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

[Brett85]

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

[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.

[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.

[mad cow]

I am liking this guy more and more.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[TheTexan]

You would let the USSR, China and France run wild.

Yes. So?

[Occam's Banana]

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 have got to be kidding. Fight the UN with a "giant military state"? Why?

Are they going invade us with a bunch of blue-helmeted panty-waist "peacekeepers"?

Now I know you be trollin' ...

You would let the USSR, China and France run wild. All they need do is bribe the UK for a few votes.

"Run wild" doing what? Passing "resolutions"? For a few votes to do what? Issue some "declarations"? Ooooooh! I'm ascared!

(BTW: your geopolitical acumen leaves something to be desired. There's no such thing as the USSR - it doesn't exist anymore. Just thought you'd like to know.)

[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.

[FrankRep]

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

Well shoot. Osan, By that same logic, we shouldn't close down our foreign military bases around the world because those countries could get invaded or declare war on a weaker country.

[Galileo Galilei]

You have got to be kidding. Fight the UN with a "giant military state"? Why?

Are they going invade us with a bunch of blue-helmeted panty-waist "peacekeepers"?

Now I know you be trollin' ...



"Run wild" doing what? Passing "resolutions"? For a few votes to do what? Issue some "declarations"? Ooooooh! I'm ascared!

(BTW: your geopolitical acumen leaves something to be desired. There's no such thing as the USSR - it doesn't exist anymore. Just thought you'd like to know.)

You are still advocating that the US give up its UN veto power. That's a REALLY bad idea. You have not responded to this. The fact is, if you don't like the UN, the best way to keep them in check is to veto everything they do.

[ClydeCoulter]

I understand your point, and don't take it lightly. Events can turn ugly in a hurry, if we refuse to be the globalists military arm. Get our house in order, now.

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 out 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.

[osan]

Well shoot. Osan, By that same logic, we shouldn't close down our foreign military bases around the world because those countries could get invaded or declare war on a weaker country.

Bad analogy. I am all for getting out of the UN. I am not, however, in favor of doing so precipitously.

Our nation is literally hanging by threads in many respects and it is the brute strength of our military and the fact that they are of use to the globalist cadre that keeps us afloat in terms of maintaining what little remains of our prosperity and freedom.

To unceremoniously withdraw would be a nearly suicidal move at this time.

The smart move would be to get our own house in order before withdrawing. Get the economy back into a state of brute power, then withdraw as the global police, end all our wars, then all our other foreign entanglements including ALL treaties. Then, with a powerful and independent economy, our military at home and mostly disbanded, and a return to a culture of freedom where the people of the nation take care of themselves rather than relying upon others to do the work for them, we start thinking about leaving the UN.

This is called "order of operations" and is very important.

The goal is laudable, but it must be done smartly, lest disaster be visited upon us. This is not hyperbole. Consider the stakes.

[Danke]

How could we effectively combat Global Warming Climate Change without the UN?