2013: H.R. 75: To End Membership of the United States in the United Nations

[FrankRep]

Rep. Paul Broun Jr., R-GA10


H.R. 75: To end membership of the United States in the United Nations.


Introduced: Jan 03, 2013 (113th Congress, 2013–2015)
Sponsor: Rep. Paul Broun Jr.


Why Oppose the United Nations?


United States vs United Nations


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E88-BgCMpyY



The United Nations Exposed
- William F. Jasper, 2001



Global Tyranny…Step by Step: The United Nations and the Emerging New World Order
- William F. Jasper, 1992

[BamaAla]

Oh hell yes.

[kathy88]

Needs co sponsors. Get on the phones.

[opal]

bump..

bout time someone in congress did this.

hmmm Jeff Miller on the UN.. hmmmm

[mtr1979]

Doesn't look good it only has a "6% chance of getting past committee" and "1% chance of being enacted" according to the link I have below.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr75

[idiom]

Doesn't look good it only has a "6% chance of getting past committee" and "1% chance of being enacted" according to the link I have below.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr75

Those are much better odds than I would have given it. The bookies in DC must thing the world is really unstable right now.

[Brett85]

And Paul Broun is supposed to be "bad" on foreign policy issues?

[heavenlyboy34]

Doesn't a similar bill get brought up every year? The last one I heard about ~10 years ago IIRC, didn't get any significant traction. Hope this one does better.

[FrankRep]

Doesn't a similar bill get brought up every year? The last one I heard about ~10 years ago IIRC, didn't get any significant traction. Hope this one does better.

Ron Paul usually introduces the bill every year.

[Galileo Galilei]

This is a really bad idea. If the US leaves the UN, then they lose their veto power over everything the UN does. That will result in a much bigger and more powerful UN that is hostile to the US.

[TheTexan]

This is a really bad idea. If the US leaves the UN, then they lose their veto power over everything the UN does.

It's a really bad idea because we'd be giving up our ability to dictate to other countries what they can and can't do?

That will result in a much bigger and more powerful UN that is hostile to the US.

The US represents a large portion of the "power" the UN has. If the US leaves that equation, the UN becomes weaker, not stronger.

[Galileo Galilei]

It's a really bad idea because we'd be giving up our ability to dictate to other countries what they can and can't do?

Other countries are free to quit the UN if they want to.

[Occam's Banana]

This is a really bad idea. If the US leaves the UN, then they lose their veto power over everything the UN does. That will result in a much bigger and more powerful UN that is hostile to the US.

You could not possibly be more bizarrely wrong.

Leaving the UN is a VERY GOOD idea. If the US leaves the UN, then the UN loses any pretense it ever had of having any kind of legitimate authority - especially any kind authority over a sovereign & independent US.

And as for the idea that the US not being a member of the UN would somehow make the UN "bigger and more powerful" ...

I cannot for the life of me imagine how anyone could take such an idea seriously. Have you ever heard of a thing called the League of Nations?

[Galileo Galilei]

You could not possibly be more bizarrely wrong.

Leaving the UN is a VERY GOOD idea. If the US leaves the UN, then the UN loses any pretense it ever had of having any kind of legitimate authority - especially any kind authority over a sovereign & independent US.

And as for the idea that the US not being a member of the UN would somehow make the UN "bigger and more powerful" ...

I cannot for the life of me imagine how anyone could take such an idea seriously. Have you ever heard of a thing called the League of Nations?

huh? You think the UN needs "legitimate authority" to act? Yikes.

[Occam's Banana]

huh? You think the UN needs "legitimate authority" to act? Yikes.

Do you know how to read? For one thing, I said "pretense [...] of legitimate authority". For another thing, I neither said nor implied anything about what the UN "needs" - only what they would lose.

Nice try at dodging the issue, though. So let me repeat it: you are wrong - leaving the UN is a very good idea.

[Galileo Galilei]

Do you know how to read? For one thing, I said "pretense [...] of legitimate authority". For another thing, I neither said nor implied anything about what the UN "needs" - only what they would lose.

