You forgot the sarcasm tag.
United NATIONS.
-
Z2100
- captain of 100
- Posts: 748
-
Silver
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 5247
Re: United NATIONS.
This will get you started:
https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-ne ... s-an-order
Then read everything by Ezra Taft Benson, for example.
-
Elizabeth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 11796
- Location: East Coast Australia
Re: United NATIONS.
"Before he left office, Barack Obama... without the consent or approval of Congress... committed to this giant United Nations scheme which, according to Bloomberg.com, is NOW going to cost at least 12 TRILLION DOLLARS... and that price tag is almost certain to go up.
The Paris Climate Change Agreement is a ruse. It has almost nothing to do with so-called Climate Change, because the trillions that find their way into the coffers of the crooks and thieves at the United Nations will go straight into the pockets of corporate interests and America-hating tin-pot dictators around the world... and American taxpayers are PERSONALLY on the hook for this multi-trillion dollar wealth redistribution scheme.”
Center for Individual Freedom
815 King Street
Suite 303
Alexandria, VA 22314
Phone: 703-535-5836
Fax: 703-535-5838
The Paris Climate Change Agreement is a ruse. It has almost nothing to do with so-called Climate Change, because the trillions that find their way into the coffers of the crooks and thieves at the United Nations will go straight into the pockets of corporate interests and America-hating tin-pot dictators around the world... and American taxpayers are PERSONALLY on the hook for this multi-trillion dollar wealth redistribution scheme.”
Center for Individual Freedom
815 King Street
Suite 303
Alexandria, VA 22314
Phone: 703-535-5836
Fax: 703-535-5838
-
Elizabeth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 11796
- Location: East Coast Australia
Re: United NATIONS.
https://constitution.com/trump-admin-te ... migration/
"The U.S. pulled out of a global pact on migration and refugees Saturday, informing the United Nations that it will make decisions independently about who is allowed to come to the U.S.
The U.S. will no longer participate in the Global Compact on Migration, a result of the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants, which was unanimously adopted last year as a non-binding agreement to protect the rights of refugees, help them resettle, and facilitate access to education and employment, according to Voice of America.
President Donald Trump’s administration has expressed concerns, suggesting that the accord poses a threat to U.S. national security. “Our decisions on immigration policies must always be made by Americans and Americans alone,” U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley said Saturday. “We will decide how best to control our borders and who will be allowed to enter our country.”
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson asserted Sunday that the original agreement was based on a declaration that “contains a number of policy goals that are inconsistent with U.S. law and policy,” adding, “We simply cannot in good faith support a process that could undermine the sovereign right of the United States to enforce our immigration laws and secure our borders.”
“The United States supports international cooperation on migration issues, but it is the primary responsibility of sovereign states to help ensure that migration is safe, orderly, and legal,” he further explained.
U.N. General Assembly president Miroslav Lajčák expressed regret, arguing that the U.S., as home to largest number of migrants, has the experience and expertise to lead on these issues.
The withdrawal comes just days before the start of a global conference on migration in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico. Trump has reportedly decided to boycott the talks, according to Foreign Policy.
The Trump administration has emphasized the importance of sovereignty, national security, and immigration control from the beginning, downplaying the role of large international agreements and institutions."
"The U.S. pulled out of a global pact on migration and refugees Saturday, informing the United Nations that it will make decisions independently about who is allowed to come to the U.S.
The U.S. will no longer participate in the Global Compact on Migration, a result of the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants, which was unanimously adopted last year as a non-binding agreement to protect the rights of refugees, help them resettle, and facilitate access to education and employment, according to Voice of America.
President Donald Trump’s administration has expressed concerns, suggesting that the accord poses a threat to U.S. national security. “Our decisions on immigration policies must always be made by Americans and Americans alone,” U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley said Saturday. “We will decide how best to control our borders and who will be allowed to enter our country.”
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson asserted Sunday that the original agreement was based on a declaration that “contains a number of policy goals that are inconsistent with U.S. law and policy,” adding, “We simply cannot in good faith support a process that could undermine the sovereign right of the United States to enforce our immigration laws and secure our borders.”
