Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Trump will share the spotlight with Haley at the UN this week
americanthinker.com ^ | 9/18/2017 | Rick Moran

Posted on 09/18/2017 8:04:28 AM PDT by rktman

Donald Trump travels to the U.N. on Tuesday to address the General Assembly. His speech will touch familiar themes, including condemnation of North Korea, Iran, and perhaps even Russia. He will also try to reassure delegates that he believes in an international system but will criticize the U.N. for its timidity on North Korea and its mismanagement and almost certainly urge other countries to do more to fund the organization. The U.S. is currently responsible for about 60% of U.N. funding, and Trump will lecture the delegates about failing to pay their fair share.

(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Government; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: un; useless
"The U.S. is currently responsible for about 60% of U.N. funding.....". Responsible? Responsible? Oh, because we get the lion's share of benefits from the endeavor? Yeah, how about DJT put them on notice that we ain't payin' diddly any more? How about that. Oh, and here's the eviction notice while we're at it. Contempt would be putting it mildly.
1 posted on 09/18/2017 8:04:28 AM PDT by rktman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: rktman

The UN is useless.

We should get out.

And get them out of NYC.


2 posted on 09/18/2017 8:21:19 AM PDT by Lurkinanloomin (Natural Born Citizen Means Born Here Of Citizen Parents - Know Islam, No Peace -No Islam, Know Peace)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurkinanloomin

Instead, we’re apparently “responsible” for 60% of their funding? I don’t recall seeing that on the ballot.


3 posted on 09/18/2017 8:23:02 AM PDT by rktman (Enlisted in the Navy in '67 to protect folks rights to strip my rights. WTH?!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rktman

Expect for the press to go all out nuclear in their negative reporting of Nikki Haley as they start to figure out that she has a much better chance of being the first woman president than any of the far left-wing idiots that the Democrats are pushing.


4 posted on 09/18/2017 8:37:45 AM PDT by Bubba_Leroy (The Obamanation has ended!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bubba_Leroy

You got it! I have family in SC and she was a great governor. I know people here don’t like her because she agreed to remove the Confederate flag after that awful shooting by the nutcase in Charleston. But what else could she do to defuse things? He was crazy, but was from an old and important Charleston family and flaunted the Confederate flag. Of course, South Carolina and Charleston in particular are always blamed for kicking off the Civil War so it’s particularly a sensitive matter there. I think she did the right thing under the circumstances, and it took a lot of courage to do it.

However, on other fronts, she got things running right, brought a ton of businesses into SC and revitalized a really sagging state. And she’s strong and decided but does listen to advisors and, best of all, is very pro-American. Something no Dems and not many GOPers have been for about 60 years.


5 posted on 09/18/2017 9:14:28 AM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: rktman

The UN is near the top of a long list of lefty tools that should be de-funded.
And the sooner the better. They are worse than the League of Nations.


6 posted on 09/18/2017 9:29:11 AM PDT by tumblindice (America's founding fathers: all armed conservatives)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: livius

U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. was a good career move for her. It gives her foreign policy experience on top of her prior executive and legislative experience.

She is certainly more qualified to be President than anyone on the Democrat list of women in waiting, whose primary qualification is that they pee sitting down.


7 posted on 09/18/2017 10:19:29 AM PDT by Bubba_Leroy (The Obamanation has ended!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Bubba_Leroy

She is certainly more qualified to be President than anyone on the Democrat list of women in waiting, whose primary qualification is that they pee sitting down.


She ain’t eligible due to her parents pedigree..expect that to be an issue, as it should be.


8 posted on 09/18/2017 10:22:31 AM PDT by AFret.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: AFret.

She was born in the U.S. to parents who were both here as LEGAL immigrants and wholly subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. She was a U.S. citizen at birth by virtue of her birth. She is not a naturalized citizen. No court is ever going to hold that she is not a natural born citizen since she is undeniably more of a citizen than Obama ever was.

9 posted on 09/18/2017 10:35:34 AM PDT by Bubba_Leroy (The Obamanation has ended!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Bubba_Leroy

She was born in the U.S. to parents who were both here as LEGAL immigrants and wholly subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. She was a U.S. citizen at birth by virtue of her birth. She is not a naturalized citizen. No court is ever going to hold that she is not a natural born citizen since she is undeniably more of a citizen than Obama ever was.


Spin this to your hearts content. Neither of her parents are US citizens....


10 posted on 09/18/2017 10:40:09 AM PDT by AFret.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: AFret.

So your interpretation of “natural born citizen” requires that your parents also be citizens (and not merely legal residents) at the time of your birth. Do they also have to be natural born citizens? If so, how many generations do you have to go back?

Under the 14th Amendment, she was born a citizen. That would not necessarily be the case if her parents had been illegal aliens and, therefore, “not subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. That is not an issue because her parents were both here legally when she was born.


11 posted on 09/18/2017 10:47:36 AM PDT by Bubba_Leroy (The Obamanation has ended!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Bubba_Leroy

Not sure I’m on board with Nikki Haley as POTUS, but certainly better than many who are discussed, and she has done well at the UN. She’d be “First” woman/Indian/Asian POTUS, all wrapped in one. I DID note that her birthday is Inauguration Day.


12 posted on 09/18/2017 10:51:15 AM PDT by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: EDINVA

I am not sure I am on board with Nikki Haley as POTUS either. It will depend on who else is running.

All I am sure of is that she is a hell of a lot more qualified than anyone on the list of vaginas that the Democrats are floating.


13 posted on 09/18/2017 10:57:46 AM PDT by Bubba_Leroy (The Obamanation has ended!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Bubba_Leroy
Nikki Haley does not qualify for POTUS. She is not a natural born citizen. To me, she sounds much of the time as if she is repeating memorized comments.

Besides, who can forget her blaming a battle flag for causing homicide. That is lunacy.

Even though she promised not to remove the flag, she did it anyway. What a smug expression she had when she announced the flag must go.

She has too much baggage, too many things in her past, like hiding out when flooding hit her state a while back.

One thing is obvious: she dislikes our history.

14 posted on 09/18/2017 11:07:46 AM PDT by apocalypto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Bubba_Leroy

So your interpretation of “natural born citizen” requires that your parents also be citizens (and not merely legal residents) at the time of your birth. Do they also have to be natural born citizens? If so, how many generations do you have to go back?

Under the 14th Amendment, she was born a citizen. That would not necessarily be the case if her parents had been illegal aliens and, therefore, “not subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. That is not an issue because her parents were both here legally when she was born.


It’s not my interpretation...it’s the law. If her parents were US “citizens” at the time of her birth, she would be natural born..they were not, and she is not. obama got away with it because he was black, no other reason. Haley, if she should run, will not be so lucky. Same with Rubio. Also applies to Kamala Harris from the democratic party.


15 posted on 09/18/2017 1:34:55 PM PDT by AFret.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Bubba_Leroy; livius
Nikki Haley as they start to figure out that she has a much better chance of being the first woman president

No thanks. In addition to siding with the Left on the Confederate Flag and monuments, Nimrata is an enthusiastic supporter of "immigration reform" (i.e. amnesty and open borders). She's basically a female Marco Rubio, and it's a shame that Trump gave her a spot in the limelight to boost her career and name-recognition. I just hope that Nimrata won't be our next Secretary of State if/when Tillerson resigns.

16 posted on 09/20/2017 11:11:45 AM PDT by ek_hornbeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson