TIME FOR AMERICA TO DEPART THE UNITED NATIONS…

There is an old adage that says, if I remember correctly, “You can judge a man not by his friends, but by the caliber of his enemies.”  And I think much the same can be said of countries.  And why I choose to mention this is the reaction from many countries regarding President Trump’s recent decision, and very appropriate one, to move the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.  And it was countries with appalling human rights records, relishing their moments in the spotlight last Thursday, who chose to lambast the U.S. for daring to make such a move.

Here are but a few of the countries who were allowed to take a swing at the U.S. during the debate on the U.N. General Assembly motion condemning the U.S. move, or who chose to vote against the U.S.:

Venezuela, whose government this month banned opposition parties from its 2018 elections, was particularly vocal in its condemnation of the U.S. decision. Despite the country’s dilapidated socialist economy forcing Venezuelans to scavenge food from garbage bags, Venezuela’s representative launched into a tirade against the U.S., declaring itself “alarmed” by Israel’s alleged violations of international law in Palestinian territories.  Samuel Moncada, Venezuela's deputy foreign minister until June 2017, said, “Our message to the current admin of U.S. of A is the following: The world is not for sale. The world is not for sale and your threats imperil global piece.”

North Korea, a country known for starving its people to death, North Korea is also one of the most brutal dictatorships in the world while also causing international outrage and instability by aggressively ramping up missile tests as it seeks out a nuclear weapon. But despite itself being both a human rights pariah and under ever-tightening sanctions, North Korea also voted Thursday to censure the U.S.  Delegate Ja Song Nam said the U.S. move was deserving of “global condemnation.” He added that the U.S. and Israel bear “full responsibility” for the consequences of the decision for its “reckless and high-handed” actions.  He also called on Israel and the U.S. to listen to the international community, something North Korea has itself failed to do in regards to its weapons programs despite multiple rounds of international sanctions.

Syria, a country involved in a years-long civil war, during which Syrian President Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons against his own civilians. It is also a country where ISIS took hold and secured their de facto capital in Raqqa. Yet despite its appalling human rights state and its wartorn conditions, Syria was another country to line up and take a shot at the U.S.  Syrian Deputy Ambassador Mounzer Mounzer said the move “unmasks their unlimited support for the racist, colonialist, Zionist entity which undermines the rights of the Palestinian people.”

Yemen, a country currently involved in a bloody civil war as Saudi and Iran-backed militias face-off for control of the country. It has been plagued by airstrikes, famine, and a severe outbreak of cholera. Former President Ali Abdullah Saleh was killed this month by Houthi rebels. Yet, the country’s government found time to sponsor the resolution condemning the U.S.  Yemen’s representative condemned Trump’s decision, declaring it “null and void” and a “blatant violation of the rights of the Palestinian people.” He also called it a “serious threat” to stability and peace in the world.

Cuba, the government of which routinely commits such flagrant abuses of human rights that its people are often found risking their lives on homemade rafts trying to cross the waters to the United States of America in search of freedom. The Castro regime, via Ambassador Anayansi Rodríguez Camejo, condemned the alleged “serious and flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter, of international law and of the relevant UN resolutions” by the U.S. and Israel.

Iran, a country that has been working extremely hard in its continuing effort to destabilize the Middle East in its push for nuclear weapons, support for Islamic terrorists, and its use of Yemen as a proxy war against Saudi Arabia. But Ambassador Gholamali Khoshroo tore into the U.S. and Israel.  He accused Israel of “criminal” practices, and accused the U.S. of having “acted against the will of the international community.”

Yet despite the protests of the above countries, as well as others such as China and the Palestinian leadership, the U.S. remained defiant.  It was our stellar Ambassador Nikki Haley who said, “America will put our embassy in Jerusalem, that is what the American people want us to do, and it is the right thing to do.”  She added, “No vote at the United Nations will make any difference on that, but this vote will make a difference on how Americans look at the U.N. and on how we look at countries who disrespect us in the U.N. and this vote will be remembered.”

I’ve lost count of the number of times I have said that the U.S. should remove itself from this corrupt organization and remove it from our soil.  It is to our shame that this country remains a member of this brood of vipers.  President Trump should seriously consider taking such action.  Imagine how it would make the liberal heads catch on fire and how fun that would be to watch.  And for as long as I can remember, and probably for much longer, American Liberals be they in politics, academia, the media types or Hollyweird, ALWAYS take the side of our enemies.

Because it would seem that Liberals, Commies, Islamists, and Murdering despots all across the globe are united in three things.  One is their desire for autocratic power and wealth and a willingness to do absolutely anything to get that which it is that they seek. Two is their hatred of Israel, perhaps the purest form of hate imaginable, and yet, three, it is a hate that is dwarfed only by their hatred of America.  These brothers-in-arms are, quite literally, consumed by their hate, and they are driven by it.  And it is their shared goal to being an end to America, 

It is way beyond time for America to take all of our money out of the U.N. and evict the tenants and take possession of OUR, the taxpayer, valuable real estate. Then expel all of these "illegal" immigrants that were occupying said building(s).  If America chooses to takes a hard stance and follow through with the power of withholding billions in aid and defense funds, for these treasonous countries/hypocrites that voted against the USA/Israel on this matter, I would bet you they would become a bit more willing to around to our way of thinking, or simply self-vacate!

Look, when countries like Venezuela and North Korea start telling us what to do, it’s time to get out of the United Nations.  Over the years this organization has increasingly become little more than a joke.  We MUST cut off 100 percent of the financial aid to any and every country that refuses to side with us. It’s time to quit being stupid about trying to get other countries to like us.  Who cares what these deviants say?  The United States has always placed its embassies in the capital cities of each country with which we have diplomatic missions.  Why stop now? 

HOW ABOUT WE DEPORT THE UNITED NATIONS???

Well folks, we the American taxpayers are once again being told to simply bend over and spread ‘em  as we once more will be forced to cover more than one-fifth of the total United Nations’ regular budget next year, as well as more than one-quarter of the much-larger peacekeeping budget, for what is a grand total of approximately $2,957,000,000.  You see, it was just before Christmas that the U.N. General Assembly approved a regular operating budget of $5.4 Billion for the 2016-17 period. (That budget is calculated biannually.)  Of the $2.7 billion earmarked for 2016, the U.S. will account for 22 percent, or $594 Million.  What a deal!

However, the sad truth regarding the full extent of just how badly we are going to really get screwed in providing funding for the U.N. system is that we will likely be forced to provide considerably more than that.  You see, the $2.957 billion figure comprises the U.S. “assessed contributions” to the two main budgets, but the U.S. in addition provides much more in what’s described as “voluntary contributions” to a whole host of U.N. agencies.  And the last time the administration was obliged by law to provide Congress with a full breakdown, the total for fiscal year 2010 was a whopping $7.69 Billion.  Sadly that reporting requirement fell away in 2011.

And I’m sure that it will come as absolutely no surprise to anyone to hear that our incredibly imbecilic U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., Ms. Samantha Power, cheerfully tweeted out her congratulations to the U.S. team involved in all of the committee haggling over the budget – or what she described as being “tough negotiations to secure more fair UN budget to slow growing costs & take steps to streamline UN ops.”  What the Hell is this crazy bitch talking about?  Tough negotiations, when? A fair U.N. budget, what?  Streamlining UN ops, where?  She’s a freaking lunatic!  But then what do expect from someone nominated by the anti-America president, Barry “Almighty”?

The U.S. rate of 22 percent does remain unchanged in the latest approved “scale of assessments”, meanwhile Red China will now be liable for a bigger proportion of the total budget, although it remains very far behind that of the U.S.  You see, Red China’s assessment for the regular budget has jumped from 5.148 percent to what I’m sure it sees as being a staggering amount to 7.921 percent.  That means Red China will now be the third biggest contributor to that budget after the U.S. at 22 percent and Japan at 9.68 percent. And yes, I’m being sarcastic when referencing the amount paid by Red China as being staggering. Because it most certainly is not.

And it’s according to data compiled by the Heritage Foundation that we see the American taxpayers’ share of the U.N. regular budget exceeds that paid by their counterparts in 176 other U.N. member-states, combined; while the U.S. proportion of the peacekeeping budget is bigger than that contributed by 185 other countries, combined.  There are 193 U.N. member-states. When decisions are made on the U.N. budget, the U.S. has the same (one) vote as does every other member, despite the size of its contribution. America’s 22 percent contribution comes with no more weight in the budget process than the 0.001 percent paid by the lowest-assessed nations.

And yet, what is it that all of this money gains for those of us in America?  Actually, when you stop and look at the amount of positive return that we get it’s clearly a pretty shitty investment. Because we get very little in return for the amount that we’re forced to spend.  Personally, I’ve been a longtime opponent to this pathetic cadre of dictators, tyrants and despots.  It serves no useful purpose and frankly I’m not all that sure it ever did. And I would argue that it long ago got to where it simply no longer deserved to remain on U.S. soil.  We should remove ourselves from the organization and provide to the remaining members 60 days to vacate the premises.

TIME TO CUT OURSELVES LOOSE FROM THE UNITED NATIONS….

 

In one of its last actions of the year, that completely dysfunctional group of thugs, dictators and despots of every stripe to which liberals fondly refer to as the United Nations General Assembly, on Christmas Eve agreed to extend for another three years the formula that has we the U.S. taxpayers contributing more than one-fifth of the world body’s regular operating budget. No member-state called for a recorded vote, and the resolution confirming the contributions that each country will make for the 2013-2015 period was summarily adopted. The assembly also approved a two-year U.N. budget of $5.4 Billion. The U.N. is one the most, if not THE most, corrupt organizations on the entire planet. It long ago arrived at the point where it had outlived it's usefulness, if it ever was useful in the first place.

 

 

The U.S. has accounted for 22 percent of the total regular budget every year since 2000, and will now continue to do so for the next three years. The U.S. representative for U.N. management and reform, Joseph Torsella, expressed satisfaction that the U.S. contribution had not been raised above that level. "The United States is very pleased to have maintained the critical 22 percent ceiling for U.S. contributions to the U.N. regular budget, protecting U.S. taxpayers from the additional bills – estimated to be at least $300 million annually in both the regular and peacekeeping budgets – that would have resulted from an increase in the U.S. ceiling level," he said. Well this imbecile may be pleased, but here's one taxpayer who isn't, not by a long shot! We're just pouring money down yet another hole.

 

 

Two months ago, when the General Assembly’s budget committee was meeting on the issue, Torsella noted that since the last time the budget contribution formula was reviewed, "developing countries have continued their impressive economic growth." He said, "Countries whose economies have grown should welcome the opportunity to become a larger stakeholder in the work of the organization." Torsella also reminded that meeting that since the creation of the U.N., a fundamental principle that has governed the budget contribution process has been "the avoidance of overreliance upon any one contributor." What constitutes "overreliance" is not defined, however. Between them the U.S. and Japan contribute one-third of the total budget – and roughly the same as the next seven countries combined.

 

 

The 193 U.N. member-states’ contributions are assessed according to their relative "capacity to pay," based on population size and gross national income (converted to U.S. dollars at market exchange rates). The ceiling is 22 percent while the bottom level is 0.001 percent, which over the next three years will apply to more than 30 of the world’s poorest countries. Whether a country contributes less than $25,000 a year towards the budget or more than $500 million – as the U.S. does – it has the same voting privileges in the General Assembly. Moreover, as Heritage Foundation scholar Brett Schaefer has pointed out, countries that together pay less than 1.3 percent of the total are able, under U.N. voting rules, to pass the budget over the objections of countries that contribute a combined 98 percent.

 

 

According to the resolution adopted on Monday, the biggest contributors after the U.S. for the 2013-2015 period are Japan (10.83 percent), Germany (7.14 percent), France (5.59 percent), Britain (5.18 percent) and China (5.15 percent). The next tier includes Italy (4.45 percent), Canada (2.98 percent), Spain (2.97 percent), Brazil (2.93 percent), Russia (2.44 percent) and Australia (2.07 percent). No other country pays as much as two percent, and most pay below one percent. Some developing countries have seen relatively significant increases in their assessments: China, the world’s second-largest economy, will pay 5.15 percent, up from 3.12 last time; the Russian contribution has risen to 2.44 percent from 1.60 percent; Brazil’s 2.93 percent is an increase from 1.61.

 

 

China’s year-on-year GDP growth rate last year was 9.2 percent, Russia’s was 4.3 percent and Brazil’s 2.7 percent, according to CIA World Factbook data. India’s increase in U.N. contributions is more modest – from 0.53 to 0.66 percent – while Japan, Canada and European countries including Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Spain will contribute a smaller percentage over the next three years than they have over the past three. Before 2000, the U.S. contributed 25 percent of the U.N. regular budget, but it was reduced to 22 percent in line with legislation passed by the U.S. Congress in 1999. The U.S. still pays 25 percent of the separate peacekeeping budget. This little pipedream here has now become simply nothing more than a bad investment. We essentially get zero return for our money.

 

 

Look, I'm not saying that having some sort of world body isn't a good idea, I'm simply saying that the one we currently have is a very bad idea. Free countries are most definitely now in the minority, while those countries that are essentially nothing more than dictatorships, of one form or another, now make up a very substantial majority of the members nations. The deck has essentially become very much stacked against us, so why not now cut our losses and respectfully request that the group we would leave behind, while they are still free to refer to themselves as the 'United Nations,' must, and in a timely manner, relocate their headquarters to another locale. One that is outside of the United States. We shouldn't be unreasonable in our request, they should be provided 6 months to leave and we will also provide them with one half of what would have been our financial contribution for 2013. But they must GO!



THE U.N.: DISBAND IT OR INVITE IT TO LEAVE, EITHER WAY IT'S GOT TO GO...

Well folks, it would seem that that U.N. of which Barry "Almighty" and Hitlery Clinton are such huge fans, has now provided to us even more proof, as if we really needed any, of just how useless it has now become and how much a fraudulent enterprise it is. When it comes to human rights, critics of this most dysfunctional of organizations often argue that the United Nations is, how shall I say, rather selective, to say the least, in making its accusations. This is especially true whenever it comes to having anything whatsoever to do with Israel. Because as has been demonstrated on any number of occasions this little freak show referred as the World Body, has proven itself to be anti-Israel to the extreme. And so a recent bit of news coming out of what is laughably referred as the U.N. Human Rights Council should come as no surprise to most and will do nothing to assuage that sentiment, given its choice of human rights role models. In this instance since a role model is the late, great, Moammar Gadhafi. Yep! Ya know, whenever I'm thinking of names of the most prolific supporters of human rights, the name that's always the first one to pop into my head is old Gadhafi.



It was Fox News that brought this recent story to light as follows: "A United Nations panel has adopted a report praising Qaddafi-era Libya for its human rights record, a year after the report was sidelined amid international objection. The report initially came before the U.N. Human Rights Council in the middle of the uprising against the Muammar Qaddafi regime. At the time, the U.N. had just voted to suspend Libya from the rights council — under pressure to maintain a consistent message toward Libya, the council later postponed consideration of the report. But the Human Rights Council on Wednesday returned to the document — and approved it." That it was Fox that brought this little gem to light should came as no surprise to anyone. I mean let's face it, this isn't the kind of story that you're likely to hear from the likes of CNN or any of the major networks, or see being shouted from the front page of The New York Times. That being, of course, because the majority of today's state controlled media conglomerate in this country are also very big supporters of this little fraternity of dictators, despots and all manner of tyrannical scum.


So, according to those many brilliant luminaries over at the U.N., Gadhafi, before his rather untimely death, was, in fact, a human rights shining star. He was a man who went above and beyond to ensure those under his "leadership" enjoyed every right imaginable. Right up until they rose up against him and killed his dumb ass. Now those cynics among us might think that means the U.N. has some pretty low standards. And for those non-cynics out there consider the following from a report in The Guardian from 2009: The United Nations’ most senior human rights official said last night that the Israeli military may have committed war crimes in Gaza. The warning came as Israeli troops pressed on with the deadly offensive in defiance of a UN security council resolution calling for a ceasefire. Navi Pillay, the UN high commissioner for human rights, has called for “credible, independent and transparent” investigations into possible violations of humanitarian law, and singled out an incident this week in Zeitoun, south-east of Gaza City, where up to 30 Palestinians in one house were killed by Israeli shelling. Pillay, a former international criminal court judge from South Africa, told the BBC the incident “appears to have all the elements of war crimes”.


