United Nations should be kicked off US soil: US congressman

Originally posted by justwokeup

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by boymonkey74
We aren't a Banana Republic

No, not yet, but depending on the definition you use its the path america is going down.

"In practice, a banana republic is a country operated as a commercial enterprise for private profit, effected by the collusion between the State and favoured monopolies, whereby the profits derived from private exploitation of public lands is private property, and the debts incurred are public responsibility. Such an imbalanced economy reduces the national currency to devalued paper-money, hence, the country is ineligible for international development-credit, and remains limited by the uneven economic development of town and country.[5] Kleptocracy, government by thieves, features influential government employees exploiting their posts for personal gain (embezzlement, fraud, bribery, etc.), with the resultant government budget deficit repaid by the native working people who earn money, rather than make money"
...

Are you sure you didn't look up the definition for The United States of America ?

If the UN tries to influence voting, then they are no better than the New Black Panthers.

Then there is this.

President Barack Obama has already captured glowing endorsements from Russian President Vladimir Putin and the pro-Marxist Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, so of course the United Nations would show a united Socialist front to boost Obama’s $1 billion re-election bid for the White House
The Daily Caller reports that, “the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights has claimed that if Mitt Romney is elected president of the United States next month, he will be ‘the first world leader in history to be able to claim a democratic mandate for torture.’”

UN’s Ben Emmerson granted an exclusive interview with The Canadian Press. He said, “there is no doubt the that the Romney administration would be able to claim – in the event of a Romney presidency – a democratic mandate for torture.’”

www.dallasblog.com...

Originally posted by Hefficide

Imagine that... a Florida Republican concerned about outside entities watching the elections.

~Cough.... cough.... hanging chad... cough~

It was difficult to digest for me too.

reply to post by boymonkey74

Unfortunately for them, the State Dept doesn't run the State of Texas and Obama is about the last person on this planet people in Texas are going to show much respect for on anything. Folks down there have had issues with him on as many things as he's had issues with them and this..is one heck of a slap across their face.

After all.... These watchers aren't randomly spreading around the map of our nation. Naww.. They're a bit more focused. Politically so....which is absolutely, 100% against U.S. law. Federal Law. International influence or involvement in Presidential elections are a HUGE no no.

@ Thread

As far as the UN.... We pay our share. We pay MORE than our share, actually. Right now, we fund roughly a quarter of the UN's global operations and peacekeeping costs. Their own site and numbers say that.

Assessed contributions are payments made as part of the obligations that nations undertake when signing treaties. Assessed contributions are vital as they are the primary source of reliable funding for UN core activities, such as peacekeeping. For example, the U.S. is assessed 22 percent of the UN’s regular budget and 27 percent of the UN’s peacekeeping operations budget. However, an outdated Congressional mandate caps U.S. expenditures at 25 percent of the UN’s peacekeeping budget.

Source

This logic folks are using suddenly on a variety of things by saying the US does this or that...so it's okie dokie that it be done back to us....is stinkin thinkin, as they say. What does the world benefit by the US being brought deliberately lower? Reform, our system needs. Badly. Destruction, it doesn't.

I'm also going to say this..... If those who say payback is good so we ought to deal with it.. Fine... That breeds tit for tat, and I'm sure the US will be even pushier now and with a moral high ground to actually DO IT FROM, in demanding access and involvement in other elections. But hey... That part doesn't matter because seeing us humiliated is just too good, right? Long term is just something out in the future.............and that is how we GOT here.

Originally posted by zilebeliveunknown

Originally posted by badgerprints
US membership in the UN has no tangible benefit for US citizens.

It has, well unless US political establishment would like to rule the whole world which is dangerous.
There has to be consensus on the global level, one power cannot have it all.

There is no consensus on anything within the UN. It is simply another entity that consumes tens of billions in US tax dollars with no tangible results.

Diplomacy with the nations of the world does not mean we have to fund our enemies within the UN.
No need to spend tens of billions on a wasteful, corrupt bunch of varied political agendas.
We've got to contend with that already in D.C.

New York City can do better things with the UN building. They don't need a big expensive clubhouse for a pack of drunken diplomats.
The rest of the world has our phone number.

FULL NAME LIST U.N. ELECTION OBSERVERS UN OBSERVERS VIOLATING US SOVEREIGNTY

link for list of observers

This is an Obamanation political stunt plain and simple - Note well that they were sent to watch CONSERVATIVES who are allegedly tampering with the election process - pure BHO BS Chicago style mugging tactics...........!!!

BTW - If BHO is re-elected there will be massive rioting and looting in the streets of every major city in the USA -



Lets remember 'Don't Tread On Me"

JUST IN

- Obama Urging All Governors to Celebrate UN Day

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

"However, groups and individuals from outside the United States are not allowed to influence or interfere with the election process in Texas. This State has robust election laws that were carefully crafted to protect the integrity of our election system. All persons -- including persons connected with OSCE -- are required to comply with these laws."

Bravo for Texas. States can always count on the grand Republic of Texas to flex its muscles when it comes to their sovereignty. On that note, that is what it is about. Even the State Department explained in their letter that our system of elections relies not on the Federal government (save the guidelines found within the Constitution), but with state and local governments.

By inviting in outside observers, which in itself is not an issue especially if we want to show the world how to handle elections of a national office at state and local levels, has undermined each State's inherent sovereignty. Madison writes in Federalist Paper No. 45 that "the States will retain...a very extensive portion of active sovereignty." That concept was enshrined in the "Law of the Land" via Article I, Section 8, 9 and 10; along with the 10th Amendment; and Texas is letting the Federal government know this.

