House stops Rep. Abramson from invoking Ukraine in NHexit remarks

I noticed this during the floor speeches on CACR 32 (setting up a public referendum on independence).

A pro-DC guy got up to condemn CACR 32 and NH independence. Then Max Abramson got the floor, to question him and support our independence. Abramson said this:

“Do you believe that the people of the Ukraine have the right to resist Soviet military
aggression …”

But then whoever was “in charge” at the moment, (was it Speaker Packard?)
interrupted Abramson saying:

“This is not anything to do with the bill.”

When I got on WBZ Boston during a Ukraine discussion and asked why the host thinks Ukraine deserves independence but we don’t… I got a similar response. They quickly dismissed the call and possibly had it removed from their audio archive.

This is evidence that Ukraine is a winning issue for us , if we just bring it up. Nowhere is the hypocrisy more naked than on an American who supports Ukraine’s self determination but not New Hampshire’s.

So’s updated motto is this: “If Ukraine deserves independence, so does New Hampshire.”

Also… the term “pro-DC” is useful for triggering independence foes…it’s accurate, but they hate it just as much as they hate being called out on their double standard.


I’ll bet they wouldn’t object to citing Ukraine in support of gun rights.

1 Like

I did write an article about that on day 2…at … Good chance the the invasion would not have happened without the pre-invasion gun control imposed by Kyiv. They did act much quicker than the Spanish Republicans in terms of rescinding that once the war started. It seems like they had more pre-invasion gun freedom than pre-war Bosnia.

Coming up in hours: E-Join our NH Independence Town Hall Sundays 1p U.S. Eastern Time! No acct needed:


From the San Mateo (CA) Daily Journal, March 4:

“In recent days, authorities [in Ukraine] have issued weapons to civilians and taught them how to make Molotov cocktails.”

Yeah, it would have been smart to do this before Putin’s invasion, but better late than never.

they acted immediately to grant gun freedom once this invasion started, but thanks in part to the previous restrictions they only had 7 guns per 100 civilians compared to about 120 per 100 in New Hampshire. It will probably be enough to win the war but they could have prevented it with peacetime gun freedom I’m convinced.

1 Like