H.R. 193- Bill To end membership of the United States in the United Nations

originally posted by: buckwhizzle
#UNEXIT

What would we do with all that property?

I think the city of New York probably has enough outstanding unpaid traffic warrants from diplomatically immune uN "officials" that the property might revert to NYC. But the Feds probably just want to collect rent. Just cause the USA may not be in the UN doesn't mean they have to move their second HQ (Geneva is the other) - as long as they pay their rents and taxes like everybody else. The diplomatic immunity for the UN could be revoked without revoking the diplomatic immunity of the individual member states.

It's withdrawing from the World Bank and the WHO that's going to put a serious dent in the globalist agenda.

ganjoa

Hmm I am reading this and I am pretty astonished that so many of You don't grasp this simple truth about war, and why the USA wants to be in as many conflicts as they can reasonably manage. So instead of using to many words, let this short clip below explain that simple truth.

a reply to: 727Sky

NO, I DO believe Trump wants to take over the planet with Russia as a CO-DOMINUS.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: BlueAjah

We can do that while we're in the UN though. And as members of the UN we have veto power. If we were to leave, and we wanted something in the UN vetoed (because we would still have to pay attention to what's going on there), we would have to rely on convincing another nation with veto power to do so.

No we wouldn't. What part of rebuilding the most powerful military in the world did you miss?

You wanted THE BEST...KISS
www.youtube.com...

a reply to: hillbilly4rent

Pretty good documentary ... from a certain point of view.

I am curious ...

... your thoughts on isolationism seem to be a contradiction to the message of the video. Please explain.

Remember when the Libyan rebels took power and the first act in power was to start up a federal reserve bank? How fishy that seemed?

And then a pre-written bill that will destabilize the globe being introduced on day one of the new president. Almost seems by design.

This will mean that over the next four years we will engage in multiple skirmishes and wars across the globe without any oversight or agreements. It also means it's open season on Israel without the USA backing in the UN. However, that also means that by being unaffiliated, the USA, as Israel's greatest ally, will defend Israel in any way Trump's owners see fit.

If I were religious in any way, and I'm not, I would think we were entering end times.

a reply to: Thill

How is the US buying bombs and M16s make money for American government?

seems all that money would go to Colt and Boeing and Raytheon..

no?

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: 727Sky

NO, I DO believe Trump wants to take over the planet with Russia as a CO-DOMINUS.

dude thanks for that frightening image..

And give up the security council seat?

Pull out of NATO?

Lose their relationship with the IMF and other central banking organizations?

Lol.

Oh I love congressmen and women who write bills ( or dictate they be written) while knowing little to nothing about what the consequences of their actions are.

~Tenth

originally posted by: Misterlondon

originally posted by: TrueAmerican

The American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2017

Ohhhh.... what a nice ring to it it has! I likes it!

We've been the world's police for far too damn long. Regroup, reset, build the wall, concentrate on the USA for a while. And don't screw with us while we make America great again!!! Or else...

World's police!? Don't make me laugh.. more like the world's most war mongering bullies..

We learned that from the British Empire.

a reply to: Reverbs

The government does not have its own money. Never had never will. But those major US companies that support the country and the government make money, in turn paying taxes and giving money to the government .. It is really simple.

It's like asking how Ford selling cars, or MC donald selling hamburgers, supports the USA? The same way.
Its product, and just like any other product it needs a market. War equipment (weapons, cars, planes, apparel, ets...) just so happens to be one of the most lucrative and expensive industry in the world.

a reply to: Reverbs

DON'T IGNORE this!
THAT can't happen.

originally posted by: TrueAmerican

A recent bill introduced in the House is known as the American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2017. The purpose of the Bill as stated is:

To end membership of the United States in the United Nations.

SNIP

Now I could see Trump getting behind this, if it even makes it that far. Imagine that, a USA that acts in its own best interests, with emphasis on America first. Am I dreaming? Maybe, but keep these kinds of bills coming please!

Who needs that toothless UN anyhow?

The bill has like six co-sponsors so far, all republican- no surprise there I suppose.

And even if it does pass everything and become law, it still only takes effect after two years after signing. But still. This is an extremely important piece of legislation that if it becomes reality will put the final nail in the coffin of globalization. The establishment is getting attacked from all sides. It's like I have woken up to a different world. Nationalism is back in full force, and the world is terrified.

GOOD.

Good Thread and Thank you for pointing it out.

I Do not believe this is a Wise idea for many reasons.