So riddle me this… What’s behind giving star treatment to a country whose dictator was recently overthrown because of human rights abuses, but a democratic government backed by the U.S. is being condemned? Might the fact that Israel isn’t on the Human Rights Commission, and such bastions of freedom like Saudi Arabia and the People’s Republic of China are, have a little something to do with it. This is further proof that this joke of a World Body, this den of thieves, this wretched hive of scum and villainy needs to either be disbanded altogether, or invited to leave the shores of the United States. Its activities are designed specifically to do nothing more than to undermine this country and can no longer be tolerated. That we continue to give this corrupt organization hundreds of millions of dollars every single year, at a time when we are pretty much officially broke, and get absolutely nothing in return for our massive "investment", takes stupidity to a whole new level. It's got to stop! What money, if any, we hand over has got to have some pretty hefty strings attached, and if this little group of misfits is unwilling to go along with that, then the money train simply comes to a stop! End of freakin story! Badda-bing, badda-boom.

THE TIME IS NOW FOR THE U.S. TO DEPART THE U.N.

Just as the "Star Wars" spaceport of Mos Eisley was so accurately described as being a "wretched hive of scum and villainy," sadly, much the same thing can be said of today's United Nations. Having now pretty much degenerated into what is nothing more than a somewhat odd assortment of thugs, murderers, thieves and all manner of slimy characters imaginable, the United Nations of today has wondered very far from those lofty aspirations when pen was first put to paper in the drafting of its charter. Most of the member states these days who have come to comprise this organization of ill repute, have become pretty far removed from the whole concept of advancing freedom and human rights across the globe. It has now gotten to the point where to even imply that such a thing remains the stated goal of this conglomeration of freaks, is nothing more than obscene work of fiction. And it would now appear that the U.N. has acquired a very powerful ally in its ongoing endeavor to squelch individual freedom and any number of human rights wherever it may find them. And of course that new found ally of the U.N. is none other than the current president of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama.

As outlined in the book, “Underdogma,” written by Michael Prell, here are just a few classic examples that very clearly show what a fraudulent organization this cesspool of corruption has become:


1. On March 4, 2004 the United Nations elevated Sudan to full membership on the U.N.’s Commission on Human Rights. Now keep in mind this happened in the very same year that the New York Times ran a story which described Sudan’s ethnic cleansing of Darfur as, “some 1,000 people are being killed a week, tribeswomen are being systematically raped, 700,000 people have been driven from their homes, and Sudan’s Army is even bombing survivors.”


2. Then on April 21, 2006 the U.N. chose to bestow the honor of “Champion of the Earth” on “Screaming Mary,” the chief Iranian propagandist during the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis. When “asked by ABC News correspondent whether she could see herself picking up a gun and killing the American hostages, she replied, ‘Yes.’”


3. It was in 2005, on November 9 that the U.N. hosted the “International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People.” There was a map at the head of the room that was flanked by the Palestinian and U.N. flags, and that map showed, or failed to show, Israel wiped from it. The gathered dignitaries, including the then Secretary-General and president of the U.N. Security Council, stand and observe a “moment of silence ‘for all those who had given their lives for the Palestinian people’ which would include suicide bombers.”


4. And on November 14, 2007 the United Nations went so far as to praise Cuba as “a world model in feeding its population.”


5. Then came March 18, 2008. It was on that day that Chinese soldiers slaughtered Tibetan monks, who were doing nothing more than seeking the very rights enumerated by the U.N.’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And the U.N.’s reaction to this travesty? “U.N. Security Council members are carefully avoiding the subject, saying yesterday that the issue ‘does not belong’ in U.N. deliberations.” It was just three short months after the slaughter of these monks at the hand of the Chinese military, on June 19, 2008, that the UN elevated China to full membership on the United Nations Human Rights Council.


6. On June 5, 2008 less than a year after Burma slaughtered thousands of monks ad other pro-democracy campaigners, and less than a month after Burma allowed nearly 100,000 of its citizens to perish in the wake of a deadly cyclone, the United Nations elevated Burma to the post of vice president of the U.N. General Assembly.


7. It was on June 16, 2008, after the President of Iran calls its neighbor Israel a “stinking corpse” that will “soon disappear” and “be wiped off the earth’s face” that the United Nations praised Iran, saying, “we have long been witnessing humanitarian efforts graciously made by Iran to helps its neighbors.”


8. On June 19, 2008 The U.N. lends its, and UNICEF’s, credibility to a Saudi-based charity linked to terror groups. “An Islamic charity with ties to Al Qaeda and the Taliban is now collaborating with an unlikely new partner, UNICEF, the United Nations Children’s Fund.”


9. But there’s more. On February 13, 2009 the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) institutes a “peer review” system for human rights issues. But because more than half of UNHRC members “fall short of these basic democracy standards,” tyrants wind up reviewing tyrants. For example when Iran praised China, the world’s most prolific executioner, according to Amnesty International, for its “strong commitment to human rights.”


10. And our last example is one that took place on April 28, 2010. “Iran was elected, through a vote of acclamation, as a member on the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women (CSW), an influential body committed to promoting gender equality, even though “women are not treated equally before the law in Iran and are especially vulnerable to the judicial system. A women’s testimony is worth half that of a man.” In Iran, women are stoned to death for the “crime” of adultery. Since a wife’s testimony is worth less than her husband’s, some “husbands turn wives in to get out of a marriage.” And as reported by the Global Campaign to Stop Killing and Stoning Women (SKSW), “most stoning sentences in Iran are issued not on the basis of testimony or confession but on the judge’s ‘knowledge’ or ‘intuition.’ Article 105 of the Islamic Penal Code of Iran allows a single judge to rule according to his personal opinion instead of hard evidence.”


These are but a few examples of just how corrupted this organization has become. Although the United Nations was founded in America, is headquartered in America, and is largely funded by America, the U.N. has become a virtual factory of anti-Americanism. For those of you who might doubt this assessment, there is a way to quantify this claim. All one has to do is to this is to track the U.N. votes on American resolutions at the U.N. concerning issues like Humanitarian relief, peace and security, terrorism, disarmament, economic and social development and human rights. In 2005, the U.N. voted against America in non-consensus votes 75% of the time. The year before, it was 76.7%. A 2007 study found that even “most recipients of U.S. assistance vote against the U.S. more often than they vote with the U.S.,” with 72.3% of the thirty largest recipients of U.S. aid voting against the United States of America. I would say that that is grounds for ceasing any and all payments of aid to anyone who sees it as being advantageous to them to take sides against us. The receiving of aid from America by anyone, should be completely contingent upon their willingness to support us at the U.N.. If they cannot bring themselves to do that, then they need to be put on notice that the foreign aid spigot, as far as they are concerned, will be turned off tight. Why should we the U.S. taxpayers be asked to subsidize those who only choose to make our efforts at maintaining some sort of stability in the world that much more difficult?


Since its inception back in 1945, this dysfunctional cadre of miscreants has had as its basic philosophy, one that has been both enthusiastically anti-American and blatantly pro-totalitarian. The U.S. Declaration of Independence, as we students of history are very well aware, proclaims the “self-evident” truth that “men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” However, when looking over the U.N.’s Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, one sees that there is a rather glaring absence in that the U.N. specifically ignores God’s existence and goes on to imply that the U.N. is the sole entity responsible for the granting of rights that repeatedly claims the power “as provided by law” to cancel them out of existence if it sees fit to do so. If any government can place restrictions on such fundamental human rights as freedom of speech, the right to keep and bear arms, freedoms of the press, association, movement, and religion, then as it has been demonstrated by member states, then very soon there will be no such freedoms anywhere except for those in positions of power. Power no matter how illegitimate and that has been gained by whatever unsavory methods thought to be necessary.


