Posted on 01/06/2017 8:57:07 PM PST by VitacoreVision
Amid growing outrage on both sides of the aisle surrounding the United Nations, legislation to get the U.S. government out of the UN and evict the scandal-plagued global body from the United States has been re-introduced in the new Congress. If approved, H.R.193, better known as the “American Sovereignty Restoration Act,” would end U.S. participation in and funding of the widely ridiculed “dictators club” while protecting American sovereignty under the Constitution. Support for the effort is spreading like wildfire.
As in past years, the measure to defend the rights and self-government of the American people from escalating UN attacks will undoubtedly face intense opposition from entrenched globalists and the “swamp” establishment. However, analysts and lawmakers believe the bill stands its best ever chance of becoming law this session — especially under the anti-globalist, anti-establishment Trump administration and a Congress that remains incensed at a recent anti-Israel UN Security Council resolution targeting Jews in East Jerusalem and other areas.
On the campaign trail, Trump, whose campaign was equated with ISIS by a top UN bureaucrat, lambasted the UN, saying it was “not a friend of freedom” or the United States. He also vowed to “cancel” key UN agreements in office, including the illegitimate “climate” regime concocted in Paris in 2015. “When do you see the United Nations solving problems? They don't. They cause problems,” President-elect Trump declared following the controversial UN vote condemning Israeli settlements. “So, if it lives up to the potential, it's a great thing, and if it doesn't, it's a waste of time and money.”
Globalists appear to be taking Trump's rhetoric very seriously. “Global Governance” director Stewart Patrick with the establishment Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), for example, warned recently that the UN was set to get “hammered” in the years ahead by the hostile administration and GOP-controlled Congress. The CFR's Patrick, who responded to the systematic rape of children by UN “peace” troops by demanding more power for the UN, called for the UN to try to dupe Trump into believing that he could use the dictators club to “get things done.”
H.R.193 was re-introduced in the 115th Congress on January 3, the first day of the new Congress, by Representative Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) and a coalition of liberty-minded lawmakers. While the full text of the legislation is not yet available online, sources on Capitol Hill confirmed that the bill was the same as H.R. 1205 of the 114th Congress, also known as the American Sovereignty Restoration Act. The new bill is currently going under the header, “To end membership of the United States in the United Nations.”
If approved, the legislation would repeal the UN Participation Act of 1945, which authorized U.S. involvement, and shutter the U.S. government’s mission to the outfit. It would also “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.” That specifically includes UNESCO, which President Ronald Reagan withdrew from, along with the World Health Organization, the UN Environment Program (UNEP), the UN's dictator-controlled “Human Rights Council,” and more. It would end all U.S. involvement in all UN conventions and agreements, too.
The proposed law, introduced in numerous Congresses in recent decades, would also end all funding to the UN and all of its agencies — with the estimated savings to taxpayers reaching as high as $10 billion per year, and potentially even more. The legislation prohibits all U.S. military involvement in UN “peacekeeping” schemes, too, creating a ban on U.S. troops serving under UN command.
Finally, following generations of espionage and subversion aimed at the United States conducted by hostile foreign regimes under the guise of UN “diplomacy,” the bill would evict the UN and its spy- and dictator-infested headquarters from U.S. soil. It would also ban any use of American government facilities by the global outfit, while stripping UN bureaucrats and dignitaries of the diplomatic immunity that has become synonymous among critics with the total impunity and lawlessness that pervades the organization.
In a statement announcing the bill in the last Congress, chief sponsor Representative Rogers explained the reasons why he and many of his constituents in East Alabama wanted to end U.S. government participation in the UN immediately. “The U.N. continues to prove it’s an inefficient bureaucracy and a complete waste of American tax dollars,” the congressman said, echoing widespread concerns about the international outfit expressed across America and worldwide.
Beyond just being a waste, it is also a threat to U.S. interests, sovereignty, allies, and liberties, the Alabama Republican warned. “Why should the American taxpayer bankroll an international organization that works against America’s interests around the world?” he asked. “The time is now to restore and protect American sovereignty and get out of the United Nations.”
The congressman cited attacks on U.S. liberties as a key motivation for the legislation. “Although the United States makes up almost a quarter of the U.N.’s annual budget, the U.N. has attempted a number of actions that attack our rights as U.S. citizens,” he explained in the statement. “To name a few, these initiatives include actions like the Law of the Sea Treaty, which would subject our country to internationally based environmental mandates, costing American businesses more money, or the U.N.’s work to re-establish an international regulation regime on global warming which would heavily target our fossil fuels.”
Indeed, the UN has in recent years become incredibly bold in attacking the rights of Americans, and even the U.S. Constitution that enshrines those unalienable rights. From attacks on free speech and gun rights to assaults on parental rights and even America’s federalist system of limited government, the UN and its member regimes have become increasingly aggressive during the Obama years. It has also attacked U.S. independence like never before, with recently departed UN boss Ban Ki Moon claiming the UN was the “Parliament of Humanity” and that the radical UN Agenda 2030 was the new “Declaration of Interdependence.”
