If Americans are Sick of the United Nations, Why are They Not Backing this Bill to Get Us Out of it?

In 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 theArms Trade Treaty, which contrary to the story given by the Obama administration, wouldthreaten 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 aninternational 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” progra... in what was hailed as a major victory for property rights and sovereignty. Since then,UN meddling in American affairs has accelerated dramatically, sparkingeven 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.

http://www.dcclothesline.com/2015/12/21/if-americans-are-sick-of-th...

Views: 529

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Why won't we get out??

Creating and committing ourselves to the U.N., in the false premise of attaining the end of wars, essentially sold our soul. The overall concept and the details within U.N. are the antithesis to our founding concepts. This was in 1945, 70 years ago, and the mass majority of us have experienced nothing else than living in a nation that has committed itself to the U.N.'s concepts.

Why won't we get out?? Most likely fear of the 180degree change of direction getting out and committing to our original soul would mean, the unknown to most of us.

Us older Americans aren't afraid of change, I feel like this change would be good for what ails America today, as for as the younger generations go, they will have to live with the change the same way we learned. 

If you go back and look at history you will see that right after the 1st World War there wan an attempt to organize "The League of Nations."  When the US failed to join, the League was dissolved and nothing happened -- except World War II and then the organization of the United Nations.  The Elite had failed in their first attempt and so we had another war and then success on their 2nd attempt.

The United Nations is not for the benefit of the People of the World, it benefits the Elite and the Powers that Be.  They have figured out how to have greater power over everything that happens and how to turn a lot of that into mass sums of money for themselves.

Remember, follow the money.

Thank you for the information.

WE should do it .The UN is corrupt.

The establishment doe not what it to go forward and the people are not being informed about it.   Everyone on here needs to send this out to all their friends and post it on all groups they belong too.    Is there any rules against copying and pasting things form here to another sight??

Jack

You just have to site  who the original author is. Don't copy and past any posts. Just the articles with the authors name or names and with a link.

THE ESTAB IS ALL FOR THIS WE MUST FIND A WAY TO RID OURSELVES OF THIS NWO

ANTI AMERICAN ORGANIZATION 

It should be understood by now that the UN is Rockefeller's New World Order "Trojan Horse", not ours. Get rid of it...Semper Fi Nam 66-67

Could the reason be that Americans are not the ones voting for our membership? We should be closing bases and stop supporting everyone else, i.e. climate change, omnibus bill, unlimited welfare for nothing, and countless other total wastes of our tax dollars. It has become a joke to the whole world that our spending is way beyond reasonable, especially with the drunk sailor in office.The right got rid of Boehmer. Who has the left expunged? This idiot has doubled what we have spent since they wrote the Constitution...DOUBLED IT. Yet everyone sits on their thumbs! Pathetic 

Trump and Cruz will bring it up for a vote!

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

 

Political Cartoons by Chip BokPolitical Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by AF Branco

ALERT ALERT

Angry Dem Impeachment ‘Witness’: Pam Karlan Donated Thousands To Hillary And Was On Clinton’s List For Potential SCOTUS Nomination

Image result for Pam Karlan

The House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Rep. Jerrold Nadler, kicked off its first impeachment circus Wednesday morning.

The four ‘witnesses’ testifying have never actually witnessed any of Trump’s dealings with Ukraine firsthand — the four witnesses are law professors offering legal analysis.

One of the witnesses the Dems rolled out is an angry Hillary Clinton donor who was on Crooked’s list for a potential Supreme Court nomination.

No wonder why this unhinged, dowdy woman is so pissed off!

“Professor Pam Karlan donated thousands of dollars to Democrats and was on Hillary Clinton’s list for a potential Supreme Court nomination. So she certainly has no vendetta against President Trump,” GOP Rep. Mark Walker said.

Congressman Walker also pointed out that Noah Feldman, the Dems first partisan witness in Wednesday’s hearing tweeted about impeaching Trump right after he was sworn in.

Rep. Mark Walker   RepMarkWalker

Meet Noah Feldman, House Democrats first partisan witness.

Look at the date of this tweet. He has been trying to get @realDonaldTrump impeached since 46 days into his presidency.

His reason? Trump criticized President Obama.

This is a sham impeachment with sham witnesses. https://twitter.com/NoahRFeldman/status/839185127494254592 

Noah Feldman @NoahRFeldman

Trump's wiretap tweets raise risk of impeachment http://bv.ms/2mY1ueX  via @BV

Rep. Mark Walker   RepMarkWalker
 

The next witness, Karlan, has donated thousands to Democrats and was on Hillary Clinton’s list for a potential Supreme Court nomination.

So she certainly has no vendetta against @realDonaldTrump.

These witnesses are as serious as House Democrats impeachment case: not at all.

The entire sham show trial is stacked with partisan hacks who have wanted to impeach Trump from the moment he won in November of 2016.

Norm Eisen, the Democrats’ counsel who is blasting Trump and questioning witnesses in Wednesday’s show trial, tweeted about impeaching Trump before Donald Trump was even sworn into office!

Infantilization of Popular Culture

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service