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!