Get USA out of UN Now

Discussion in 'Freedom and Liberty' started by tacmotusn, Jul 13, 2015.

  1. tacmotusn

    tacmotusn RIP 1/13/21

    The United Nations is a corrupt and misguided as our present administration and our BS two party political system. Can you tell me anything the UN hasn't screwed up royally in the last 40 years.
    How about you do a quick internet search of UN atrocities. The list will be long and sickening.
    Please contact your representatives in Washington DC about getting onboard with this bill. The time for our participation in the UN is long over. We not only need to dissolve our participation with this organization and our 22 to 30 percent financing of all their operations (mostly not in our interests, or even humane anyway) , and then throw them out of the USA completely.
    Take time to contact your representative and senator at every office they have and demand that they support HR 1205 for the future of our posterity and for the survival of America!

    Read more at Congressmen Push to Get Us Out of United Nations – Is Your Representative On Board? - Freedom Outpost
    link: Congressmen Push to Get Us Out of United Nations – Is Your Representative On Board? - Freedom Outpost
    Congressmen Push to Get Us Out of United Nations – Is Your Representative On Board?
    Rep. Michael Rogers (R-AL) has put forth legislation to repeal the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 and has several supporters in favor of the bill.

    Currently Representatives Thomas Massie (R-KY), Jeff Duncan (R-TN) Westmoreland (R-GA), and Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) has co-sponsored the bill.

    According to the bill, it would:

    • Repeal
      • The United Nations Participation Act of 1945 (Public Law 79–264; 22 U.S.C. 287 et seq.) is repealed.
    • Termination of membership in United Nations
      • The President shall terminate all membership by the United States in the United Nations, and in any organ, specialized agency, commission, or other formally affiliated body of the United Nations.
    • Closure of United States Mission to United Nations
      • The United States Mission to the United Nations is closed. Any remaining functions of such office shall not be carried out.
    The bill would also agree to withdraw from the agreement between the United States of America and the United Nations regarding the headquarters of the United Nations.

    It would also terminate fund that are "authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available for the United States contribution to any United Nations peacekeeping operation or force."

    Additionally, it would not allow for funds to be used to "support participation of any member of the Armed Forces of the United States as part of any United nations military or peacekeeping operation or force" nor would it allow for any "member of the Armed Forces of the United States" to "server under the command of the United Nations."

    On top of that, the US government would basically kick the United Nations out of New York as it would not allow the UN to "occupy or use any property or facility of the United States Government."

    Diplomatic immunity would also go away with this bill and UN officials, employees and anyone associated with the UN would lose such status, making them subject to the laws of the land in which they are in.

    It would also repeal the following:

    • Repeal of United States membership and participation in the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization
    • Repeal of United Nations Environment Program Participation Act of 1973
    • Repeal of United States participation in the World Health Organization
    • Repeal of involvement in United Nations conventions and agreements
    There are many reason for the United States to remove itself from the United Nations. Among those are five things that Jim Fitzgerald had pointed out:

    • The complete text of the UN Charter's Article 25 states: "The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter." That clearly stated requirement supersedes adherence to the US Constitution. That any US government official would agree to that is incredible. When the UN's Security Council decides to act, our nation's membership requires the United States to "accept and carry out" what the Security Council wants done.
    • When the UN Security Council decides to send military forces to carry out its decisions, all member nations are required to participate.
    • In 1990, a UN Security Council resolution was sought and obtained by President George H. W. Bush for the first invasion of Iraq and that was in line with advancing a "New World Order." This was summarily the same proposition pitched by Bush, Jr. for the second unconstitutional invasion of Iraq.
    • Articles 52-54 of the UN Charter permit nations to form "Regional Arrangements" to conduct military operations. Under these three articles in the Charter, NATO and SEATO were created, which have gotten us into more unconstitutional wars.
    • Article 2 of the UN Charter states: "nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state…" But the UN meddles in an array of matters, which are certainly within the jurisdiction of individual states (countries), including our own.
    Take time to contact your representative and senator at every office they have and demand that they support HR 1205 for the future of our posterity and for the survival of America!
    Read more at Congressmen Push to Get Us Out of United Nations – Is Your Representative On Board? - Freedom Outpost
  2. Brokor

    Brokor Live Free or Cry Moderator Site Supporter+++ Founding Member

  3. tacmotusn

    tacmotusn RIP 1/13/21

    2 words ...... AGENDA 21
    Now consider your feelings on the Constitution.
    I received this from a retired USAF Colonel who is a close friend. ARE ANY OF YOUR SENATORS ON THIS LIST?
    FLORIDIANS NOTE: Senator Nelson is one who would be willing to turn our sovereignty over to the United Nations. A few decades ago, they would all have been tried for treason....

    Interesting - they are all Democrats or Independents. Not a Republican on the list.

    Subject: FW: FW: HOORAY - A 53-46 vote eh

    I checked up on this, and in the interests of full disclosure, this was a non-binding test vote. Regardless, it is still indicative of how these senators feel about our constitutional rights and how they would happily cede our constitutional sovereignty to foreign organization as blatantly corrupt, as the UN.


    Subject: HOORAY - A 53-46 vote eh

    HOORAY - A 53-46 vote

    The U.N. Resolution 2117 lists 21 points dealing with firearms control, butperhaps of most interest is point number 11. It: "CALLS FOR MEMBER STATES TO SUPPORT WEAPONS COLLECTION and DISARMAMENT of all UN countries".