Nice try at dodging the issue, though. So let me repeat it: you are wrong - leaving the UN is a very good idea.

We can fight the UN with a giant military state that costs trillions; or we can stop the UN with one ambassador with veto power. You would let the USSR, China and France run wild. All they need do is bribe the UK for a few votes.

[bolil]

This is a really bad idea. If the US leaves the UN, then they lose their veto power over everything the UN does. That will result in a much bigger and more powerful UN that is hostile to the US.

The UN's hostility is irrelevant. The US could flourish even if it was completely isolated. Indeed, total isolation would probably help the US flourish... as much of a shame it would be.

If the UN tried to engage the US... lol... even if the US armed forces stood down, which is unlikely, the would be occupiers would have the insurgency from hell on their hands. "a rifle behind every blade of grass"

[kcchiefs6465]

This is a really bad idea. If the US leaves the UN, then they lose their veto power over everything the UN does. That will result in a much bigger and more powerful UN that is hostile to the US.

We need no part in entangling alliances. The United Nations encroaches on our sovereignity and the sovereignty of basically every other country on the Earth. Not to mention we are too broke to pay for it.

“The U.S. has been the largest financial supporter of the U.N. since the organization’s founding in 1945. The U.S. is currently assessed 22 percent of the U.N. regular budget and more than 27 percent of the U.N. peacekeeping budget. In dollar terms, the Administration’s budget for FY 2011 requested $516.3 million for the U.N. regular budget and more than $2.182 billion for the peacekeeping budget.

“However, the U.S. also provides assessed financial contributions to other U.N. organizations and voluntary contributions to many more U.N. organizations. According to OMB, total U.S. contributions to the U.N. system were more than $6.347 billion in FY 2009. This is more than $1 billion more than total contributions as compiled by OMB for FY 2005, and it is indicative of the rising budgetary trends in the U.N. and the consequential demand on U.S. financial support.”

http://acta.us/growls/2010/08/what_d...nations_c.html


We pay 22 percent of the U.N. budget while Russia pays 1.602 percent of the U.N. budget. We damn near pay twice as much as the next leading U.N. financer Japan, who pays 12.530 percent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations#Funding

That is just the listed budget. There are other endeavors we pay for yearly. We are in no danger to cease membership in the United Nations. We are powerful enough to ward off any enemy. We have weapons the world has yet to really see. No country would dare attack us. A ground campaign would be too costly, and as others have stated, we are armed to the teeth. We are much more likely to be attacked in the U.N. than out of it. My logic for that is as follows: We go to war (humanaterian efforts) on U.N. resolutions, at the behest of very powerful lobbyists from the MIC. This puts our troops in danger's path moreso than if they did not partake in these unconstitutional endeavors. Our bombs do not always hit where they are supposed to and many times (damn near everytime) there is quote on quote, 'collateral damage.' This further breeds enemies when children grow up seeing human limbs and what exactly shrapnel will do to a human body. It is perpetual warfare that we need no part of. They circumvent our Congress with their resolutions, involve us in $#@! we shouldn't be involved in, cost too much, and encroach upon the sovereignity of non-member states. Please let this bill get some attention. Too many people believe that the U.N. protects us in some way when in reality, they do the opposite.

[Galileo Galilei]

The United Nations encroaches on our sovereignity and the sovereignty of basically every other country on the Earth. Not to mention we are too broke to pay for it.

not true, the US can veto anything the UN does. If we get out, then the UN can gang up on us and take our sovereignty in WWIII.

[kcchiefs6465]

not true, the US can veto anything the UN does. If we get out, then the UN can gang up on us and take our sovereignty in WWIII.