“The United States supports international cooperation on migration issues, but it is the primary responsibility of sovereign states to help ensure that migration is safe, orderly, and legal,” he further explained.
U.N. General Assembly president Miroslav Lajčák expressed regret, arguing that the U.S., as home to largest number of migrants, has the experience and expertise to lead on these issues.
The withdrawal comes just days before the start of a global conference on migration in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico. Trump has reportedly decided to boycott the talks, according to Foreign Policy.
The Trump administration has emphasized the importance of sovereignty, national security, and immigration control from the beginning, downplaying the role of large international agreements and institutions."
-
lundbaek
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 11123
- Location: Mesa, Arizona
Re: United NATIONS.
I am delighted to read that "The U.S. pulled out of a global pact on migration and refugees Saturday, informing the United Nations that it will make decisions independently about who is allowed to come to the U.S." and that The Trump administration has emphasized the importance of sovereignty, national security, and immigration control from the beginning, downplaying the role of large international agreements and institutions." It's about time. I just hope Trump sticks to his guns on this issue.
-
Elizabeth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 11796
- Location: East Coast Australia
Re: United NATIONS.
"Coming directly from the U.N.'s own website, I was furious to find out that the second largest direct funder of their global gun ban is American taxpayers like you and me.
Figures going back to the Obama administration show hundreds of thousands of dollars coming from our own government towards promoting the U.N.'s "Small Arms Treaty."
And sadly, those funds haven't slowed down since President Trump has taken office.
Could it just be oversight? Or could it be entrenched holdovers from the Obama administration willfully blocking President Trump from knowing this is going on?
Either way, it is unacceptable that we are continuing to fund this global gun ban.
If fully implemented in the United States, our Second Amendment would be put on life support, and it would take years to undo the damage.
That s why I'm counting on you to sign the National Association for Gun Rights' "Defund the UN Gun Ban" Petition.
You see, the anti-gun global elites are breathing a sigh of relief.
Even with their anti-gun cheerleader Hillary Clinton not in the presidency, they are able to keep their yearly check courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer -- which they are using to work towards global implementation of the Treaty.
In fact, the anti-gun global elites recently got back from a posh set of meetings in Geneva, Switzerland, where they schemed about ways to implement their anti-gun agenda world-wide.
They know that as long as U.S. money keeps flooding in and our signature stays intact they will have their way eventually.
And even if implementation isn't possible under President Trump, they are fully prepared to wait for someone like Senator Elizabeth Warren to take over the White House.
In the meantime, they can get by on the hundreds of thousands in U.S. funds they will accumulate by then.
And one important way to slow them down is immediately cutting off our funds to the U.N.'s "Small Arms Treaty."
Frankly, I think President Trump would be wise to cut off a lot, maybe even all, funding to the United Nations given its long history of anti-American activity . . . but that's a subject for another day.
Today, I hope you will stand with me in at least cutting off U.S. funding for the U.N.'s global gun ban scheme.
So please sign your "Defund the UN Gun Ban" Petition right away.
After reading through the details of the Treaty, it's hard to see how our Second Amendment could survive such an assault.
Perhaps the worst of the Treaty's provisions can be found in Article V, which mandates countries establish a "National Control List" -- or a NATIONAL GUN REGISTRATION database!
You and I both know gun registration is just the first step toward outright CONFISCATION.
And the U.N. is already plotting their next step -- developing new "International Small Arms Control Standards" (ISACS).
Their goal is to impose these radical anti-gun initiatives on every nation who signs the U.N. "Small Arms Treaty." Introductory language already includes:
*** Mandated national "screening" for all persons seeking to own guns, giving bureaucrats the final say on whether or not you're "competent" enough to own a gun;
*** Restrictive licensing for gun and ammo sales, and perhaps even bans on certain types of firearms. This could include anything from semi-auto rifles to shotguns to handguns!
*** Restrictions on the number of guns and amount of ammo any "properly-licensed" individual may legally own;
*** Bans on magazines holding more than ten rounds;
*** Bans on owning a firearm for self-defense -- unless a citizen can somehow demonstrate need and get federal government approval.
And with U.S. funding continuing to support this treaty, the global anti-gun elites are convinced that the U.S. will come on board with full implementation.
