If I was a gambling man I would bet money that the guy in the photo is a former MA resident who moved to NH and brought his left wing MA mindset with him.
I have a good friend and former neighbor from NH. He's a tough old WWII combat vet who would probably chase that guy in the hat all the way back to Boston if he still lived up there.
You don't have to be pro-war in order to support individual liberty.
War Is the Health of the State - by Randolph Bourne
With the shock of war, however, the State comes into its own again. The Government, with no mandate from the people, without consultation of the people, conducts all the negotiations, the backing and filling, the menaces and explanations, which slowly bring it into collision with some other Government, and gently and irresistibly slides the country into war. For the benefit of proud and haughty citizens, it is fortified with a list of the intolerable insults which have been hurled toward us by the other nations; for the benefit of the liberal and beneficent, it has a convincing set of moral purposes which our going to war will achieve; for the ambitious and aggressive classes, it can gently whisper of a bigger role in the destiny of the world. The result is that, even in those countries where the business of declaring war is theoretically in the hands of representatives of the people, no legislature has ever been known to decline the request of an Executive, which has conducted all foreign affairs in utter privacy and irresponsibility, that it order the nation into battle.
While I have often disputed and argued with Russell and others about the character and nature of the liberation of Iraq and the important role that the US military in bringing it about, and the long-term benefit it will bring to the world, I have never felt that their position is utterly devoid of merit. They just have different fundamental values than I, and weigh the balance of state-sponsored violence vs. state-sponsored tyranny differently than I do.