Posted on 12/22/2015 9:14:01 AM PST by HomerBohn
n March of this year, Rep. Mike Rogers (R-AL) introduced HR1205: American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2015, which was assigned to a congressional committee. The bill would effectively end the united States' membership in the United Nations, but why is there no push to advance it forward?
"The U.N. continues to prove it's an inefficient bureaucracy and a complete waste of American tax dollars," Rogers said in a statement. "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."
Among those actions that the UN has been engaged in are actions like the Law of the Sea Treaty, which according to Rogers "would subject our country to internationally-based environmental mandates, costing American businesses more money." Additionally, Rogers pointed to the UN's work to "re-establish an international regulation regime on global warming which would heavily target our fossil fuels."
Furthermore, one of the most concerning and dangerous items the UN has advanced is the Arms Trade Treaty, which contrary to the Obama administration, would threaten the rights to keep and bear arms, which is protected by the Second Amendment.
"My legislation would end our country's participation in the U.N. and any organizations affiliated with them," said Rogers. "Why should the American taxpayer bankroll an international organization that works against America's interests around the world? The time is now to restore and protect American sovereignty and get out of the United Nations."
I agree. Similar measures have been put forth by Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) and his father, former Texas Congressman Ron Paul.
According to the bill, it would require the closure of the US Mission to the United Nations and would direct the President to terminate US membership in the UN, including any organ, specialized agency, commission, or other formally affiliated body.
It would also completely repeal the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 and other specified related laws. Additionally, the bill would prohibit the following:
1.the authorization of funds for the U.S. assessed or voluntary contribution to the U.N.
2.the authorization of funds for any U.S. contribution to any U.N. military or peacekeeping operation
3.the expenditure of funds to support the participation of U.S. Armed Forces as part of any U.N. military or peacekeeping operation, U.S. Armed Forces from serving under U.N. and command diplomatic immunity for U.N. officers or employees.
Alex Newman comments on the current sentiment in America regarding the UN. He writes:
While anti-UN sentiment is fierce and growing across much of America, in Alabama, where the legislation's lead sponsor comes from, that animosity is especially pronounced. In 2012, for example, both houses of the state legislature voted unanimously to ban the deeply controversial UN "sustainable development" program known as Agenda 21 in what was hailed as a major victory for property rights and sovereignty. Since then, UN meddling in American affairs has accelerated dramatically, sparking even more outrage about the global organization across Alabama and beyond.
In the U.S. Senate, pro-sovereignty sentiment is also growing. Earlier this year, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a leading contender for the 2016 nomination, blasted the UN and suggested it should be dismantled. "I dislike paying for something that two-bit Third World countries with no freedom attack us and complain about the United States," explained the senator, who is also Ron Paul's son. "There's a lot of reasons why I don't like the UN, and I think I'd be happy to dissolve it."
The American public generally shares those sentiments, with a 2014 Gallup poll showing that a staggering 57 percent of Americans believed the UN was doing a "bad job," versus 37 percent who thought it was doing a "good job." More than two thirds of Americans were upset with the UN, and independents were also overwhelmingly opposed. But even among Democrats, half thought the UN was doing a bad job. The Obama administration, meanwhile, apparently out of step with the American people, has called for drastically expanding and empowering the UN and its scandal-plagued military forces.
While the bill currently sits in the House Foreign Affairs Committee chaired by Rep. Edward "Ed" Royce (R-CA), one wonders why there has not been more talk about this bill and people pushing to get it to the floor for a vote. It also seems that during the presidential debates it would be a great time for Senator Rand Paul to bring this issue up and stir things up a bit with pointing to the languishing legislation in Congress.
It has become common in science fiction stories that the UN runs Earth. While it simplifies the plot to have just one beneficent government that runs Earth it turns me off so much I just put the book aside.
Because the uni-party is all in with them and Agenda 21.
Americans support this but Dumby-RATS ACADEMIA-LIBTURDS don’t.
Because you're intolerant, you sexist-racist-homophobe, and you deserve to DIIIIEE!!!
There, see how simple it is?
They aren’t gutless. They are DemocRat collaborators.
The GOP are not cowards, or gutless, feckless, etc.
They’re just as bad as the dems when it comes to the influence that they wield when dealing with the UN. Pleny or opportunities in the UN to hob-nob with fellow fascists and totalitarian thugs, and endless deal making to line one’s pockets. This fact isn’t lost on US politicians, and more importantly, their financial donor masters.
Like environmentalism, pretty much every school in America, and the world “backs” the UN.
It’s all over.
50+ Years ago, this was a potentially interesting issue.
Because:
A - they don’t know about it
B - it won’t pass
C - if it passes it will get vetoed
Which all adds up to might as well ignore it, it’s a hollow gesture that will amount to nothing.
Wait!? Politicians actually listen and care about the Will of the People?
No sh!t?
One aide they like to whine without solving the problem
They get Trump to come along and say he’s going to fix things and they hate him
It is sick
My guess would be because no one is publicizing or promoting it.
This thread is the first I’ve heard of it, and I listen to and read news all day every day.
Malevolent LSM. Playing softball w/ the 'Rats, hardball with everybody else.
Adverse possession of Media is like having all your phone calls pass through a malicious neighbor's house, who intercepts and perhaps blocks certain calls, and listens in on all of them.
Sort of like Obama's NSA and ICE. Watch out for those traitorous, vicious racist veterans!!
The answer to the headline question is simple. Our elected representatives do not represent us. They instead represent the interests of organizations and people that finance their political campaigns. They “LIE” when they tell us that they will work for us.
Hollow gesture. Dems in Senate would filibuster, or O would veto it.
“Because the uni-party is all in with them and Agenda 21.”
WINNER
That’s right.
Oho, the old liberal curse-epithet of "gestural politics", eh?
Well, Ted Cruz turned his gestural gesture of 2013 into control of the Senate, by sharpening the contrast between 'Rat perfidy and hollowness (and perfidy, and subversion) and his own good faith in negotiation, just as the issue of immigration and vetting came to the fore.
Sometimes 'gestures' that highlight issues and differences can make concrete changes.
The RiNO's are frittering away what Cruz and Sessions and Mike Lee brought them, with old Yurtle the Turtle in charge of the GOP caucus, but that is a separate issue.
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.