President Trump to CUT FUNDS to United Nations
It was only a matter of time before President Trump addresses the UN, financially speaking.
He’s hinted about it all along much like he did with NATO. And like NATO, the concept of the UN is good, but the results suck.
As NATO was made to pull its weight, so will the United Nations. And it’s long overdue.
This organization is dominated by socialists who have one agenda: extort as much money from America as they possibly can.
Trending: Trump Rape Story Stolen From Hollywood
Recently, the United Nations Security Council tried to pass a resolution against the United States. The vote involved negating President Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, a requirement by law.
The United States Ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley vetoed the resolution, the only “no” vote, as others voted 14-1.
What amazing fortitude by President Trump to stand alone. To hell with the rest of the world. When America is great, eventually the rest will follow. And that vote showcased the lack of leadership by the Obama administration more than anything thus far.
As for the United Nations, the Trump administration has run out of warnings.
After the vote, the president commented:
“All of these nations that take our money and then they vote against us at the Security Council or they vote against us, potentially, at the Assembly… They take hundreds of millions, even billions, and then they vote against us. Well, we’re watching these votes. Let them vote against us, we’ll save a lot. We don’t care.“
If the United Nations has learned nothing, they should know that President Trump doesn’t bluff where America First is concerned.
As Ambassador Haley said during her response, the United States is “taking names.” And if the UN believes President Trump cares about the New World Order or other nonsense supported by Obama and his minions, a rude wake-up call awaits.
Don’t believe me, just ask NATO:
Defense Secretary James Mattis made the Trump administration stance on NATO pretty clear: contribute or else.
“Increase defense spending by year’s end or US will ‘moderate its commitment’.”
While speaking to NATO in Brussels, Secretary Mattis repeated what then candidate Trump said during his campaign. Trump warned NATO that they member countries must do their part. Further, Trump hinted that total reliance on America to police the world has come to an end.
NATO members have all begun to catch up.
NATO got special dispensation, because it has some redeeming qualities. However, it’s difficult for the US to see practical use in the UN. The Telegraph showcases the UN as follows:
Take a few international crises – the Syrian civil war, the irruption of Isil, the Russian invasion of eastern Ukraine, the surge of refugees across European frontiers. All of them are linked. The tides of humanity washing up on Greek shores are driven by the violence in Syria, taken to medieval extreme by Isil. Putin, a pariah for what he has done in Ukraine, is a necessary partner in any effort to bring peace to Syria. The EU’s retreat into a competitive nationalism that threatens its very foundations underlies the failure to agree a viable plan to handle the refugee crisis.
But there is a more fundamental connection – the utter failure of the international institutions and accords put in place since the end of the Second World War either to forestall such crises or solve them when they explode. The rules-based international order is itself at risk. A sulphurous whiff of anarchy is in the air.
During the 2016 presidential campaign, Dr. Ben Carson called the UN ineffective, and he said he would defund them.
As Amelia Hamilton pointed out in 2015:
Seventy years ago, on October 24, 1945, the United Nations came into being. The goal was to replace the ineffective League of Nations with an organization that would actually accomplish international co-operation in the wake of World War II. Of course, they have not really succeeded. A big, sluggish governing body mired in politics is simply not able to act nimbly when situations require it and, even when they could have acted more quickly, the UN has failed.
Since 1948, October 24th has been “celebrated” as United Nations Day. In its honor, here are 5 times when the UN was completely useless:
The article begins discussing terrorism. And what a topic to being on.
65 million refugees, and the UN still exists? Hamilton writes:
Their Response to Terrorism
In 1968, El Al Israel flight 426 was hijacked by a Palestinian terrorist organization, an act that many experts agree was the first act of modern terrorism. What did the United Nations do? They condemned it, and did nothing else as terrorism continued. After 9/11, they went a bit further, by “outlawing” terrorism and punishing Al Qaeda and the Taliban. However, other terrorist groups were not addressed and for them, it is business as usual. The UN has no agreed-upon definition of terrorism — how could it, since it has several terror-sponsoring states among its members? — it’s not surprising that it has been largely useless in fighting it.
Hamilton goes on to showcase 4 additional reasons the UN has no purpose.
So how much do we pay, and what might we cut?
Politifact wrote the following:
The Donald Trump administration has drafted an executive order that would cut U.S. payments to the United Nations by as much as 40 percent. Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, highlighted the substantial role the United States plays in funding the U.N. during the confirmation hearing for U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley.
“When all of our taxpayers are paying roughly 22 percent of the budget, I think they do expect to see a more efficient and an organization that’s more objective and more in keeping with our values,” Portman said on Jan. 18, 2017. “How do you intend to support U.S. national security interests, but also ensure that the U.N. is a more effective body toward promoting a more peaceful and less volatile world?”
The U.N. and U.S. budget documents show Portman’s number is correct, and if peacekeeping is included, the percentage gets even higher.
The current U.N. regular budget calls for $5.4 billion over two years. By a formula based on the size of a country’s economy and other factors, America’s assessment is set at 22 percent, or about $1.2 billion.
Based on the last Obama administration budget, the United States provided $1.2 billion to the U.N. over two years, and Portman is correct.
What we actually spend with the UN is much higher, however.
The article continues,
But that’s just for the U.N.’s regular budget. There are over a dozen other U.N. agencies and operations that American dollars also support. The single largest is peacekeeping with a price tag of about $7.8 billion this year alone. The U.S. share of that cost is over 28 percent, or $2.2 billion.
The next three U.N. agencies — all roughly in the $100 million per year range — are the World Health Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization and the International Atomic Energy Agency.
All told, the United States provides about $3.3 billion a year to finance U.N. activities. A 40 percent cut would save taxpayers about $1.3 billion out of the current $4.1 trillion U.S. federal budget. The impact on the U.N. would be substantial, although the precise effect would depend on how the cuts are spread around.
Trust me, President Trump sees this money as a win. We will no longer waste money with an organization that couldn’t care less about American interest.