Representative Rogers took special aim at a deeply controversial UN treaty infringing on gun rights that has become a lightning rod for bipartisan opposition across America. “The U.N. has also offered a potential Arms Trade Treaty which would threaten our Second Amendment rights and impose regulations on our gun manufacturers, who are already facing regulations and pressure from the Obama Administration,” Rogers explained. That treaty, ATT for short, would purport to require gun registration and eventually strict controls. The ultimate aim is disarming civilians and leaving all weapons in the hands of the UN and “authorized state parties” such as the mass-murdering regimes enslaving North Korea, Zimbabwe, Cuba, China, Saudi Arabia, Vietnam, Venezuela, and other prominent UN members.
The UN’s anti-Israel bias, which some critics on both sides of the aisle have even dubbed systemic anti-Semitism, also attracted criticism from Representative Rogers. “Lastly, the U.N. does not support Israel and voted to grant the Palestinian Authority non-member state permanent observer status,” he argued. “Anyone who is not a friend to our ally Israel is not a friend to the United States.” Following the recent vote on Israeli settlements, even leading globalists and neo-cons in Congress have announced plans to defund the global organization.
Representative Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), a cosponsor of the bill, has also outlined a wide array of reasons for the U.S. government to withdraw from the UN in what he termed an “Amexit,” or American exit, after the historic “Brexit” vote in Britain to exit the European Union. “Who would be crazy enough to stay in the United Nations and pay the most for their funding while it’s attended by Third World dictators who are writing rules and regulations that are supposed to bind our country?” asked the liberty-minded lawmaker in a radio interview promoting the legislation last year.
He also suggested that support in Congress for reining in the UN is strong and growing stronger. “When it did come to a vote we came just 70 votes short of cutting funding for the United Nations, and 70 votes is not a lot,” he continued. “You know, you flip 35 votes and it’s passed, out of 435. I think there will be more attention paid to it as time goes on, I think we’re going to pick up momentum. This was trending yesterday on Facebook, this issue.” Indeed, polls show Americans are overwhelmingly dissatisfied with the controversial global body, even in the face of an establishment media that generally conceals the truth about the UN.
Congressman Massie, one of the leading constitutional conservatives in Congress, called on listeners to help ensure more cosponsors for the bill in the U.S. House of Representatives to move it forward. Other cosponsors on the latest bill include Congressmen Walter Jones (R-N.C.), Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), and Jason Smith (R-Mo.). More are expected. Last Congress, establishment operatives on the House Foreign Affairs Committee were able to keep the bill from moving. This time, with momentum growing fast, that may be more difficult.
UN estimates suggest that American taxpayers pay as much as $10 billion per year to support the UN system and all of its tentacles, including the scandal-plagued “peacekeeping” forces that have become infamous around the world for raping and sexually exploiting children. That means the United States, which is constantly being demonized and attacked for its freedoms by the dictators club, pays more than some 185 other nations — combined. In exchange, the United States is constantly attacked by the UN for its constitutional protections.
Since the American Sovereignty Restoration Act was introduced in the 114th Congress, more than a few political heavyweights have echoed calls for a full U.S. withdrawal. Among them is former Alaska governor and GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, who has become increasingly vocal since Brexit in calling for the United States to sever the UN “shackles” binding America. “I called for our next president, Donald Trump, to call for the unshackling of the political bands tying us to the UN,” Palin said in a recent radio interview. “It’s our money funding the lion’s share of the globalist circus. It’s We the People needing to rise up and make this a part of the revolution that we have just so benefited from.”
Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.), meanwhile, has also expressed a desire to dismantle the UN during a campaign stop while a leading contender for the 2016 GOP presidential nomination. “I dislike paying for something that two-bit Third World countries with no freedom attack us and complain about the United States,” explained the popular pro-liberty senator, the son of liberty icon and former Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) who led the charge for an Amexit in Congress during his long career as an undefeated constitutionalist lawmaker. “There’s a lot of reasons why I don’t like the UN, and I think I’d be happy to dissolve it.”
In addition to the effort to withdraw from the UN, U.S. lawmakers are also preparing an effort to defund the controversial global institution. “I believe Congress should end U.S. taxpayer funding for the United Nations unless and until the UN reverses this anti-Israel resolution, and I believe there will be considerable support in Congress, I hope in both parties, to do exactly that,” said Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas), adding that the push would come “soon, very soon.” Even establishment lawmakers are joining the defunding bandwagon as demands for a U.S. withdrawal become mainstream.
Defunding the UN may be a good interim step on the road to full withdrawal, helping to neutralize the dictators club and the havoc it can wreak in the coming months. However, cutting funds for the UN is no substitute for a complete Amexit from the increasingly totalitarian global outfit. For liberty and self-government to survive over the long haul, the UN and its globalist agenda must be stopped. Thankfully, Americans now have the best opportunity in generations to “Get the U.S. out of the UN” and the UN out of the United States. It will take hard work and effort. But setting the globalist establishment back by decades while preserving American freedom and independence is well worth the price.
