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.

[Stonewall Jackson]

Satan just called his local hardware store and asked if they still had any ice melt and snow shovels.

[SamAdams76]

Hear! Hear!

[Beckwith]

I can't believe it's coming out of a liberal state.

Wherever did you get the idea that New Hampster is a liberal state? It's not. There is a liberal band along the Massachusetts border where Mass. residents live because NH is a tax-free state.

[Southack]

"Any vote passed by the UN would be irrelevant once we left. Other countries would follow our lead, expotentially accellerating the UN's demise . Your pacifistic arguments are based on the flawed assumption that the UN has something we need, rather than the other way around. Do you honestly think that, once a France led UN enevitably demands it's members "pick sides", there's be anyone left to fold the chairs up at the end of the day?"

The answer to your questions resides in yet another question, but back to you: Has France managed to reduce our coalition of nations in Iraq, or has the U.S. grown that coalition into something that makes the UN membership pale in comparison?

Oh, and you also got my "pacificism" wrong. I'm a hawk. Using force is an American strong suit, an option that I favor. For the UN, if merely withdrawing would work to end it overnight, then I'd be in that camp. But it won't.

All that withdrawing the U.S. from the UN would accomplish would be to surrender our UN veto while yielding global diplomacy to the whims of the French and Chinese.

Withdrawing from the UN would be like a pompous CEO quitting his company under the impression that the firm would fold up after he left. Such CEO's are typically dismayed to learn that the firm stumbles on even without their leadership.

Don't be that CEO.

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

Here's a Happy Ping

[who knows what evil?]

Wherever did you get the idea that New Hampster is a liberal state? It's not. There is a liberal band along the Massachusetts border where Mass. residents live because NH is a tax-free state.

Been to Keene or the Lebanon-Hanover area lately? NH is being invaded by liberals from Vermont, Maine, and Massachusetts. Their status as a conservative bastion will be an 'urban myth' within a few years. They just elected a Democrat governor (who is a mindless idiot a la Patty Murray), and added 31 Democrats to the State Legislature.

[Southack]

"Loss of sovereignty is loss of sovereignty no matter how it is packaged. It puts all Americans at risk."

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.

Under that misguided school of appeasement, one might as well claim that surrendering our nuclear arsenal would boost peace and prosperity; it won't.

[floriduh voter]

It sounds good to me. They handled the tsunami horribly but WE WERE THERE.

[nicmarlo]

fyi ping

* * *

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;

* * *

Addendum: (by Happy2BeMe)

Whereas we are being raped in broad daylight at the town square on main street by the likes of Kofi Anan -
GET US THE H*LL OUT OF THE UNITED NATIONS - NOW!

[4woodenboats]

Please remove this post.

[Osage Orange]

Did hell freeze over?

I don't know, but I've a call in to Yasser Arafat.

He's not returned the call yet. Maybe he's shoveling snow?

[B4Ranch]

It must be nice to think you couldn't possibly be wrong.

Your comments include these phrases, "Such a bone-headed move would permit", "Liberals would *love*" (insinuating the other person is a liberal), "You would be making a bad gamble", " a pompous CEO.....Don't be that CEO." and "misguided school of appeasement,"

Do you always attempt to belittle the person on the other side of the debate?

For the 'hawk' that you say you are, you don't seem to mind forfeiting our sovereignty to the UN piece by piece. Now if that isn't continual appeasement I don't know what is?

Sustainable development, EPA, ESA, Agenda 21 plan, biospheres, world heritage, new world order, global warming, Kyoto and LOST Treaties are all ideas that originated from the UN.

Do you support all of these? Because if you don't the only way to kill them is for the US to withdraw from the UN and demand they move from American soil.

[Southack]

"You even called me a "limp dick" for my efforts."

You are mistaken.

[Southack]

"For the 'hawk' that you say you are, you don't seem to mind forfeiting our sovereignty to the UN piece by piece. Now if that isn't continual appeasement I don't know what is?"

Pay attention. I'm not forfeiting *any* of our sovereignty. Quite the contrary, I'm mapping out how best to save it.

As I said earlier, IF WITHDRAWING FROM THE UN would kill it, then I'd be all for withdrawing.

But we'd have less success in shrinking the UN's other member states than France has had in shrinking our coalition of nations partnering with us in Iraq.

So your idea to withdraw from the UN wouldn't kill the UN, and that would leave us in the awful geo-political position of having surrendered our UN veto, to boot. We'd be out of the UN, but everyone else would still be in it. Every anti-U.S. and anti-Israeli UN resolution would pass with super-majorities at that point.

Our nominal and marginal allies would be bullied, one at a time, economically, politically, socially, and militarily under one by one they renounced the U.S. and Israel and switched sides or played "neutral."

That's what giving up our UN veto would accomplish.

Now, do I want the UN to be crushed and dismembered and forgotten by history? Yes.

But you haven't shown me a way to do that yet. The U.S. merely leaving it would be like the U.S. leaving NATO...you'd have the EU replace it without blinking an eye.

So until you show me a viable way to kill the UN, we'd best keep our UN veto power.

Unlike you, I don't want to be convinced by wild-eyed liberals to surrender that veto by withdrawing from the UN.

Should such a thing happen, there would be spontaneous parties break out in San Francisco and NYC among the liberal cocktail party elite...all of whom would giggle about how the Right just made a grave mistake.

[4woodenboats]

I had you mixed up with someone else. My apologies.

[B4Ranch]

Do you understand what the result of signing a treaty is?

Shared sovereignty!

>>Our nominal and marginal allies would be bullied,<<

and shortly thereafter they would request that they join with us in a new organization to fight the UN's actions. Have you forgotten that the free world is stronger than all the third world countries combined.

[SandRat]

Now here's something that the SEARC can get the statelegislature to push. The Rats would screem!!!!!!!!

[Happy2BMe]

Southack wrote: ">>Liberals would *love* for the U.S. to forfeit its UN veto."

==============================================

Phildragoo: "Throw the U.N. out of New York City and use the building for a U.S.O.

I lean towards Phil's solution.

[Happy2BMe]

New Hampshire is a conservative state? What did I miss?