As one anti-gun world leader stated:
"We expect the U.S. to abide by the Treaty even if ratification will take some time."
That's why the immediate defunding of this treaty is so important, and why I am asking for your support.
So please sign your "Defund the U.N. Gun Ban" Petition without delay!
I really hope I can count on you to join me in supporting this vital program.
For Freedom,
Rand Paul
United Stated Senator (R-KY)
P.S. I was shocked and angered to find out that the United Nation's "Small Arms Treaty" is largely funded by U.S. tax payers like you and me.
That's more than every country in the world with the exception of Japan.
That's why I'm hoping I can count on you to sign NAGR's "Defund the U.N. Gun Ban" Petition right away."
Figures going back to the Obama administration show hundreds of thousands of dollars coming from our own government towards promoting the U.N.'s "Small Arms Treaty."
And sadly, those funds haven't slowed down since President Trump has taken office.
Could it just be oversight? Or could it be entrenched holdovers from the Obama administration willfully blocking President Trump from knowing this is going on?
Either way, it is unacceptable that we are continuing to fund this global gun ban.
If fully implemented in the United States, our Second Amendment would be put on life support, and it would take years to undo the damage.
That s why I'm counting on you to sign the National Association for Gun Rights' "Defund the UN Gun Ban" Petition.
You see, the anti-gun global elites are breathing a sigh of relief.
Even with their anti-gun cheerleader Hillary Clinton not in the presidency, they are able to keep their yearly check courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer -- which they are using to work towards global implementation of the Treaty.
In fact, the anti-gun global elites recently got back from a posh set of meetings in Geneva, Switzerland, where they schemed about ways to implement their anti-gun agenda world-wide.
They know that as long as U.S. money keeps flooding in and our signature stays intact they will have their way eventually.
And even if implementation isn't possible under President Trump, they are fully prepared to wait for someone like Senator Elizabeth Warren to take over the White House.
In the meantime, they can get by on the hundreds of thousands in U.S. funds they will accumulate by then.
And one important way to slow them down is immediately cutting off our funds to the U.N.'s "Small Arms Treaty."
Frankly, I think President Trump would be wise to cut off a lot, maybe even all, funding to the United Nations given its long history of anti-American activity . . . but that's a subject for another day.
Today, I hope you will stand with me in at least cutting off U.S. funding for the U.N.'s global gun ban scheme.
So please sign your "Defund the UN Gun Ban" Petition right away.
After reading through the details of the Treaty, it's hard to see how our Second Amendment could survive such an assault.
Perhaps the worst of the Treaty's provisions can be found in Article V, which mandates countries establish a "National Control List" -- or a NATIONAL GUN REGISTRATION database!
You and I both know gun registration is just the first step toward outright CONFISCATION.
And the U.N. is already plotting their next step -- developing new "International Small Arms Control Standards" (ISACS).
Their goal is to impose these radical anti-gun initiatives on every nation who signs the U.N. "Small Arms Treaty." Introductory language already includes:
*** Mandated national "screening" for all persons seeking to own guns, giving bureaucrats the final say on whether or not you're "competent" enough to own a gun;
*** Restrictive licensing for gun and ammo sales, and perhaps even bans on certain types of firearms. This could include anything from semi-auto rifles to shotguns to handguns!
*** Restrictions on the number of guns and amount of ammo any "properly-licensed" individual may legally own;
*** Bans on magazines holding more than ten rounds;
*** Bans on owning a firearm for self-defense -- unless a citizen can somehow demonstrate need and get federal government approval.
And with U.S. funding continuing to support this treaty, the global anti-gun elites are convinced that the U.S. will come on board with full implementation.
As one anti-gun world leader stated:
"We expect the U.S. to abide by the Treaty even if ratification will take some time."
That's why the immediate defunding of this treaty is so important, and why I am asking for your support.
So please sign your "Defund the U.N. Gun Ban" Petition without delay!
I really hope I can count on you to join me in supporting this vital program.
For Freedom,
Rand Paul
United Stated Senator (R-KY)
P.S. I was shocked and angered to find out that the United Nation's "Small Arms Treaty" is largely funded by U.S. tax payers like you and me.
That's more than every country in the world with the exception of Japan.
