A tribute to the brave men that once walked this earth!
H. R. 193
To end membership of the United States in the United Nations.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 3, 2017
Mr. Rogers of Alabama (for himself, Mr. Jones, Mr. Biggs, Mr. Smith of Missouri, and Mr. Massie) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs
To end membership of the United States in the United Nations.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the “American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2017”.
SEC. 2. REPEAL OF UNITED NATIONS PARTICIPATION ACT OF 1945.
(a) Repeal.—The United Nations Participation Act of 1945 (Public Law 79–264; 22 U.S.C. 287 et seq.) is repealed.
(b) Termination Of Membership In United Nations.—The President shall terminate all membership by the United States in the United Nations, and in any organ, specialized agency, commission, or other formally affiliated body of the United Nations.
(c) Closure Of United States Mission To United Nations.—The United States Mission to the United Nations is closed. Any remaining functions of such office shall not be carried out.
SEC. 3. REPEAL OF UNITED NATIONS HEADQUARTERS AGREEMENT ACT.
(a) Repeal.—The United Nations Headquarters Agreement Act (Public Law 80–357) is repealed.
(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).
SEC. 4. UNITED STATES ASSESSED AND VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE UNITED NATIONS.
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 to any organ, specialized agency, commission or other formally affiliated body of the United Nations, except that funds may be appropriated to facilitate termination of United States membership and withdrawal of United States personnel and equipment, in accordance with sections 2 and 3, respectively. Upon termination of United States membership, no payments shall be made to the United Nations or to any organ, specialized agency, commission or other formally affiliated body of the United Nations, out of any funds appropriated prior to such termination or out of any other funds available for such purposes.
SEC. 5. UNITED NATIONS PEACEKEEPING OPERATIONS.
(a) Termination.—No funds are authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available for any United States contribution to any United Nations military or peacekeeping operation or force.
(b) Terminations Of United States Participation In United Nations Peacekeeping Operations.—No funds may be obligated or expended to support the participation of any member of the Armed Forces of the United States as part of any United Nations military or peacekeeping operation or force. No member of the Armed Forces of the United States may serve under the command of the United Nations.
SEC. 6. WITHDRAWAL OF UNITED NATIONS PRESENCE IN FACILITIES OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND REPEAL OF DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY.
(a) Withdrawal From United States Government Property.—The United Nations (including any organ, specialized agency, commission or other formally affiliated body of the United Nations) may not occupy or use any property or facility of the United States Government.
(b) Diplomatic Immunity.—No officer or employee of the United Nations (including any organ, specialized agency, commission or other formally affiliated body of the United Nations) or any representative, officer, or employee of any mission to the United Nations of any foreign government shall be entitled to enjoy the privileges and immunities of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of April 18, 1961, nor may any such privileges and immunities be extended to any such individual. The privileges, exemptions, and immunities provided for in the International Organizations Immunities Act of December 29, 1945 (59 Stat. 669; 22 U.S.C. 288 et seq.), or in any agreement or treaty to which the United States is a party, including the agreement entitled “Agreement Between the United Nations and the United States of America Regarding the Headquarters of the United Nations”, signed June 26, 1947 (22 U.S.C. 287 note), and the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, entered into force with respect to the United States on April 29, 1970 (21 UST 1418; TIAS 6900; UNTS 16), shall not apply to the United Nations or to any organ, specialized agency, commission or other formally affiliated body of the United Nations, to the officers and employees of the United Nations, or of any organ, specialized agency, commission or other formally affiliated body of the United Nations, or to the families, suites, or servants of such officers or employees.
SEC. 7. REPEAL OF UNITED STATES MEMBERSHIP AND PARTICIPATION IN THE UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC, AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION.
The joint resolution entitled “A joint resolution providing for membership and participation by the United States in the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, and authorizing an appropriation therefor”, approved July 30, 1946 (Public Law 79–565, 22 U.S.C. 287m et seq.), is repealed.
SEC. 8. REPEAL OF UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAM PARTICIPATION ACT OF 1973.
The United Nations Environment Program Participation Act of 1973 (22 U.S.C. 287 note) is repealed.
SEC. 9. REPEAL OF UNITED STATES PARTICIPATION IN THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION.
The joint resolution entitled “Joint Resolution providing for membership and participation by the United States in the World Health Organization and authorizing an appropriation therefor”, approved June 14, 1948 (22 U.S.C. 290), is repealed.
SEC. 10. REPEAL OF INVOLVEMENT IN UNITED NATIONS CONVENTIONS AND AGREEMENTS.
Effective on the date of the enactment of this Act, the United States will end any participation in any conventions and agreements with the United Nations and any organ, specialized agency, commission, or other formally affiliated body of the United Nations. Any remaining functions of such conventions and agreements shall not be carried out.
SEC. 11. REEMPLOYMENT WITH UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT AFTER SERVICE WITH AN INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to affect the rights of employees under subchapter IV of chapter 35 of title 5, United States Code, relating to reemployment after service with an international organization.
SEC. 12. NOTIFICATION.
Effective on the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State shall notify the United Nations and any organ, specialized agency, commission, or other formally affiliated body of the United Nations of the provisions of this Act.
SEC. 13. EFFECTIVE DATE.
Except as otherwise provided, this Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take effect on the date that is two years after the date of the enactment of this Act.
What is masculinity?
This short video introduces author Jack Donovan’s “gang theory of masculinity” and the four “tactical virtues.”
For more in-depth definitions of strength, courage, mastery and honor and the challenges facing men today read The Way of Men — which has now sold over 12,000 copies.
We’ve read and watched the news of Venezuelan society collapsing under the weight of socialism.
But how bad is it really?
See this firsthand account from documentary filmmaker Ami Horowitz.
Is Bernie Sanders right?
