and moved to New Hampshire from Connecticut to join the cause.

"(The flier) was a gross exaggeration of the truth ... it was just trying to get people's feelings up," Lincoln said. "I moved to New Hampshire because I wanted to work with people who believe the way I do about freedom and where they don't want big government like they do in Massachusetts. That isn't what New Hampshire wants, I don't think."

Newell said she is not a member of the Free State Project but also believes the flier is a "gross exaggeration of libertarian principles."

She said that a recent town decision, for example, has encompassed a libertarian principle: going with a private company to manage its waste.

Newell said though she didn't run for office on a libertarian platform, she did run on several libertarian principles, including smaller government and accountability. She has also posted comments on a local libertarian Web site.

"Libertarians run a whole range," Newell said. "I am probably more moderate."

As for whether Newell is pushing a libertarian agenda, she said, "I thought politics were all about political agendas.

"I am conducting the selectmen's business in accordance with the law," she said. "There is absolutely no way for me to use my office to do anything but conduct town business.

"I hope people will judge my time as a selectman by my actions and not by unsubstantiated allegations."

More media articles about the FSP

These media articles are maintained on a non-commercial basis by The Free State Project, a non-profit organization, for historical, educational, scholarship, and research purposes. (For information regarding "Fair Use", see US Code Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 107).