And if we don't the U.N. will undoubtedly take us into Iran, or Syria, or Libya- again, or (). We need no part in entangling alliances. They circumvent our Congress with this somehow delegated power of declaring war- I mean, humanitarian missions. I would much rather OUR Congress declares war against legitimate aggressors than some pussy UN declaration sending our troops halfway around the world. Hell, I, as well as a host of other Americans, would take up arms voluntarily should your little scenario play out. This isn't the cold war. We spend more money on weaponry than the rest of the world combined. We have yet to even use the best weaponry of our arsenal. I doubt China or Russia wants any part of the receiving end of these largely unseen, weapons from hell.

[Galileo Galilei]

We need no part in entangling alliances.

Being in the UN is not an "alliance" if you merely veto everything the UN wants to do. That's what I advocate.

[kcchiefs6465]

Being in the UN is not an "alliance" if you merely veto everything the UN wants to do. That's what I advocate.

'We' use the U.N. to 'legally' get us involved in these conflicts. We need to take away that option. (explaining to people the ridiculousness of the U.N. taking us to war just doesn't seem to work) You are incredibly naive to think the United States will veto UN resolutions when 'we' (the MIC, powers-that-be, globalists- whatever you wish to call them) fully support them. If it isn't us directly circumventing Congress to go on these wild military adventures (proposing the resolution) it is a NATO country proposing what we want/tell them to. Which brings me to another point, we need to get the hell out of NATO too.

[Galileo Galilei]

'We' use the U.N. to 'legally' get us involved in these conflicts. We need to take away that option. (explaining to people the ridiculousness of the U.N. taking us to war just doesn't seem to work) You are incredibly naive to think the United States will veto UN resolutions when 'we' (the MIC, powers-that-be, globalists- whatever you wish to call them) fully support them. If it isn't us directly circumventing Congress to go on these wild military adventures (proposing the resolution) it is a NATO country proposing what we want/tell them to. Which brings me to another point, we need to get the hell out of NATO too.

You are extremely naive if you think Obama will withdraw from the UN.

[mad cow]

I am liking this guy more and more.

[AFPVet]

The U.N. is the modern day League of Nations... the Constitution does not give us authority to be the world police—as Ron said.

[NoOneButPaul]

How could anyone think leaving the UN is not a good idea?

The UN is awful and represents central planning at it's finest.

[Koz]

Obama would never sign it, he is a globalist. I will call my senators and congressman on monday though.

[SpreadOfLiberty]

[FrankRep]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xx3VJJUiivs

Rep. Paul Broun MD at the John Birch Society, Council Dinner in Georgia.
October 17, 2009

That's pretty cool.

[osan]

Before we go all apoplectic in our support of this, may I inject some further thoughts?

Just pulling out of the UN may not be a good idea if it is not attended with a fundamental change in both US foreign and domestic policy.

If we withdraw, we will then stand essentially alone on the planet against the rest. So standing, and with our military spread all over the planet as it is, that would leave us in an unenviable position of vulnerability. A de-facto battle line will have been drawn: us against the rest, the latter being the globalist contingent... maybe. The globalists hold a great seat of power in the USA and I doubt they would simply vanish away. That would mean we were separated from the rest in name only and would almost certainly remain subject to UN mandates, only this time with no veto power as our seat on the Security Council will be gone. The UN is a foreign entity - a government of fact and there is NOTHING to stop the globalists from entering into treaties with that entity.

Does anyone here think that formal withdrawal would end our problems WRT the UN and globalist aspirations? It would almost certainly make things worse.

Until we clean up our house by airing out the globalist/progressive one-world sorts whose only goal at this time appears to be our subjugation, I submit that leaving the UN is likely to make things worse rather than better. At least now we hold some theoretical control over its actions.

So long as the domicile is lousy with tyrants, such actions will have no material benefits. When we become a free nation, pull back our military, our "money", and so forth and leave the rest of the world to its devices, THEN retreat from the UN will have the effect we seek. Until then we are playing a very dangerous game that combines ignorance and wild desire against strategic thinking and a properly reasoned view of reality.

The waters in which we find ourselves are deep and dangerous. Precipitous action with that knife in our inflatable raft is not well advised.