NEW HAMPSHIRE INTRODUCES RESOLUTION TO GET US OUT OF UN (Claims U.N. violates State's rights.)

New Hampshire Senate ^

[Happy2BMe]

2005 SESSION

05-0002

05/01

HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 1

A RESOLUTION urging Congress to withdraw the United States from the United Nations.

SPONSORS: Rep. Albert, Straf 1; Rep. Matthew Quandt, Rock 13; Rep. Hawkins, Hills 18; Rep. Buhlman, Hills 27; Rep. Headd, Rock 3; Sen. Boyce, Dist 4; Sen. Roberge, Dist 9

COMMITTEE: State-Federal Relations and Veterans Affairs

ANALYSIS

This resolution urges Congress to withdraw the United States from the United Nations.

05-0002

05/01

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Five

A RESOLUTION urging Congress to withdraw the United States from the United Nations.

Whereas, the United States is the greatest nation in the world and is known for its compassionate people who are generous and kind in caring for the needs of those in other countries and whose resources are used worldwide to alleviate hunger and poverty; and

Whereas, the United States is called upon to defend the rights and freedoms of people in other nations as only we have the capacity to do so as a world superpower; and

Whereas, these responsibilities create an immense burden on the citizens of this country, many of whom are in need and living in poverty themselves; and

Whereas, United States military forces are called upon to bear the brunt of any conflicts that may arise while other nations stay on the sidelines and expect the United States to fight its battles; and

Whereas, the United States provides the largest share of the financial burden for the United Nations, paying hundreds of millions of dollars each year that could be used to address many of the nation's challenges, including homelessness, education, law enforcement, poverty, a strong military, and the war against terrorism; and

Whereas, many of the members of the United Nations are not friendly to the United States and support many things that are detrimental to the country and against its interests, yet expect the United States to provide the finances and manpower to solve all of the world's problems, even putting the lives of the nation's military forces in danger; now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring:

That the New Hampshire general court respectfully but firmly requests that the United States Congress:

I. Take measures to dissolve the membership of the United States in the United Nations, thereby freeing the nation from a large financial burden and retaining its sovereignty to decide what is best for the country; and

II. Take the steps that it considers appropriate as the leader of the free world, with full control of its armed forces and destiny; and

That a copy of this resolution, signed by the speaker of the house of representatives and the president of the senate, be forwarded by the house clerk to the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, and the members of the New Hampshire congressional delegation.

[MeekOneGOP]

bump!

[Happy2BMe]

Yes, these are very interesting times, indeed.

[american colleen]

Not sure if you have seen this.

[the invisib1e hand]

it's a start.

[Marysecretary]

AMEN! Let's get out while the gettin's good and start a new organization who are TRULY 'peacemakers' and won't hate the US.

[Marysecretary]

AMEN! Let's get out while the gettin's good and start a new organization who are TRULY 'peacemakers' and won't hate the US.

[Marysecretary]

None of this is surprising. We are certainly in the End Times and the UN may play a pivotal role in the introduction of a one world government.

[Marysecretary]

Somehow I had a feeling he WASN'T a democRAT.

[Osage Orange]

Giving up our UN veto would cost us one of our weapons against the rise and spread of global fascism. Nothing good would or could come from surrendering that veto power.

I happen to think that.....If the U.S.A. pulled out of the U.N. the U.N. would cease to exist. Thus making your argument moot.

I could be wrong....But I would sure like to be proven wrong. : )

FWIW-

[Poser]

"Somehow I had a feeling he WASN'T a democRAT."

Russ is the man. He's not afraid to say what he thinks and he doesn't have a PC bone in his body.

[Final Authority]

With respect to #63, in actuality, the most conservative area of the state is Rockingham county, a seacoast county that borders Massachusetts. The counties that tipped the general election for President were northern counties where the voters were voting essentially for a state income tax to help with their local property tax bill because they are property rich but income poor. The other counties that projected their liberal leanings were in the western counties bordering Vermont where they again were looking to vote for the Democrat Governor trying to bring an income tax to NH purely for self interest making all of the rich in Rockingham County pay for the state portion of the public education system but also these counties had a large college student influence with Keene State and Plymouth State and UNH all going with Kerry.

One of the problems with NH is same day voter registration, one of two states in the nation that has it on the books. In my town, in Rockingham County, even though we did vote for GWB, the parking lot was full of cars with Massachusetts registrations presumably voting for Kerry. They may have NH addresses by way of seasonal property but their registration would be criminal if they remained registered in MA while maintaining their domicile in MA. The real problem is there are no resources to verify registration after the fact to ascertain legality.

[nicmarlo]

bttt

[Chad Fairbanks]

Wow! Now this is trhe New Hampshire I know and love, and remember so fondly from my childhood... Way to go!

[Southack]

"I happen to think that.....If the U.S.A. pulled out of the U.N. the U.N. would cease to exist. Thus making your argument moot. I could be wrong....But I would sure like to be proven wrong. : )"

Walking around unarmed (i.e. without a UN veto) in the world doesn't make crime (i.e. the UN) go away.

You want the UN gone. I want the UN gone.

The difference between us is that you are willing to *gamble* that giving up our UN veto (all that really changes if we leave the UN) will make the UN go away, whereas I want the UN dead and gone BEFORE I let go of that UN veto.

Better to veto everything at the UN to grind that place to a halt, than to gamble that leaving the UN will end the nonsense there.

Keep in mind that the U.S. once signed the Kyoto Treaty and the treaty for the International Criminal Court before President Bush wisely pulled us out of both monsters, yet even so, those coalitions of nations haven't collapsed without the U.S.

Gambling that the withdrawal of the U.S. from the UN would have a *different* result than what happened to the ICC and Kyoto goes beyond risky...it's a clear loser of a policy idea.

[Marysecretary]

Isn't THAT a blessing!

[Marysecretary]

Isn't THAT a blessing!

[Happy2BMe]

#89.

[MeekOneGOP]

hahaha! That IS great.

And while I'm thinking about it .....

My brother sent me that pic in email a few days ago. When I saw it, I recognized it from being posted here on FR.

So I sent my brother a note back telling him that the person that made that pic (Dick Vomer) was a Freeper.

[Osage Orange]

You take the U.S.A.'s money out of the U.N. and the U.N. would die....

The U.N. isn't a country....although some liken it to one....Those groups of nations you have mentioned aren't doing too much without the U.S.A. either, are they?

You can call it what you want..."gamble", "loser of an idea"...I happen to think that would be the quickest way to see the end of the U.N.

Will it happen? I doubt it...They/We will probably putz around doing it "your way"...and it will be more of the same, same as it ever was.

FWIW-

[Southack]

"You take the U.S.A.'s money out of the U.N. and the U.N. would die...."

That's a popular *theory*, but it's no sure thing.

Consider, we *did* take the U.S. money out of the Kyoto Global Warming treaty, and yet, that coalition of nations still lumbers on with that treaty. Ditto for the U.S. pulling out of the International Criminal Court; that court still exists...merely funded by Europe instead of the U.S.

So here's my reply to you: Kill the UN first, and *then* the U.S. can give up its UN veto.

But I see no reason to first surrender that veto in the *hope* that the UN will then die without us.