That's why I'm hoping I can count on you to sign NAGR's "Defund the U.N. Gun Ban" Petition right away."
-
Elizabeth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 11796
- Location: East Coast Australia
Re: United NATIONS.
https://constitution.com/gun-free-chica ... save-city/
"There are few liberal ideologies more damaging to American than their incapacitating hatred of guns. Just ask the citizens of The Windy City if you don’t believe us.
For decades, the liberal left has been attempting a wholesale demonization of the very device that allowed us to found America, and that has kept us safe all these years. (What? You thought that America had never been invaded before due to how nice we are?).
Firearms in America, thanks to our all-important 2nd Amendment, have been an integral part of the security of our republic. Not only do these weapons achieve the stated purpose of Amendment Numero Dos, they also provide an insurance policy against anyone looking to impinge on our American freedom. This includes foreign invaders who are rightfully terrified of the idea of a land war in the United States due to the overwhelming forces embedded in our citizenry.
In Chicago, however, Americans have a different idea about guns thanks to nonsensical democratic legislation that has outlawed the weapons.
We say “outlawed” because the “ban” was completely and utterly ineffective. Chicago’s gun violence has eclipsed any other major city in the United States, (and possibly the world), all because the locale took away law-abiding citizens’ ability to defend themselves against bad guys with now-illegal firearms. In Chicago this year alone there have been nearly 700 homicides, with an untold number of other dastardly incidents.” And counting.
The situation has grown so uncontrollable that the county commissioner for Cook County has floated the idea of bringing in the United Nations to remedy the situation.
“Some politicians in the past have recommended deploying the National Guard to help Chicago quell gun violence, but Cook County Commissioner Richard Boykin went even further on Thursday, suggesting the United Nations perhaps send in peacekeepers in the face of what he called a ‘quiet genocide.’
“Boykin was traveling to New York to meet with Oscar Fernandez-Taranco of Argentina, the U.N. Assistant Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Support, to seek international help with ‘horrific levels of shootings’ and other violent crime in West Side and South Side communities.
“’I’m hoping to appeal to the U.N. to actually come to Chicago and meet with victims of violence, and maybe even possibly help out in terms of peacekeeping efforts, because I think it’s so critical for us to make sure that these neighborhoods are safe,’ Boykin said at O’Hare International Airport on Thursday.”
Boykin went on to compare Chicago to “places in Africa” that the United Nations has previously sent resources and forces to.
When it comes to the common sense idea that “when guns are outlawed…”, Chicago has become the de facto proof of concept. Now, with an epidemic on their hands, the people of the Windy City should be demanding a conservative cavalry to remedy their failed, experimental gun laws; not help from a globalist agency with bigger fish to fry."
"There are few liberal ideologies more damaging to American than their incapacitating hatred of guns. Just ask the citizens of The Windy City if you don’t believe us.
For decades, the liberal left has been attempting a wholesale demonization of the very device that allowed us to found America, and that has kept us safe all these years. (What? You thought that America had never been invaded before due to how nice we are?).
Firearms in America, thanks to our all-important 2nd Amendment, have been an integral part of the security of our republic. Not only do these weapons achieve the stated purpose of Amendment Numero Dos, they also provide an insurance policy against anyone looking to impinge on our American freedom. This includes foreign invaders who are rightfully terrified of the idea of a land war in the United States due to the overwhelming forces embedded in our citizenry.
In Chicago, however, Americans have a different idea about guns thanks to nonsensical democratic legislation that has outlawed the weapons.
We say “outlawed” because the “ban” was completely and utterly ineffective. Chicago’s gun violence has eclipsed any other major city in the United States, (and possibly the world), all because the locale took away law-abiding citizens’ ability to defend themselves against bad guys with now-illegal firearms. In Chicago this year alone there have been nearly 700 homicides, with an untold number of other dastardly incidents.” And counting.
The situation has grown so uncontrollable that the county commissioner for Cook County has floated the idea of bringing in the United Nations to remedy the situation.
“Some politicians in the past have recommended deploying the National Guard to help Chicago quell gun violence, but Cook County Commissioner Richard Boykin went even further on Thursday, suggesting the United Nations perhaps send in peacekeepers in the face of what he called a ‘quiet genocide.’
“Boykin was traveling to New York to meet with Oscar Fernandez-Taranco of Argentina, the U.N. Assistant Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Support, to seek international help with ‘horrific levels of shootings’ and other violent crime in West Side and South Side communities.
“’I’m hoping to appeal to the U.N. to actually come to Chicago and meet with victims of violence, and maybe even possibly help out in terms of peacekeeping efforts, because I think it’s so critical for us to make sure that these neighborhoods are safe,’ Boykin said at O’Hare International Airport on Thursday.”
Boykin went on to compare Chicago to “places in Africa” that the United Nations has previously sent resources and forces to.
When it comes to the common sense idea that “when guns are outlawed…”, Chicago has become the de facto proof of concept. Now, with an epidemic on their hands, the people of the Windy City should be demanding a conservative cavalry to remedy their failed, experimental gun laws; not help from a globalist agency with bigger fish to fry."
-
Elizabeth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 11796
- Location: East Coast Australia
Re: United NATIONS.
https://www.westernjournalism.com/un-vo ... tyalliance
"The United Nations voted Thursday to refuse to accept the validity of President Donald Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
The vote was not close, as 128 member nations supported a resolution that declared Trump’s move “null and void.” Nine nations voted against the measure, and there were 35 abstentions, according to The Associated Press. Twenty-one countries were absent.
The AP noted that while the vote can be seen as a win for Palestine, the number of nations that actually voted in favor of the resolution “was significantly lower than its supporters had hoped for.”
“In that sense, it was a victory for the United States, with Trump’s threat to cut off U.S. funding to countries that oppose his decision having an impact.”
The passage of the resolution, while not binding from a legal standpoint, came despite warnings from U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley that the U.S. would keep track of which countries supported the measure.
As The Western Journal reported, Haley sent a message to most of the nations participating in that vote, issuing a warning that their decisions could be held against them by the Trump administration.
“The president will be watching this vote carefully and has requested I report back on those countries who voted against us,” she wrote.
During a Cabinet meeting on Wednesday, the president threatened to withhold U.S. aid from countries that voted in favor of the U.N. resolution.
“For all these nations, they take our money and then vote against us. They take hundreds of millions of dollars, even billions of dollars and then they vote against us,” Trump said. “We’re watching those votes.
“Let them vote against us,” he added.
Trump reaffirmed his position, adding that the U.S. could benefit from saving money it typically shells out for foreign aid.
“We’ll save a lot. We don’t care. But this isn’t like it used to be where they could vote against you and then you pay them hundreds of millions of dollars,” he added. “We’re not going to be taken advantage of any longer.”
The president added that he was pleased with the written warning Haley administered prior to the vote.
“I like the message that Nikki sent yesterday at the United Nations,” Trump said."
"The United Nations voted Thursday to refuse to accept the validity of President Donald Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
The vote was not close, as 128 member nations supported a resolution that declared Trump’s move “null and void.” Nine nations voted against the measure, and there were 35 abstentions, according to The Associated Press. Twenty-one countries were absent.
The AP noted that while the vote can be seen as a win for Palestine, the number of nations that actually voted in favor of the resolution “was significantly lower than its supporters had hoped for.”
“In that sense, it was a victory for the United States, with Trump’s threat to cut off U.S. funding to countries that oppose his decision having an impact.”
The passage of the resolution, while not binding from a legal standpoint, came despite warnings from U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley that the U.S. would keep track of which countries supported the measure.
As The Western Journal reported, Haley sent a message to most of the nations participating in that vote, issuing a warning that their decisions could be held against them by the Trump administration.
“The president will be watching this vote carefully and has requested I report back on those countries who voted against us,” she wrote.
During a Cabinet meeting on Wednesday, the president threatened to withhold U.S. aid from countries that voted in favor of the U.N. resolution.
“For all these nations, they take our money and then vote against us. They take hundreds of millions of dollars, even billions of dollars and then they vote against us,” Trump said. “We’re watching those votes.
“Let them vote against us,” he added.
Trump reaffirmed his position, adding that the U.S. could benefit from saving money it typically shells out for foreign aid.
“We’ll save a lot. We don’t care. But this isn’t like it used to be where they could vote against you and then you pay them hundreds of millions of dollars,” he added. “We’re not going to be taken advantage of any longer.”
The president added that he was pleased with the written warning Haley administered prior to the vote.
“I like the message that Nikki sent yesterday at the United Nations,” Trump said."
-
Elizabeth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 11796
- Location: East Coast Australia
Re: United NATIONS.
http://sonsoflibertymedia.com/threaten- ... mply-pull/
“...To be clear,” she added, “we are not asking that other countries move their embassies to Jerusalem, though we think it would be appropriate. We are simply asking that you acknowledge the historical friendship, partnership and support we have extended and respect our decision about our own embassy.”
“This is bullying,” Turkey’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu said. “It is unethical to think that our votes are for sale.”
Çavuşoğlu added that the U.S. “may be strong, but that does not make you right.”
Neither does it make those countries right that disagree. A country has the right to designate its capital. Countries outside of it do not possess that right. So, forgive me Mr. Çavuşoğlu, but you’re not only wrong, but you’re way out of line.
I wonder what Çavuşoğlu calls the vote the UN took about something that doesn’t concern them? Is that not bullying? Keeping our own money isn’t bullying.
However, on Thursday, the UN decided to thumb its nose at the US for the decision to move our embassy.
Fox News reports:
The United Nations General Assembly overwhelmingly voted on Thursday to condemn President Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.
The 128 member states of the UNGA voted to condemn Trump’s move, with just seven other states joining the U.S. and Israel in voting against the resolution. There were 35 abstentions.
The vote was taken shortly after the U.S. ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, issued a strong warning to states who support the resolution — reminding the General Assembly of the financial aid Washington provides to both the UN and many member states.
Here’s the thing, will Trump be able to stop the funding he threatened to stop? Probably not without legislation from Congress because it is congressionally mandated.
The New York Times reports:
It is difficult to see how Mr. Trump can make good on that threat because it could involve cutting off financial assistance to the country’s most strategic allies in the Middle East. Some of those programs, like Egypt’s, are congressionally mandated. While the president can hold up aid unilaterally as a form of leverage, canceling it would require new legislation.
Still, the bitter confrontation at the United Nations shows the lingering repercussions of Mr. Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem, which defied world opinion and upended decades of American policy. While the decision has not unleashed the violence in the Arab capitals that some had feared, it has left the United States diplomatically isolated.
So, why do we continue to be a part of and support with more debt on the backs of the American people this totalitarian, evil, wicked and anti-American, anti-freedom organization called the United Nations? Is it because those we have elected support such things? Is it because they actually support a New World Order?
President Trump delivered a powerful message to the UN in September, but his premise was faulty in that he said, “Too often, the focus of this organization has not been on results, but on bureaucracy and process. In some cases, states that seek to subvert this institution’s noble ends have hijacked the very systems that are supposed to advance them.”
This is the problem. The UN does not have “noble ends.” It has wicked ones.
Perhaps, Trump should take to the bully pulpit and whip this thing up to push Congress to get us out of the United Nations. There are already bills in place to make this happen."
“...To be clear,” she added, “we are not asking that other countries move their embassies to Jerusalem, though we think it would be appropriate. We are simply asking that you acknowledge the historical friendship, partnership and support we have extended and respect our decision about our own embassy.”
“This is bullying,” Turkey’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu said. “It is unethical to think that our votes are for sale.”
Çavuşoğlu added that the U.S. “may be strong, but that does not make you right.”
Neither does it make those countries right that disagree. A country has the right to designate its capital. Countries outside of it do not possess that right. So, forgive me Mr. Çavuşoğlu, but you’re not only wrong, but you’re way out of line.
I wonder what Çavuşoğlu calls the vote the UN took about something that doesn’t concern them? Is that not bullying? Keeping our own money isn’t bullying.
However, on Thursday, the UN decided to thumb its nose at the US for the decision to move our embassy.
Fox News reports:
The United Nations General Assembly overwhelmingly voted on Thursday to condemn President Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.
The 128 member states of the UNGA voted to condemn Trump’s move, with just seven other states joining the U.S. and Israel in voting against the resolution. There were 35 abstentions.
The vote was taken shortly after the U.S. ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, issued a strong warning to states who support the resolution — reminding the General Assembly of the financial aid Washington provides to both the UN and many member states.
Here’s the thing, will Trump be able to stop the funding he threatened to stop? Probably not without legislation from Congress because it is congressionally mandated.
The New York Times reports:
It is difficult to see how Mr. Trump can make good on that threat because it could involve cutting off financial assistance to the country’s most strategic allies in the Middle East. Some of those programs, like Egypt’s, are congressionally mandated. While the president can hold up aid unilaterally as a form of leverage, canceling it would require new legislation.
Still, the bitter confrontation at the United Nations shows the lingering repercussions of Mr. Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem, which defied world opinion and upended decades of American policy. While the decision has not unleashed the violence in the Arab capitals that some had feared, it has left the United States diplomatically isolated.
So, why do we continue to be a part of and support with more debt on the backs of the American people this totalitarian, evil, wicked and anti-American, anti-freedom organization called the United Nations? Is it because those we have elected support such things? Is it because they actually support a New World Order?
President Trump delivered a powerful message to the UN in September, but his premise was faulty in that he said, “Too often, the focus of this organization has not been on results, but on bureaucracy and process. In some cases, states that seek to subvert this institution’s noble ends have hijacked the very systems that are supposed to advance them.”
This is the problem. The UN does not have “noble ends.” It has wicked ones.
Perhaps, Trump should take to the bully pulpit and whip this thing up to push Congress to get us out of the United Nations. There are already bills in place to make this happen."
-
Elizabeth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 11796
- Location: East Coast Australia
Re: United NATIONS.
https://constitution.com/nikki-haley-cu ... 5-million/
"President Trump’s decision to move the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, making a de facto declaration of America’s recognition of the holy city as the Capital of Israel...predictably angered the non-Christian world, including the nearby Palestinians and their pals in the caliphate, who would much rather see Israel wiped off the map completely.
In defense of this move, Nikki Haley has been on a warpath with the U.N., doling out punishing reminders to the General Assembly of America’s generosity and clout within the globalist organization. After the petulant posse of nations decided to continue bristling at the firebrand of an ambassador, Haley then dropped another bombshell: She’s cutting them off.
“Nikki Haley, United States Ambassador to the United Nations (U.N.), announced Sunday night that the federal government has reduced its contribution to the U.N.’s annual budget by 285 million dollars.
“The Christmas Eve statement reads in full:
“‘Today, the United Nations agreed on a budget for the 2018-2019 fiscal year. Among a host of other successes, the United States negotiated a reduction of over $285 million off the 2016-2017 final budget. In addition to these significant cost savings, we reduced the UN’s bloated management and support functions, bolstered support for key U.S. priorities throughout the world, and instilled more discipline and accountability throughout the UN system.’
“’The inefficiency and overspending of the United Nations are well known. We will no longer let the generosity of the American people be taken advantage of or remain unchecked. This historic reduction in spending – in addition to many other moves toward a more efficient and accountable UN – is a big step in the right direction. While we are pleased with the results of this year’s budget negotiations, you can be sure we’ll continue to look at ways to increase the UN’s efficiency while protecting our interests,’ said Ambassador Haley.”
"President Trump’s decision to move the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, making a de facto declaration of America’s recognition of the holy city as the Capital of Israel...predictably angered the non-Christian world, including the nearby Palestinians and their pals in the caliphate, who would much rather see Israel wiped off the map completely.
In defense of this move, Nikki Haley has been on a warpath with the U.N., doling out punishing reminders to the General Assembly of America’s generosity and clout within the globalist organization. After the petulant posse of nations decided to continue bristling at the firebrand of an ambassador, Haley then dropped another bombshell: She’s cutting them off.
“Nikki Haley, United States Ambassador to the United Nations (U.N.), announced Sunday night that the federal government has reduced its contribution to the U.N.’s annual budget by 285 million dollars.
“The Christmas Eve statement reads in full:
“‘Today, the United Nations agreed on a budget for the 2018-2019 fiscal year. Among a host of other successes, the United States negotiated a reduction of over $285 million off the 2016-2017 final budget. In addition to these significant cost savings, we reduced the UN’s bloated management and support functions, bolstered support for key U.S. priorities throughout the world, and instilled more discipline and accountability throughout the UN system.’
