NEWS: Law Before House to Repeal the UN Act of 1945, page 1

posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 12:10 AM

link

The end of an era may have arrived in the form of legislation at the United States House of Represenatives. H.R. 1146 is the piece of legislation known to the private sector as the "American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2005".

thomas.loc.gov
(b) Withdrawal.—

The United States withdraws from the agreement between the United States of America and the United Nations regarding the headquarters of the United Nations (signed at Lake Success, New York, on June 26, 1947, which was brought into effect by the United Nations Headquarters Agreement Act).

4. UNITED STATES ASSESSED AND VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE UNITED NATIONS.

(a) Termination.—

No funds are authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available for assessed or voluntary contributions of the United States to the United Nations or any organ, specialized agency, commission or other formally affiliated body thereof, except that funds may be appropriated to facilitate withdrawal of United States personnel and equipment. Upon termination of United States membership, no payments shall be made to the United Nations or any organ, specialized agency, commission or other formally affiliated body thereof, out of any funds appropriated prior to such termination or out of any other funds available for such purposes.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

This in my opinion is way too overdue. This piece of legislation prevents the violation of United States civil rights and the soveriegnty of the nation as a whole. I thought that the patriot act was a threat...after reading this i realize the UN is a worse threat. What's everyone's thoughts? If you want this to be passed or not to be passed contact your congressman and tell them your opinion.

howmuchisthedoggy

posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 12:23 AM

link

I don't think it will be passed, but I don't think it makes a difference anyway.

The US has not being paying it's UN dues for quite a while now. Added to that, it is not like it takes any notice of the opinion of the UN. So what changes?

mythatsabigprobe

posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 08:56 AM

link

This is really sad news. Whatever accusations can be made against the UN's effectiveness or track record, the concept of a United Nations Assembly was the jewel in the crown of everything the United States stood for.

Does this mean those things were just a sham and when we don't get our own way, we'll just take our ball and go home?

I wonder if the lack of comments on this thread is due to embaressment? I was embaressed at the way we treated France and Germany for not going along with the Iraq invasion, I was embaressed when Kofi Anan's son was the target of the Oil for Food scandal in obvious retaliation for his father's comments about the Iraq War, but now I'm actually ashamed of my country's behavior.

I see this country losing the world's respect daily, but this could be the point of no return in international relations.

valkeryie

posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 09:11 AM

link

Maybe its time to move the headquarters to another country.
Along with all the jobs and money and trickle down economy supplied by having the UN in New York. Just imagine all the diplomates, assistants, clerks, janitors, drivers etc. Probably numbers in the thousand of jobs, and multihundred million in $.

devilwasp

posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 09:24 AM

link

So the UK might stand alone, thank you US.

Lead us on a war train that makes our own blood relitives hate us then desert us.....thank you..

cryptorsa1001

posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 09:34 AM

link

There is too much corruption in the UN for it to be very effective the way that it operates at the present time. An example is the oil for food scandal in Iraq. UN members and french leaders and german leaders made money off of the oil for food program. When a vote came up to wage war in iraq to remove saddam those leaders votes were tainted with greed and not what the general welfare of Iraq.

This bill in my opinion is designed to let the UN know that if they do not enact the reforms that the US believes are needed that they will withdraw effectively killing the UN.

My personal opinion is that we need an unbias world forum for nations to go to in order to work out their differences.

devilwasp

posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 09:36 AM

link

Wait your complaining about bias yet you said it yourself "US reforms" , so therfore your admitting the US is trying to take control....

Hal9000

posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 10:00 AM

link

This piece of legislation prevents the violation of United States civil rights and the soveriegnty of the nation as a whole.

I read this on another websight also. Can someone explain how does being a member of the UN violate civil rights and soveriegnty? I don't understand the connection. Thanks.

zman

posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 10:03 AM

link

Wait your complaining about bias yet you said it yourself "US reforms" , so therfore your admitting the US is trying to take control....
Posted By Devil ...

Who would you rather have ? ..

China ?
Russia ?
UK ?..

mythatsabigprobe

posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 10:18 AM

link

Who would you rather have ? ..

China ?
Russia ?
UK ?..

That right there is the problem. We think we have some right to dictate to all the other Nations and nobody else is fit to do it..

cryptorsa1001

posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 10:32 AM

link

Would you prefer that the US continue to support the corrupt UN? Or would you prefer that the US use its power to clean up the UN so that it can be used for its intended purpose?

If the US does not stand up against the UN's corruption then who else is going to?

As a founding member of the UN and its leading contributor, the US should make every effort to promote meaningful, long-lasting reform that strengthens the ability of the organization to address the urgent problems facing the world today.

