1 posted on
07/04/2006 2:40:33 PM PDT by
neverdem
To: neverdem
Republicans in Congress moved yesterday to cut U.S. contributions to the United Nations budget just one day before the world body is scheduled to lift a budget cap imposed by the United States and other donors and to resume spending as usual. The new contribution to the World USA-Hating Organization should be... Zero.
Nice ROUND Number -- Zero.
2 posted on
07/04/2006 2:41:55 PM PDT by
freedumb2003
(Let them die of thirst in the dark.)
To: neverdem
Well, with Mr. Ronery's missile launches today, Bolton's going to give the Security Council a chance to put its money where its mouth is.
And if they blow this one, we should cut off the dough.
3 posted on
07/04/2006 2:43:21 PM PDT by
mewzilla
(Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist. John Adams)
To: neverdem
" Rep. Michael McCaul, Texas Republican, successfully demanded that the United States should not pay anything toward the new Human Rights Council as long as countries on the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism such as Cuba serve on the 47-member body."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Good going, Rep McCaul! We're proud of you here in Texas where we like to think we're blessed with a little extra "horse sense".
4 posted on
07/04/2006 2:44:53 PM PDT by
cowdog77
To: neverdem
The UN, where the only person allowed to carry a gun was Yassir Arafat.
Yeah, we should give them more money. /sarcasm
To: neverdem; mewzilla
Nice! I'll take it. Sure, I'd love to see the U.N. dry up and go away, but it isn't gonna happen overnight. But I love what John Bolton has been doing, and budget cuts are another step in the right direction.
8 posted on
07/04/2006 2:58:00 PM PDT by
Coop
(No, there are no @!%$&#*! polls on Irey vs. Murtha!)
To: neverdem
The White House has requested $423 million for the U.N. regular budget in fiscal 2007. The administration has also requested $500 million for U.N.-related agencies and programs, such as UNICEF, and $1.13 billion for 18 peacekeeping missions.
So...carry the 1...the total outlay for U.N. b.s. is on the order of two billion bucks.
As I recall, the U.N. is a place for diplomats to meet. A meeting hall. Two BILLION bucks for a meeting hall. Good thing we're not wasting Americans' money or anything. Hell, I could rent Miami and half the women there for less than a billion.
10 posted on
07/04/2006 3:55:58 PM PDT by
LibertarianInExile
('Is' and 'amnesty' both have clear, plain meanings. Are Billy Jeff, Pence, McQueeg & Bush related?)
To: neverdem
Republicans in Congress moved yesterday to cut U.S. contributions to the United Nations Excellent !!!!!
11 posted on
07/04/2006 3:58:17 PM PDT by
Dustbunny
(Amazing Grace how sweet the sound that saved a wretch like me)
To: neverdem
$17 million?
Sheesh, FEMA managed to squander $1.5 billion of our tax dollars.
Surely we can do better than a few measly millions. Ah well, it's a start.
14 posted on
07/04/2006 4:19:46 PM PDT by
Nickname
To: neverdem
The last thing we need to do is prop up an America-hating organization. Cut it down to size.
(The Palestinian terrorist regime is the crisis and Israel's fist is the answer.)
15 posted on
07/04/2006 4:27:35 PM PDT by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
To: neverdem
Put up an "Office Space for Lease" sign out front and let them move to Cuber.
Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters
16 posted on
07/04/2006 4:32:22 PM PDT by
bray
(Hey Zaqueeri, say hello to Hitler, Stalin and Mohamhead)
To: neverdem
"Rep. Scott Garrett, New Jersey Republican, yesterday won approval in a House subcommittee to cut $2 million from the U.S. contribution to the U.N. budget, saying that taxpayer money should not be used to lobby the U.S. government."
Domestically it is ILLEGAL for "any agency which receives federal funds....to lobby congress for or against any pending legislation".
Not that our alphabet agencies comply, but the same law should certainly apply to the damn U.N.
They get money from the U.S., they don't get to try to lobby the U.S.!
If that conflicts with their goals, charter, or feelings, too damn bad, they can move to Chad!
17 posted on
07/04/2006 4:33:47 PM PDT by
Richard-SIA
("The natural progress of things is for government to gain ground and for liberty to yield" JEFFERSON)
To: neverdem
I got it. Cut the UN $$$ so they can put the $$$ in the "Soc. Sec. Trust Fund" earmarked to pay benefits to illegal aliens. No? The Senate already said yes. Not sure about House, but prob. likewise.
18 posted on
07/04/2006 5:37:57 PM PDT by
Waco
To: neverdem
While I am 100% in favor of completely cutting the questionable practice of our elected(?) officials diverting OUR tax dollars to benefit foreign governments or organizations, it is important to recognize that this is just another election-year diversion and is irrelevant.
Thanks for nothing, well, next-to-nothing.
19 posted on
07/04/2006 5:44:33 PM PDT by
WhiteGuy
(It's about the People Who Count the Votes................. - Wally O'Dell)
To: neverdem
Republicans in Congress moved yesterday to cut U.S. contributions to the United Nations It would be so wonderful if the Congress would actually cut the UN budget - but, as we know, they back down. What would it take to get some real UN budget cuts?
20 posted on
07/04/2006 6:05:36 PM PDT by
Sunsong
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson