Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

Montana to ban UN flag


Jimmy Neutron
 Share

Recommended Posts

02/25/2007

Montana Ban on U.N. flag moves forward

 

by Gwen Florio

Tribune Capitol Bureau

 

HELENA — It would be illegal to fly the United Nations flag on state government property under a bill that received preliminary approval Friday from the House of Representatives, which deadlocked on the issue a day earlier.

 

"If we accept the premise that the UN is a government, somewhere along the line our national sovereignty was forfeited," said the bill’s sponsor, Constitution Party member Rick Jore of Ronan.

 

His bill — in which the words "united nations" are deliberately not capitalized — also would forbid any state money being spent to support that group’s programs.

 

When the issue came before the House on Thursday, the vote was 50-50, meaning it didn’t pass but could be brought up again. Rep. Margarett Campbell, D-Poplar, argued vehemently against the bill’s passage on Friday. She said that if UN sanctions were invalid in Montana, then war criminals could find asylum here.

 

The bill states that legal actions such as subpoenas or extradition orders issued by international courts aren’t valid in Montana.

 

Campbell told of how her father, a World War II veteran, was taken prisoner by the Japanese and tortured before surviving the infamous Bataan Death March.

 

"If my father’s captors were ever held accountable for their actions by an international court, I would be outraged to think that they could ever find a safe haven in our beautiful state of Montana," Campbell said.

 

Rep. Ed Butcher, R-Winfred, attributed that argument to "the fuzzy moral thinking that we’re all just one big happy family."

 

For anyone who buys Campbell’s reasoning, he said, "I’ve got a couple of bridges over dry coulees I’d like to sell you." All the House Republicans, along with Jore, apparently agreed with him — the bill was approved 51-49.

 

:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:D

 

 

 

It's just a message - "we want no part of the UN." I like it. :D

 

It's f'n time-wasting idiocy and you know it. As one of the Huddle's most discerning critics of the stupidity of government, you should be all over this waste of taxpayer money. It's no better than the idiot lefty councils flying the flag of the Sandanistas or whoever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's f'n time-wasting idiocy and you know it. As one of the Huddle's most discerning critics of the stupidity of government, you should be all over this waste of taxpayer money.

 

Agreed! Just like the time wasting idiocy of banning the confederate flag...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed! Just like the time wasting idiocy of banning the confederate flag...

 

 

 

Except that the UN didn't lose a war on this contry's soil in the pursuit of not having to work. Loser's flag typically don't fly in the coutry that whupped them. Just sayin'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except that the UN didn't lose a war on this contry's soil in the pursuit of not having to work. Loser's flag typically don't fly in the coutry that whupped them. Just sayin'.

 

Neither does a flag like the UN, which dedicated to the destruction of that country...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the argument of Montana serving as a possible refuge for war criminals is ludicrous. That state's laws would not supercede the laws of the Feds so the Feds could come in and get whomever.

 

The wasting of taxpayer money, now that is valid, in my opinion.

 

Oh, and the UN sucks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's called Nukes. We'd use those first. :D

 

That's a good idea. Nothing like occupying all the world's countries in a Hamzat suit, geiger counters clicking relentlessly. :tup:

 

BTW, side note. You do know there are four other countries with very large independent nuclear forces c/w inter-continental delivery systems, plus three more with smaller ones, right? :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's called Nukes. We'd use those first. :D

 

 

So then we can occupy radioactive countries (not to mention the nukes that would have landed on US soil.) I didn't think it was possible, but i think i just found someone with a worse military mind than Donald Rumsfeld.

 

:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a good idea. Nothing like occupying all the world's countries in a Hamzat suit, geiger counters clicking relentlessly. :D

 

BTW, side note. You do know there are four other countries with very large independent nuclear forces c/w inter-continental delivery systems, plus three more with smaller ones, right? :D

 

 

 

Of course not. Those with "It's a Game of Risk" mentality don't understand actual geopolitics and forget we could have our ass handed to us very easily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information