    By a 53-46 vote - The U.S. Senate voted against the U.N. resolution.
    This is that brief, glorious moment in history when everyone stands around...reloading.

    Now, Which 46 Senators Voted to Destroy Us? Well, let their names become known ! See below . If you vote in one of the states listed with these 46 "legis..traitors". vote against them.

    In a 53-46 vote, the Senate narrowly passed a measure that will stop the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. The Statement of Purpose from the Senate Bill reads: "To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty." The U.N. Small Arms Treaty, which has been championed by the Obama Administration, would have effectively placed a global ban on the import and export of small firearms. The ban would have affected all private gun owners in the U.S. and had language that would have implemented an international gun registry, now get this, on all private guns and ammo.

    Astonishingly, 46 out of our 100 United States Senators were willing to give away our Constitutional rights to a foreign power.

    Here are the 46 senators who voted to give your rights to the U.N.:

    Baldwin (D-WI)

    Baucus (D-MT) (this IS a surprise one)

    Bennett (D-CO)

    Blumenthal (D-CT)

    Boxer (D-CA)

    Brown (D-OH)

    Cantwell (D-WA)

    Cardin (D-MD)

    Carper (D-DE)

    Casey (D-PA)

    Coons (D-DE)

    Cowan (D-MA)

    Durbin (D-IL)

    Feinstein (D-CA)

    Franken (D-MN)

    Gillibrand (D-NY)

    Harkin (D-IA)

    Hirono (D-HI)

    Johnson (D-SD)

    Kaine (D-VA)

    King (I-ME)

    Klobuchar (D-MN)

    Landrieu (D-LA)

    Leahy (D-VT)

    Levin (D-MI)

    McCaskill (D-MO)

    Menendez (D-NJ)

    Merkley (D-OR)

    Mikulski (D-MD)

    Murphy (D-CT)

    Murray (D-WA)

    Nelson (D-FL)

    Reed (D-RI)

    Reid (D-NV)

    Rockefeller (D-WV)

    Sanders (I-VT)

    Schatz (D-HI)

    Schumer (D-NY)

    Shaheen (D-NH)

    Stabenow (D-MI)

    Udall (D-CO)

    Udall (D-NM)

    Warner (D-VA)

    Warren (D-MA)

    Whitehouse (D-RI)

    Wyden (D-OR)

    Folks: This needs to go viral. These Senators voted to let the UN take OUR guns. They need to lose their next election. We have been betrayed.

    46 Senators Voted to Give your 2nd Amendment Constitutional Rights to the U.N.

    Please send this to SOMEONE ...
    Okay I have sent it to Survival Monkey, and I have taken note for the next election. I also want to point out this all figures in with Odumbmasse's recent ramblings and movements towards executive action to ban and confiscate all civilian guns and or Federalize local police forces, and to bring in the UN to assist him. Tinfoil? Maybe, .... but there is one hell of a lot of smoke for there to not be a fire somewhere. jmho, Tac
    Ganado and techsar like this.
  4. techsar

    techsar Monkey+++

    Good, although dated, posting. We got rid of Mary Landrieu a while back....but still, the need to be ever-vigilant remains!
  5. chelloveck

    chelloveck Diabolus Causidicus

    The USA's resignation from the UN would probably be welcomed by many....particularly by at least one of the UN Security Council's permanent members (Russia). The USA's power of Veto in the UN Security Council can only be exercised from within the Security Council as a UN member; and in the history of the UN, the USA has wielded that power often.

    Yes, the UN is inefficient, corrupt in many ways, indecisive, self serving...and so forth, but membership in the UN is one tool of diplomacy that the USA would be denying itself in being able to influence UN policy and decisions that are not in the USA's national interests. Send all the memes and spam e-mails that you want, if it will make you feel any better, but regardless of the colour of any presidential administration, or legislative majority, The UN will probably, for better or worse, remain in the UN until that organisation dissolves, (undoubtedly as a consequence of the UN failing to stop WWIII or a nuclear Armageddon).
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2015
    tacmotusn and Ganado like this.
  6. ghrit

    ghrit Bad company Administrator Founding Member

    Or failing by defaulting on its bills. We might remain a "member" but stop being a banker for it.
    chelloveck and Ganado like this.
  7. chelloveck

    chelloveck Diabolus Causidicus

    It is entirely the right of the USA to pursue that option....however, financially supporting the UN beyond the USA's reasonable proportionate obligations has been a powerful lever of influence within the UN. The implicit threat of withholding that over generous level of financial support is probably more effective, than just giving nickels and dimes like most everyone else.

    If it were me...I'd just give the minimum necessary for the UN's general revenue to fund its administration...and then anything beyond that to be conditionally tied to UN programs and projects of the USA's choosing.
  8. ghrit

    ghrit Bad company Administrator Founding Member

    You've been spending too much time in the sun, chelly, it's affected your logic. We can't get a grip on our own affairs, and we should start funding own choices in the rest of the world? The basic difference between that and how it's now done is that we might get a pittance of help from other members. Not so sure the difference really exists.

    Personally, I like the idea of letting the HQ remain in Manhattan where we can keep a good eye on them, but just send in representation with enough funding to buy paperclips.
    chelloveck and Ganado like this.
  9. Ganado

    Ganado Monkey+++

    we do need to stay in the UN for now, as Chello is correct we have veto power and we are behind in our payments. We just need a new puppet in the White House
survivalmonkey SSL seal warrant canary