When looking back at the very beginning, we see that the U.N. was founded by a group made up of those who were essentially Communists and Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) members. Their common goal was to go about working toward the creation of a socialist world government. Sixteen of the key U.S. officials who took part in shaping the policies that lead up to the creation of the U.N. were later exposed in sworn testimony as being secret Communists. These included Alger Hiss, chief planner of the 1945 founding conference, and the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, Harry Dexter White. The Soviet Union under Stalin and the entire Communist Party USA apparatus worked tirelessly to launch the U.N.. Since it’s beginning in 1921, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) has always worked toward the successful establishment of a world government. The key CFR founder, Edward Mandell House, in his book, "Philip Dru: Administrator," called for “Socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx.” The CFR was an early promoter of the U.N., and 43 members of the U.S. delegation at the U.N. founding conference were or would become CFR members.


Over the course of the last 60+ years, the political architecture as well as the political mathematics of the United Nations, have both changed, and rather dramatically. Not only has the number of non-permanent members in the Security Council been increased from six to 10, but Third World countries in Africa, Asia and the Middle East now hold the pivotal position in the General Assembly once held by Latin America. They have essentially hijacked the U.N. and transformed it into one of the most anti-Western, anti-American, anti-Semitic and anti-democratic organizations on the entire planet. Whatever usefulness the U.N. may have had in its early years, and that is a debatable point, it has by now been thoroughly dissipated by its descending into an abyss of indecency and irresponsibility in later years. A case in point is its incessant denunciations of Israel, to which it gave birth and legitimacy when it adopted the Palestine partition resolution in November 1947.


Palestine and Israel aside, really important events, such as America’s recognition of Communist China, the ending of the Korean and Vietnam wars, and the defusing of the Cuban missile crisis, were settled not by the United Nations but by diplomats operating outside the world organization. To those who would say that America’s jettisoning the United Nations would mean its return to pre-Second World War isolationism, one should answer that in the age of the computer, the Internet, and airplane travel, the United States would actually be in a position to better defend its interests and still be part of the world utilizing the old-fashioned methods of ambassadorial diplomacy, summit meetings, trade talks, cultural and scientific exchanges, and bilateral and multilateral treaties. Why should we being willing to continue on with this nonsensical organization and taking part in what is nothing more than a charade? Personally I'm getting more than a little tired of repeatedly getting knifed in the back by any number of allies and enemies alike who are part of this worthless organization. It's simply time for us to leave. We need to move on and welcome any democracy that wishes to join us.


If, and when, a more realistic administration comes to Washington, one of its very first moves should be starting the legal and administrative process of extracting the United States from the United Nations, and the United Nations from the United States. Surely, America can find better domestic uses for the amount of money that it doles out to the U.N., uses that would provide much more of a return on the investment made. Now more than ever with what appears to be a Barry "Almighty" Administration that is more than willing to subjugate the Constitution to the whims of corrupt third-word despots and dictators, the time has now come for the U.S. to sever all ties. Whether it relates to the U.N.’s International Panel on Climate Change, (IPCC) reports that the world faced catastrophe from “global warming” with resultant sea level changes and portents of doom based on dubious science, the truth is finally out. The vast majority of their data was faked as reported by the “Climate Gate Scandal” resulting from leaked documents and E-mails from IPCC scientists. This is a far bigger story than transfer of United States wealth through bogus Cap and Trade schemes, it’s about a current U.S. President who sees himself as a globalist and a willing participant in, if not advocate for the U.N.’s very questionable agenda.


With the United States rapidly creating the largest deficits in our history, Barry "Almighty" has committed $30 Billion to U.N. projects. Barry’s redistribution plans include income redistribution from the U.S. Taxpayer for among other things: 1) Funnel $63 billion to the Global Health Initiative during the next six years, 2) Make $1 billion annually to education programs, 3) Give $475 million to the Global Agricultural and Food Security Program, 4) Provide $800 million from the Overseas Private Investment Corporation to Muslim-majority countries in the Middle East and North Africa. An additional $3.2 billion will be provided by private equity capital sources to these Muslim nations, 5) Make millions more available through USAID for developing tech hubs in Uganda, Kenya, Cameroon, South Africa, and Senegal, 6) Provide $80 million through the Overseas Private Investment Corporation for small to medium enterprises in the Middle East and North Africa, 7) Provide $2.5 billion annually to 90 countries to “strengthen governance and democratic institutions,” 8) Give $1.05 billion to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, 9) Give $30 billion through the Barry’s Climate Change Initiative to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, $100 billion a year will be provided through taxpayer and private resources to deal with the alleged threat of bogus global climate change.