Related articles:
Congressman Mike Rogers Introduces Bill to Get U.S. Out of UN
Congress Planning to Defund UN as Critics Seek Full Withdrawal
#Brexit to #Amexit: Keep the Momentum Going!
After Equating Trump With ISIS, UN Freaks Out Over His Victory
Top CFR Globalist Warns UN Will Get “Hammered” by Trump
U.S. Independence Attacked as Never Before by UN Interdependence
New UN Chief: Globalist, Socialist, Extremist
United Nations Exploits Pseudo-“Human Rights” to Attack U.S.
Philippines President Threatens to Withdraw From UN
Trump: "Americanism, Not Globalism, Will Be Our Credo”
Merry Christmas: UN Declares Arms Trade Treaty to Go Into Effect Dec. 24
The United Nations: On the Brink of Becoming a World Government
Sen. Rand Paul Would be “Happy to Dissolve” the UN
Bulgarian Communist Is Now “Frontrunner” to Lead UN
I’ve been barking up this tree for decades.
Trump..here is my plan
Let the U.N. do a go around of their rules by putting obama in as head of it.
Then take our money away
Then withdraw
Been saying this for a very long time: “GET US OUT OF UN!!” Now my Congressman and my Senator will hear me loud and clear. WILL YOURS?
The bureaucrats in our government will be only too happy to continue with UM plans all on their own. Agenda 21 comes to mind.
And theyre off,...... The race hae begun.
I tend toward your position here. We can at least stop funding it.
I doubt a direct exit would work, as it has too much political support by liberals.
So a better way to start is to encourage Beijing and Moscow to build their own UN headquarters, then to propose that the UN move to one, then to the other, in a rotation cycle. Being out of the US for 50 years would give us a lot of time to figure out how to leave. And there would be far fewer supporters in the US after a while.
If it was still untenable after 50 years, we could propose that India and some cities in Africa and South America could also host.
yefragetuwrabrumuy: I doubt a direct exit would work, as it has too much political support by liberals.The GOP controls the House, Senate, and White House. Plus the President-elect is negative toward the UN. Perfect time.
I agree. I’d recommend reducing our fees each year, enough to make the U.N. sit up and think.
That premise runs into trouble if China decides to jump in and fill the gap we’ve created by doing so.
I agree, but there gain, if China decides to up it’s contributions to curry favor, it can eliminate the shortfall we sought to create.
Yes it was the pres__ent _resident. The citizen do not agree.
Obama will go away as more and more he is ignored and belittled by people who think for themselves.
He’ll radicalize himself into oblivion > IMO.
I don’t want the UN setting up on another nation’s soil doing the same things.
It has to die.
If everyone saw it that way, I would agree. They don’t.
I think the U.N. needs to be outed for what it has been involved in.
It will take a campaign to de-legitimize it to the point our goals can be reached.
So I agree with you, we need to maintain our veto until the UN is meaningless.
Thanks. I appreciate the thought...
Direct *anything* is likely to fail in Washington, not just because of vested interests, but because the entire system was created for just the purpose of defeating direct actions.
The founding fathers were no dummies. They knew that popular ideas are fleeting, and political power is, and should be, tenuous. Their emphasis was not to stop brilliant masterstrokes, but horrific disasters; and they were well aware that a good idea today can quickly become a pestilence tomorrow.
This means that they set up a system it which change ideally cannot be ramrodded, but must survive through a gauntlet of challenges.
But this also means that the public has to be patient, because while they might want a dictator or king, this is the path to misery. The public wants simple solutions to complex problems, to hack the Gordian knot apart with the sword instead of methodically untying it.
So often the best route is an indirect one, to seemingly support something while undermining it. The Mexican wall is a great example: some of its biggest and loudest advocates actually made huge barriers to stop it from happening. Their excuses were legion. They even tried to lead the charge to doing nothing while seeming to be doing something.
Likewise, cagey politicians often decry things they fully support. The Clintons bitterly complained about “Republican corruption”, for example.
In any event, back to the problem of getting rid of the UN.
The opponents to this are both the internationalist socialists, and the multinational corporatists of both parties. Together they are a formidable opposition.
This is why I proposed the Beijing and Moscow UN headquarters. Both groups would foolishly think that it would advance their rather nasty anti-American agendas. This is a consequence of their elitist ignorance of both Beijing and Moscow. For a wealthy elite, only the best parts of both cities are known to them.
They have no idea what would happen if the ignorant, violent and primitive UN general assembly was dumped there. Many of them would be in jail faster than their diplomatic immunity could be ignored. In Beijing, they would quickly incite tremendous moral outrage with their rotten behavior. The average Chinese hasn’t felt such xenophobia since the Boxer Rebellion.
In short, it would be hilarious. After a few years of this, it would be much easier for the US to leave.
Give up a veto on all these other assholes? Why do that? We leave and the framework still exists for the UN to do terrible things.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.