Article

As a leading contributer the US has the obligation to reform the organization when there are problems.

Have you looked at the reforms that the US is asking for?
Article

AceOfBase

posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 10:35 AM

link

N THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

March 8, 2005

This is from three months ago.
Has it passed?
If not, why is this being passed as a new news item?

Koka

posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 10:50 AM

link

Originally posted by zman
Wait your complaining about bias yet you said it yourself "US reforms" , so therfore your admitting the US is trying to take control....
Posted By Devil ...

Who would you rather have ? ..

China ?
Russia ?
UK ?..

And who would you rather have?

Do you know of a government that isn't corrupt or manipulating circumstance to suit their countries wants?

Kennedy was the US's last hope at being a respected nation, and the shadow government put pay to that.

I won't deny that the corruption in the UN didn't take place, but it has predominantly been a smear campaign to discredit the UN in it's present form, thus enabling/justifying the US taking the stance we see now.

Manipulation of circumstance.

The US doesn't trust any country other than theirselves, and no other country trusts the US.

devilwasp

posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 10:57 AM

link

Originally posted by zman
Who would you rather have ? ..

The way it is, with no one haveing direct control.

Originally posted by cryptorsa1001
Would you prefer that the US continue to support the corrupt UN? Or would you prefer that the US use its power to clean up the UN so that it can be used for its intended purpose?

If the US does not stand up against the UN's corruption then who else is going to?

The only real US support that is given is money, pakistan gives more troops to peace keeping operations than ANY western country.

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]

Muaddib

posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 11:27 AM

link

Originally posted by devilwasp
The only real US support that is given is money, pakistan gives more troops to peace keeping operations than ANY western country.

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]

Perhaps that's why there are so many rapes being done by peacekeeper troops working for the UN in many African countries, or it oculd be the Hamas employees who work for the UN and whom Kofi Annan keeps claiming they are not terrorists...

devilwasp

posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 11:30 AM

link

Originally posted by Muaddib
Perhaps that's why there are so many rapes being done by peacekeeper troops working for the UN in many African countries, or it oculd be the Hamas employees who work for the UN and whom Kofi Annan keeps claiming they are not terrorists...

And how many rapes where done by US troops in vietnam?
Yeah we can go back and forth about rapes, my country done it to death as well.
Also you do relise HAMAS doesnt just conduct terrorist operations....right?

Muaddib

posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 11:30 AM

link

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
This is really sad news. Whatever accusations can be made against the UN's effectiveness or track record, the concept of a United Nations Assembly was the jewel in the crown of everything the United States stood for.
..............

Ok, this has got to be a joke... I just wonder how in your opinion the UN is "the jewel in the crown of everything the US stood for" when half of the countries that are part of the UN are dictatorships, murderers and assassins. Not to mention all the scandals that the UN is the centre of.

Muaddib

posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 11:32 AM

link

Originally posted by devilwasp
So the UK might stand alone, thank you US.

Lead us on a war train that makes our own blood relitives hate us then desert us.....thank you..

What in the world are you talking about?....

This has nothing to do with the war in Iraq....

robertfenix

posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 11:34 AM

link

Its okay, its all according the master plan, you see you can't have the UN forever because it blocks the power scale of the NWO.

Everyone thought the UN was the NWO, but its not. The morality of the UN members has gone down the tubes. Mr. Bush is leading the pack, like a pack of rabid war dogs into the creation of the unifity govermental body. Step 1. declare war on radical elements ie war on terror. Step 2. take down old guard ie the stale UN process. Step 3. create "threat ie unknown event at this time Step 4. assemble centralized goverment body to deal with "threat". Step 5. assume total control by extreme power.

In fact I think this is what the last three Star Wars movies is about...... maybe George Lucas really is on the inside loop to come to think about it.

Muaddib

posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 11:43 AM

link

Originally posted by devilwasp
..........
And how many rapes where done by US troops in vietnam?
Yeah we can go back and forth about rapes, my country done it to death as well.
Also you do relise HAMAS doesnt just conduct terrorist operations....right?

I see....so just because Hamas doesn't just conduct terrorist organizations, which in that statement alone you are agreeing that they are terrorists, they are ok...... Sure, let's have an organization that has carried suicide bombings work for a humanitarian group..... Now we only need a new definition for the word humanitarian...... how about humanitarian suicide bomber??......

BTW....we are not talking about 20+ years ago, we are talking about now...and what UN troops have been doing recently such as French troops working for the UN shooting and killing unarmed civilians at the end of last year, and UN troops raping women and children in Africa last year.
Weren't you saying the UN is "the jewel in the crown"?...