Originally posted by Kr0nZ
So having a foreign entity, enter and destabilizer another country is all fine and dandy, its in the name of corruption.
But when it happens in your backyard. they have no business being there... Hypocrites much?

I think this is an apples/oranges issue here you are trying to get at. Vast amounts of Americans (right, left, up, down, brown, white, green, Republican and Democrat) are very weary of our creeping foreign policy and what it is leading too. To compare what the CIA does (or whatever agency/department you want) to that of sovereign States and its' citizens is not even comparable in my opinion.

So no, it is not hypocritical to stand up and defend the State's sovereignty in this situation. We do not have "Federal" elections and those elections that are held are controlled by the individual States and organized by local governments/volunteer groups/citizens/friends/families/etc.

As one poster said earlier, I bet most US citizens support their government interfering in foreign political elections, I reckon most US citizens support their government installing dictators in foreign nations, most don't find a single thing wrong with placing enormous military bases in countries with names they can't pronounce who's people do not want them there, but the second someone suggests sending a few observers to the US polling stations, they get all angry and affronted.

US hypocrisy and arrogance knows absolutely no bounds.

Originally posted by Rebroadcast
As one poster said earlier, I bet most US citizens support their government interfering in foreign political elections, I reckon most US citizens support their government installing dictators in foreign nations, most don't find a single thing wrong with placing enormous military bases in countries with names they can't pronounce who's people do not want them there, but the second someone suggests sending a few observers to the US polling stations, they get all angry and affronted.

US hypocrisy and arrogance knows absolutely no bounds.

I would gladly take that bet. While the People are indirectly complicit in the trend of American foreign policy it by no means indicates that the average citizen is clamoring for US involvement world-wide in other sovereign nations' elections. Sadly, that sentiment isn't projected from the hallowed halls of Congress and Pennsylvania Ave. and the Peoples' silence and abdication of inherent political power is partially to blame.

So when people get "all angry and affronted" when our own State Department exacts its will upon the several States, who each have their own laws that direct its own elections, it strikes a chord. Who knows, maybe such a discussion would serve the country well to wake up most who are unwilling to involve themselves in the politics of a republic and begin demanding a shift in foreign policy.

The UN is made up mostly of dictatorships.

What does that make the UN? I say this congressman is right.

Originally posted by projectvxn
The UN is made up mostly of dictatorships.

What does that make the UN? I say this congressman is right.

I'll play.
So "if" the UN is made up of "mostly" Dictatorships.
Would it not be better for all, to keep open a form of Dialogue and Communication.
Im not a huge fan of the UN, but at least its a place for countries , to call out countries on their Activities.

reply to post by Tw0Sides


Sure if that was the goal of the UN. Their real agenda is global governance. Under such an organization only world dictatorship could be realized.

The UN being a foreign entity should not intervene within the borders of any nation unless invited or asked to by a majorrity vote from member states. The US being one of the most important ones should not be trifled with being that we pay over a third of the global security party by ourselves.

The sense of submission being sought by the UN for the US is an insult and a threat. Our public policy and ideology are constantly being threatened by the UN. One look at agenda 21 is enough to send them packing and consider a military response if further threats to American way of life and determinism are pursued.

The are not allies. They are an international organization chartered to set the stage for diplomatic relations. Nothing else.

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by Tw0Sides

 

Sure if that was the goal of the UN. Their real agenda is global governance. Under such an organization only world dictatorship could be realized.

I've always seen it as a way for the US to globally spread its form of government without having to go to war. Basically every nation that is part of the UN has become a member of the United States of Earth. I don't understand why those who believe their form of government is the best are so against it being implemented worldwide.

Also there are 193 member states in the UN and according to conservapedia.com, there are actually 21 dictatorships worldwide, so your claim that the UN is made up mostly of dictatorships is incorrect.

Originally posted by boymonkey74
They are there as a neutral party to make sure your elections are fair and square.
If you did kick the UN out you would become a very lonely super power.

But just because one nutty congressman says they should doesn't mean they will.

edit on 28-10-2012 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)

The UN has destroyed all sovereignty in America. The UN is a domestic enemy of the US Constitution. The UN and anyone who supports it can go directly to HELL. America's elections are none of the UN's business. In fact, NOTHING America does is the UN's business. If it wasn't for American taxpayers footing the bill, there would be no UN.

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime

Originally posted by boymonkey74
They are there as a neutral party to make sure your elections are fair and square.
If you did kick the UN out you would become a very lonely super power.

But just because one nutty congressman says they should doesn't mean they will.

edit on 28-10-2012 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)

The UN has destroyed all sovereignty in America. The UN is a domestic enemy of the US Constitution. The UN and anyone who supports it can go directly to HELL. America's elections are none of the UN's business. In fact, NOTHING America does is the UN's business. If it wasn't for American taxpayers footing the bill, there would be no UN.

But you feel that foreign elections are the US's business, right?

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
If it wasn't for American taxpayers footing the bill, there would be no UN.

This is another reason why I believe that the US is the driving force behind the UN.

I have a hard time understanding why US citizens don't realize this.

The UN isn't a threat to the USA. To believe otherwise is hysterical nonsense.

The UN was the 2nd attempt at creating a form of collective forum with the intent of mediating disputes so that war could be averted. The first attempt was called the League of Nations (for the history buffs) and it was a total failure.

The general assembly of the united nations is irrelevant other than to give bored diplomats in powerless nations a nice comfy posting in the big apple. Thats where the dictators get to make the speeches nobody pays attention to. All that matters is the security council. No action can be taken without the agreement of the big dogs that make up the council. The USA is the biggest dog there.

The possibility of the UN being the agency of action against the USA is zero. Its a tool of the big powers not a tool to be used against them.