“’The inefficiency and overspending of the United Nations are well known. We will no longer let the generosity of the American people be taken advantage of or remain unchecked. This historic reduction in spending – in addition to many other moves toward a more efficient and accountable UN – is a big step in the right direction. While we are pleased with the results of this year’s budget negotiations, you can be sure we’ll continue to look at ways to increase the UN’s efficiency while protecting our interests,’ said Ambassador Haley.”
-
lundbaek
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 11123
- Location: Mesa, Arizona
Re: United NATIONS.
I wonder if in Nikki Haley we have a United States Ambassador to the United Nations who would support getting the UN out of the US and getting the US our of the UN.
-
simpleton
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 3080
Re: United NATIONS.
"The generosity of the American people" ??
It would in fact be interesting to know exactly how "generous" the American people have felt from day one since that traitorous organization was first started.
I say chop off 100% of their funding. For that matter chop off 100% of the our own "defense" ( uh.. wrong word..) offense budget and apply all those funds to this country's infrastructure... Then you would see somewhat of an economic rebound...Also cut all off all of the foreign nations funding or foreign gifting...
dream dream dream
It would in fact be interesting to know exactly how "generous" the American people have felt from day one since that traitorous organization was first started.
I say chop off 100% of their funding. For that matter chop off 100% of the our own "defense" ( uh.. wrong word..) offense budget and apply all those funds to this country's infrastructure... Then you would see somewhat of an economic rebound...Also cut all off all of the foreign nations funding or foreign gifting...
dream dream dream
-
lundbaek
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 11123
- Location: Mesa, Arizona
Re: United NATIONS.
I remember the "day one" of the inception of the United Nations and I thought it was great. But in big part because of my father's job during those years (1948-1959) I became increasingly convinced that the UN was not living up to its billing. It's control over the Korean War revealed support of the communist forces. That was my first real awakening about the UN. But it took lots of years for me to gradually figure out that the ultimate goal of the UN is the creation of a single world government.
-
Elizabeth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 11796
- Location: East Coast Australia
Re: United NATIONS.
Australian taxpayers, such as myself, are also "forced" to contribute vast financial contributions to the United Nations and to have immigrants of their chosing "forced" upon us.
-
Elizabeth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 11796
- Location: East Coast Australia
Re: United NATIONS.
The United States has withdrawn from the United Nations Human Rights Council. 
The body is "hypocritical and self-serving", said Nikki Haley, the US envoy to the UN, at a news conference with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. She said the council is "not worthy of its name".
The body is "hypocritical and self-serving", said Nikki Haley, the US envoy to the UN, at a news conference with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. She said the council is "not worthy of its name".
-
Elizabeth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 11796
- Location: East Coast Australia
Re: United NATIONS.
The United Nations has ignored the desperate plight of persecuted Christians in Iraq.
Tens of thousands of Christians have fled for their lives from ISIS terrorists, who give them an impossible choice: convert to Islam or die.
Now, four years later, these Christians are living on the streets of Jordan. And the United Nations has kept them from receiving refugee status that would provide them with international aid such as food, medicine, and shelter.
Sign the International Fellowship of Christian’s and Jews’ petition today and demand that the U.N. protect these vulnerable Christians.
Tens of thousands of Christians have fled for their lives from ISIS terrorists, who give them an impossible choice: convert to Islam or die.
Now, four years later, these Christians are living on the streets of Jordan. And the United Nations has kept them from receiving refugee status that would provide them with international aid such as food, medicine, and shelter.
Sign the International Fellowship of Christian’s and Jews’ petition today and demand that the U.N. protect these vulnerable Christians.
-
lundbaek
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 11123
- Location: Mesa, Arizona
Re: United NATIONS.
I note there have been over ten thousand views of this topic. If that many people would write to their members of Congress (House and Senate) demanding that they promote getting the US out of the UN and the UN out of the US --- the John Birch Society has been organizing letter writing and petitions to that end for decades now. And finally the United States has withdrawn from the United Nations Human Rights Council. Well, that's a start. To whom does the credit go for that?
-
nightowl
- captain of 100
- Posts: 272