What should cause outrage in every single American, because I know it sure ticks me off, is how the United States has become the piggy bank for this band of outlaws. The sad fact is that The United States is assessed at 22% of the U.N. regular budget and more than 27% for U.N. peacekeeping budget. Barry requested $516.3 million for the U.N. regular budget and more than $2.182 billion for the peacekeeping budget for 2011. The United States is also assessed for numerous other United Nations organizations as well. More than $6.347 billion went to U.N. organizations in fiscal year 2009. The United States provides money to the U.N. through the State Department, Department of Agriculture, Department of Energy, Department of Health and Human Services, and more. The U.S. taxpayer is literally being forced to pay Billions to an inefficient, as well as extremely ineffective, organization run by corrupt world leaders who, like our very own president, have a deep seated hatred for America and its free market system. This doesn’t make any sense when we have only one vote in the General Assembly. There is nothing positive that comes out of us continuing to be a part of this pathetic organization. It just serves no useful purpose for any country that calls itself a democracy to remain a member of a group which to its very foundation opposes anything that enhances the freedom of individuals everywhere.


And I am sure that the majority are very well aware of the fact that our current administration is no fan of the Second Amendment. So with that being the case it should come as no U.S. Agrees to timetable for the U.N. Gun Ban Legislation. The United Nations and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are moving forward with their plan to confiscate your guns. This unproven claim has been widely circulated on the Internet. Factually, District of Columbia v. Heller, 26 June 2008: The enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. The United States joined 152 other countries in support of the Arms Trade Treaty Resolution, which establishes the dates for the 2012 U.N. conference intended to attack American sovereignty by stripping Americans of the right to keep and bear arms. On June 28, 2010 in McDonald v. Chicago the Supreme Court again upheld the Second Amendment. Would this administration sign said proposal if it were to fall under the control of the U.N.? With our Constitution no longer relevant that would be a safe bet.


The Barry "Almighty" administration has gone so far as to include the Arizona state immigration law in a report of human rights abuses to the U.N.. And we have the Barry State Department standing by this decision thus paving the way for numerous costly law suits filed by U.N. countries, against Arizona. Look, as much as it would wish it so, the U.N. has absolutely NO jurisdiction whatsoever over a sovereign state within the United States of America. Given the fact that nations with horrific human rights violations such as Cuba, North Korea, Communist Red China, Venezuela, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and many others are allowed to sit on human rights panels at the U.N., the fact that Arizona would even be mentioned is nothing more than a sick farce. Most of the above countries will not allow Amnesty International to monitor human rights in these locations. Suffice to say, female genital mutilation, pedophilia and marriage to child brides, amputations, hangings, stoning deaths pale in comparison to Arizona’s law which is merely declaring it’s sovereignty to uphold the federal law it mimics which the administration of Barack Hussein Obama fails to do. Second, a foreign nation has no business even being allowed to file a brief in a U.S. court of law against one of our own states. They should be laughed right out of the court room. Apparently, only if you are not an ardent and incorrigible globalist in favor of world governance under a dominant U.N. would you even consider such a thing as being a total outrage. Perhaps the only question that remains to be answered is should the current administration of progressives along with Barry himself, be asked to leave U.S. soil at the same time ties are severed with the U.N..


This whole exercise in stupidity simply cannot be permitted to go on. Does it make any sense to anyone that we should remain an active participant in this group that so obviously goes against the values of most Americans? This is a criminal organization and it should be treated as such and should be asked to leave. It should therefore be provided with a specific date and time by which it needs to have completely vacated this country. I think it would be much more at home in some European country, or maybe someplace like Geneva, for instance. I'm sure the prime real estate that it presently occupies in Manhattan could be put to much better use. Sell it to Trump, let him build a hotel or something. Hell, even the building of a Super Wal-Mart would be a way to better use of the property where the U.N. Building presently stands.


Additional sources of information regarding this dysfunctional organization include:
Inside the Asylum by Jed Babbin
Tower of Babble by Dore Gold
The Beast on the East River by Nathan Tabor
The U.N. Exposed by Eric Shawn
Surrender is not an Option by Ambassador John Bolton