1. The USA becomes a Pariah.
2. Easier to get the rest of the world to go after us and cut us up.
3. We can not fight Everyone at once. We can but nothing will be left.

originally posted by: Thill
a reply to: Reverbs

The government does not have its own money. Never had never will. But those major US companies that support the country and the government make money, in turn paying taxes and giving money to the government .. It is really simple.

It's like asking how Ford selling cars, or MC donald selling hamburgers, supports the USA? The same way.
Its product, and just like any other product it needs a market. War equipment (weapons, cars, planes, apparel, ets...) just so happens to be one of the most lucrative and expensive industry in the world.

no mcdonalds sells hamburgers to people and all of those taxes go to government..
if the governemnt bought the burgers and then tried to use the taxes to pay for the burgers that's where you get 20 trillion in debt you goof..

You get the difference right... ?

America benefits if WE buy AR15s
not if THEY do..

Bankers make money on wars not countries..
USA does someone else dirty work and borrows the money to pay for it.
Win win win except for the US..

This is obviously part of the reason Trump got elected.

Yay! I'm tired of our country supporting such a hypocritical organization. But on the other hand, our own politicians are just as hypocritical anyways. You know what, I cease to care.

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: uncommitted
Are you expecting an invasion any time soon?

We've already been invaded.

Were you blind to the last several years, or what?

Yes, what invasion for which significantly spending more on your military if America is no longer to go out bombing other countries are you referring to? Mexicans? Surely the wall will put paid to that, surely, you have been told that by Donald and if Donald says it's right then any other opinion is fake news.

I'm not taking sides here, but what kind of strategy would you suggest? Do you think we could maintain a small force and then when someone is actually invading ask them for a timeout while we raise and equip a big enough military to defend ourselves?

I wasn't suggesting it should be shrunk, Trump suggested a large growth in military spending during the inauguration. That suggests it will need to be used over and above what the current military could deal with, while at the same time talking about becoming more internal facing and moving away from the UN. Those appear to be two opposing viewpoints, unless he just wants to go down the North Korea path I guess.

It actually doesn't suggest anything besides increasing the military budget, which is badly needed. Even at our current strength levels, our current budget simply isn't sufficient to maintain it. I just got out of the Air Force. We're in rough shape. It doesn't look like that to the average person but our military is a poorly maintained mess right now compared to 10 years ago. There are a lot of ways we could save money by cutting wasteful spending, but the budget still needs to be increased. National defense is the #1 job of the government, it's the last thing that should be neglected.

originally posted by: 727Sky

And even if it does pass everything and become law, it still only takes effect after two years after signing

Also getting Saudi Arabia off of the human rights board would be a nice gesture..

This very fact completely delegitimizes the UN in it's entirety and proves it has no use.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: uncommitted
Are you expecting an invasion any time soon?

We've already been invaded.

Were you blind to the last several years, or what?

Yes, what invasion for which significantly spending more on your military if America is no longer to go out bombing other countries are you referring to? Mexicans? Surely the wall will put paid to that, surely, you have been told that by Donald and if Donald says it's right then any other opinion is fake news.

I'm not taking sides here, but what kind of strategy would you suggest? Do you think we could maintain a small force and then when someone is actually invading ask them for a timeout while we raise and equip a big enough military to defend ourselves?

I wasn't suggesting it should be shrunk, Trump suggested a large growth in military spending during the inauguration. That suggests it will need to be used over and above what the current military could deal with, while at the same time talking about becoming more internal facing and moving away from the UN. Those appear to be two opposing viewpoints, unless he just wants to go down the North Korea path I guess.

It actually doesn't suggest anything besides increasing the military budget, which is badly needed. Even at our current strength levels, our current budget simply isn't sufficient to maintain it. I just got out of the Air Force. We're in rough shape. It doesn't look like that to the average person but our military is a poorly maintained mess right now compared to 10 years ago. There are a lot of ways we could save money by cutting wasteful spending, but the budget still needs to be increased. National defense is the #1 job of the government, it's the last thing that should be neglected.

All of which are fair points. So, if the US is to move away from the UN and therefore is saying it will not take part in the defence of another UN country...... why does he need a larger military? Who is going to attack America through conventional means that would require an increased military budget? I base that on geographical reasons, no more than that.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: 727Sky

And even if it does pass everything and become law, it still only takes effect after two years after signing

Also getting Saudi Arabia off of the human rights board would be a nice gesture..

This very fact completely delegitimizes the UN in it's entirety and proves it has no use.

You could say the same about Israel which, post the inauguration is now building more Israeli settlements. But, without the US on the UN, Netanyahu will lose his new BFF. That will be interesting.