Are people living under socialism better off?
Brazil is a good case study. Felipe Moura Brasil, a journalist and Veja magazine columnist, explains how his country has fared under socialism.
Many American millennials seem to be drawn to socialism.
They came out in big numbers for Bernie Sanders in the 2016 presidential primaries. They rail against capitalism on their college campuses. They wear Che Guevara t-shirts to signal their socialist virtue.
I know a lot about socialism. I live in Rio de Janeiro and I work throughout Brazil as a journalist for a popular magazine.
In the early 2000s, Brazil’s economy was growing rapidly.
The government had enacted economic and monetary reforms and divested holdings in some state-run companies, giving the private sector more room to breathe.
Inflation—a chronic problem in Brazil—was dramatically reduced.
Foreign investors poured into the country, eager to catch a portion of our expanding economy.
The future seemed promising.
But today, our economy is in shambles, unemployment and debt are massive and powerful politicians are being investigated for involvement in the largest scandals of fraud and corruption in the country’s history.
In 2002, a socialist politician named Lula da Silva ran for the presidency. He was a socialist, but painted himself as a modern, cool kind of socialist. He would be the politician who would heal national divisions and unite everyone. He even had a nickname, “Lulinha paz e amor”, which means “Little Lula peace and love” in Portuguese.
But the old message about the need for income redistribution to decrease inequality was still there. The media, academic elite and celebrities assured Brazilians that by transferring the money from the rich to the poor, the poor could finally be richer.
But the only ones who really got rich were Lula and his corporate and political friends.
It only got worse under his successor, Dilma Rousseff.
The socialists increased government spending, deficits, and debt. They called it a stimulus.
They increased the minimum wage and the benefits of social programs. They called it social justice.
They increased the salaries and retirement benefits of the civil service. They called it investing in the future.
They handed out thousands of jobs in the government and state-owned companies as favors to their political allies. And they called it good governance.
It worked for a while. Socialism always works at the beginning.
But government spending just kept going up and then Lula’s socialist paradise fell apart, and the economy fell with it.
The outcome: from 2008 to 2015, government spending grew nearly four times as fast as tax revenue.
The economy shrank 3.8 percent in 2015, the worst result in 25 years.
That same year, a World Bank survey found Brazil’s economy to be one of the world’s worst. Out of 189 countries, we were the 16th hardest place to open a business, the 60th most difficult nation in which to register property, and the 12th most complex place to pay taxes.
Economically and morally, the almost 15 years of socialist policies have greatly harmed Brazil. We also remain among the world’s leaders in murder and robbery, and we rank near the bottom of industrialized nations in terms of education and health care.
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) is a group dedicated to the preservation of gun rights in the United States and “to encourage Americans to understand and defend all of the Bill of Rights for everyone”. The group was founded by former firearms dealer Aaron S. Zelman in 1989.
The JPFO interprets the Second Amendment as recognizing a pre-existing natural right of individuals to keep and bear arms. It is based in Hartford, Wisconsin.
JPFO takes the position that an armed citizenry is the population’s last line of defense against tyranny by their own government. The organization is noted for producing materials (bumper stickers, posters, billboards, booklets, videos, etc.) with messages that equate gun control with totalitarianism. The most famous of these are the “All in favor of Gun Control raise your right hand” materials, which features a drawing of Hitler giving a Nazi salute.
The organization also attempts to prove that genocide is linked to gun control, by showing that most countries where a genocide has taken place had gun control first.
Members do not have to be Jewish. The only membership requirement is that you be a “law-abiding citizen,” by “obeying the Bill of Rights.”
JPFO’s political positions
The JPFO is probably most noted for its claim that parts of the text of the Gun Control Act of 1968 were translated from Nazi legislation.
The German Weapons Law, which existed before the Nazis came to power in 1933, was altered on 18 March 1938 by the Nazi Government.
The JPFO’s claim is based in part on the fact that the 1968 GCA introduces the “sporting purpose” test to distinguish different types of weapons, similar to the “sporting purpose” test that existed in the German law in question.
Senator Thomas Dodd was a prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials and had reviewed copies of the Nazi Germany firearms laws, and in 1968 requested translations of these from the Library of Congress.
Bernard Harcourt, professor at the University of Chicago Law School, in discussing this fundamental proposition advanced by the JPFO, notes, “On January 13th, 1919, the Reichstag enacted legislation requiring surrender of all guns to the government. This law, as well as the August 7, 1920, Law on the Disarmament of the People passed in light of the Versailles Treaty, remained in effect until 1928, when the German parliament enacted the Law on Firearms and Ammunition (April 12, 1928) a law which relaxed gun restrictions and put into effect a strict firearm licensing scheme.” Harcourt continued, “To be sure, the Nazis were intent on killing Jewish persons and used the gun laws and regulations to further the genocide”, but he concluded that the firearms laws were not central to implementing the Holocaust.
Attorney and author Stephen Halbrook, in his law article “Nazi Firearms Law and the Disarming of the German Jews”, asserts that German arms laws were extremely lax, and even under the 1920 “Law on the Disarmament of the People”, only items such as grenades and machineguns were banned and small arms such as rifles and pistols remained in common use. Valery Polozov, a former advisor to the committee on national security in the Russian Duma, claims in his book “Firearms in Civil Society” that Germany did not in fact have comprehensive gun control legislation up until 1928, which created the legal framework later built upon by the Nazis. Halbrook did clarify in the first sentences of his article that, “Gun control laws are depicted as benign and historically progressive. However, German firearm laws and hysteria created against Jewish firearm owners played a major role in laying the groundwork for the eradication of German Jewry in the Holocaust.”
All credits to: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
How big should the government be? And what is its proper role in the daily lives of Americans? The Left and Right have opposite answers.