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

[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?

 

[Occam's Banana]

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.

I have repeatedly responded to it. So we give up our veto power? SO WHAT? You have failed to explain just what it is you expect to prevent the UN from doing with your precious veto power. Stop some silly "resolutions" or "declarations"? What? Please list all the horrible depredations that have been averted because of our veto power in the UN.

On the contrary, there are PLENTY of fiascos that have been committed via the auspices of the UN with the full support of the US. In fact, FAR more often than not, it is the United States leading the charge, rather than exercising it's veto power. The Korean War, that mess in Somalia, and the Gulf War are just a few examples - and that's just off the top of my head. So I ask again: what are your counter-examples? What things like this have been averted because of our veto power?

But what is even more ridiculous is your implicit assumption that the globocrats in Washington D.C. will even WANT to "keep the UN in check." That is an exremely foolish & utterly unfounded assumption. At best, it is wishful thinking and is completely detached from reality. On the one hand, the neo-con types want to use the UN as a rubber stamp to confer the illusion of legitimacy upon their bloody, evil schemes (such as the aforementioned Gulf War). On the other hand, the progressive types want to use the UN to destroy US sovereignty and to plump for their fantasy of "one-world government".

The fact is that the UN is nothing more than a platform for grandstanding globocrats. Whatever power the UN wields derives largely from the participation of the US in the UN. The best way to undermine the UN is NOT to participate in it. The best way to undermine the UN is to destroy it's appearance of legitimacy. If the most powerful empire in the entire history of the world tells the UN to go to hell, what is the UN or its other members going to do about it (other than splutter with useless outrage)?

I asked you before if you remember the League of Nations. Do you? The United States was not a member. It was a toothless flop. There is no reason to think the UN would be any different.

Withdrawing from the UN is a VERY good idea and we should do it. Unfortunately, however, there is not even the slightest chance in hell that it will actually happen any time soon.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

I have repeatedly responded to it. So we give up our veto power? SO WHAT? You have failed to explain just what it is you expect to prevent the UN from doing with your precious veto power. Stop some silly "resolutions" or "declarations"? What? Please list all the horrible depredations that have been averted because of our veto power in the UN.

On the contrary, there are PLENTY of fiascos that have been committed via the auspices of the UN with the full support of the US. In fact, FAR more often than not, it is the United States leading the charge, rather than exercising it's veto power. The Korean War, that mess in Somalia, and the Gulf War are just a few examples - and that's just off the top of my head. So I ask again: what are your counter-examples? What things like this have been averted because of our veto power?

But what is even more ridiculous is your implicit assumption that the globocrats in Washington D.C. will even WANT to "keep the UN in check." That is an exremely foolish & utterly unfounded assumption. At best, it is wishful thinking and is completely detached from reality. On the one hand, the neo-con types want to use the UN as a rubber stamp to confer the illusion of legitimacy upon their bloody, evil schemes (such as the aforementioned Gulf War). On the other hand, the progressive types want to use the UN to destroy US sovereignty and to plump for their fantasy of "one-world government".

The fact is that the UN is nothing more than a platform for grandstanding globocrats. Whatever power the UN wields derives largely from the participation of the US in the UN. The best way to undermine the UN is NOT to participate in it. The best way to undermine the UN is to destroy it's appearance of legitimacy. If the most powerful empire in the entire history of the world tells the UN to go to hell, what is the UN or its other members going to do about it (other than splutter with useless outrage)?

I asked you before if you remember the League of Nations. Do you? The United States was not a member. It was a toothless flop. There is no reason to think the UN would be any different.

Withdrawing from the UN is a VERY good idea and we should do it. Unfortunately, however, there is not even the slightest chance in hell that it will actually happen any time soon.

The Soviets and Chinese would be frothing at the mouth if they thought the US would throw away its UN veto.

 

[FrankRep]

The Soviets and Chinese would be frothing at the mouth if they thought the US would throw away its UN veto.

The United Nations would collapse without United States funding.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

The United Nations would collapse without United States funding.

totally not true. Funding would go up. Basically Russia and China and maybe France would have to go a cut a deal with Britain.

 

[Occam's Banana]

The Soviets and Chinese would be frothing at the mouth if they thought the US would throw away its UN veto.

I've asked you repeatedly to tell us just what you think the UN is going to be able to do if the US left. And you've got nothing - except some wild-eyed gibberish about "Soviets and Chinese frothing at the mouth" (whatever that's supposed to mean).

And for the second time, there are no Soviets - they don't exist (and haven't for about a quarter of a century). If you can't even get basic facts of international politics straight, then you've got no business expecting anyone to take you seriously on this issue.

 

[Occam's Banana]

totally not true. Funding would go up.

You really are living in a fantasy world, aren't you?

Basically Russia and China and maybe France would have to go a cut a deal with Britain.

Cut a deal to do what? Declare some date to be "World Cottage Cheese Day"? Announce the latest "International Animal Rights Treaty"? What?

Even if you could come up with something, why couldn't Russia/China/France/Britain/who-the-hell-ever just make those deals together anyway, without the UN (and regardless of any US veto)?

The UN cannot do jack shit to anyone. The UN is nothing more than a PR front for globocrats. US participation in the UN accomplishes nothing but to give the illusion of legitimacy to globocracy.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

I've asked you repeatedly to tell us just what you think the UN is going to be able to do if the US left. And you've got nothing - except some wild-eyed gibberish about "Soviets and Chinese frothing at the mouth" (whatever that's supposed to mean).

And for the second time, there are no Soviets - they don't exist (and haven't for about a quarter of a century). If you can't even get basic facts of international politics straight, then you've got no business expecting anyone to take you seriously on this issue.

The UN could declare the US a terrorist state or set up a worldwide boycott of US goods. They could order drone strikes into the US.

 

[FrankRep]

Ron Paul vs. United Nations


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WibxffNRjOI

 

[georgiaboy]

Rand Paul & Paul Broun. Has a nice ring to it.

 

[Occam's Banana]

The UN could declare the US a terrorist state

In other words: more empty, pointless and useless "declarations" ... just like I said before.

UN declarations don't mean shit - and they'll mean even less without the US helping to back them up.

or set up a worldwide boycott of US goods.

Yeah, right. The US is the single largest "consumer" nation in the world.

So the Chinese are going to use the UN to boycott our goods ... and then we'll turn right around and boycott Chinese goods ...

Have you been to Walmart lately? Do you really think the Chinese are that stupid? Try again.

They could order drone strikes into the US.

They? Order whom? And with whose drones? And from where? Canada? Mexico? *facepalm*