• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Morning Bell: Should America Carry the U.N.?

    The 39-story United Nations headquarters stands on the banks of the East River in Manhattan. But now the U.N. is planning the construction of a new building next door, with a price tag pegged at $400 million — and it could soar even higher. And since U.S. taxpayers pay 22 percent of the U.N. budget, the costs for that new building will come right out of your pocket, leading to a very serious question: Just how far should the United States go in supporting the U.N. and international organizations like it?

    The issue of a new building in New York isn’t the only U.N. story to make the headlines this year. Take the issue of Palestine, which over the summer formally requested U.N. membership. If Palestine were to succeed in its unilateral efforts, it would be detrimental to U.S. interests in the region, isolate Israel, and deal a major setback to Israeli-Palestinian peace prospects. And all of that would come at the hands of an international organization over which the United States can exert strong influence but cannot control.  If Palestine is granted member status at the U.N., American interests–along with those of its allies–will be seriously harmed, requiring an even greater vigilance and financial commitment to maintain leverage for U.S. priorities.  Again, the question is posed: When does our commitment to an international organization become a problem?

    In the latest installment of Heritage’s “Understanding America” series, Brett Schaefer addresses America’s role as a member of international organizations. He explains that conflicting interests will nearly always hinder forward movement on issues of peace, security, and human rights — but that doesn’t negate the benefit of having a platform for achieving U.S. interests. Schaefer further explains the risks of participation in these bodies:

    Supporting international organizations is not without consequence. It is a burden, albeit sometimes a burden worth bearing. But refusing to recognize the limitations of international organizations and their potential to cause harm does a disservice to the American people.

    Joining with friendly nations for a mutual benefit or avenue to problem solving can prove to be valuable for the United States, but America’s leaders must never sacrifice the greater American interest for the sake of compromise. When does our commitment to an international organization become a problem? That’s a question U.S. leaders must continually ask themselves. Schaefer explains how the United States must seek to strike that balance:

    If the United States is not to undermine its interests, it must abandon its default position of supporting and engaging with international organizations regardless of their performance. Instead, the U.S. must assess honestly whether each organization works, whether its mission is focused and attainable and not dependent on “good faith” that does not exist, and whether it advances U.S. interests.

    International organizations are a tool to attain a goal, not an end in themselves. They are one way for the U.S. to defend its interests and to seek to address problems in concert with other nations. But they are not the only option, and their strengths and weaknesses should be clearly understood.

    America played a key role in the founding of the U.N., so our stake in its success is important. But there are always risks in working with other nations — and each international organization relies at least in part on the good faith of those involved. However, each country’s own priorities come first, which is why American leadership must be eternally vigilant in assessing the record and actions of participating countries.

    That is true when it comes to issues such as America’s financial commitment to the U.N., particularly as the organization considers constructing a costly new complex in Manhattan. And that vigilance is even more imperative on issues of international security and the promotion of ideals at odds with America’s interests abroad, as is the case with Palestine’s bid for recognition in the U.N.

    In a 1985 speech to the U.N. General Assembly, President Ronald Reagan addressed the U.N.’s role head on–and the need for America to remain vigilant, noting, “The vision of the U.N. Charter–to spare succeeding generations this scourge of war–remains real. It still stirs our soul and warms our hearts, but it also demands of us a realism that is rock hard, clear-eyed, steady, and sure–a realism that understands the nations of the United Nations are not united.” Those words hold true today and should guide America’s understanding of its commitment to international organizations but also the realities and limitations of its engagement.

    Quick Hits:

    Posted in International [slideshow_deploy]

    173 Responses to Morning Bell: Should America Carry the U.N.?

    1. West Texan says:

      "Should America Carry the U.N.?"

      NO!

      • Verneal says:

        No, but I don't see why we should even have the headquarters here. I am not a big UN fan to start with.
        Question, I agree with your commentary……….what's your suggestion we do about it ? The government we have now doesn't listen to the people anyway.

      • America should BURY the U.N.

      • Pabelson says:

        The US should withhold funding of the UN unless and until the following qualifications are met:

        All members must acknowledge the rights to nationhood of all other members within two years of the institution of the requirement. Should they fail to do so, they shall have their membership revoked.

        With the exceptions of the special rights granted members of the security council, all members shall have equal rights, including membership in all councils and committees.

        Without those provisions being adopted within two l, the US should withhold ALL funding and reclaim all land and property on US soil. Without equality for all nations, the US should withdraw its membership.

      • My reply to West Texan is; America should bury the U.N. Maybe this will post. My previous attempts are stuck in the, "Must approved by administrative board before appearing publicly" mode. Censorship is so American now.

      • Frank says:

        Not "NO"; but "HELL NO" the U.S. should QUIT the corrupt UN and tell them to relocate to some other country! Hell, my fellow Americans, isn't it bad enough, that we have to deal with the corrupt politicians we have in our own government? The UN is even more corrupt and it is full of nations that would like to see the U.S. fail! "NO" we, the U.S., should quit the UN and tell them they must relocate to a different country!

      • Helen Jenkins says:

        Not only should America not carry the UN. America should not participate in the UN in any way. America should get out of the UN and get the UN out of America. Some of the 2012 candidates are beginning to talk about America knowing its enemies. UN should top the list. Political Correctness has run its course. Sensible Americans need to find their voice and feet and say ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!! It is time to send America's military in to pack them up, put UN and belongings onto ships or planes and get them out of America. They are not America's friends. It is insane to keep pretending, financially supporting people who hate and want to destroy America. Cut all foreign aid. Maintain reciprocal trade. Help in times of need- epidemics, tsunami, etc. If new-2012- President and Congress does not begin the decoupling process to free America from the UN. WE THE PEOPLE should start recall, impeach, new elections to get it started. America needs to be out of the UN and the UN out of America. Then, Repeal, nullify all agreements Obama and his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton puts in place. Keep the faith and the conversation going.

      • East WA. Marine vet says:

        No, we should have gotten out of the UN just after we joined. It has always been a drag on the US. The UN should be thrown out of the USA and the building cleansed and used for something productive. All the UN spies that have run free in this country need to be rounded up and deported. George Washington warned this country to "steer clear of entangling foreign alliances." It is time. Get rid of the globalists in government. Wake up, America. We are on the edge because of sticking our noses into places we should stay away from.

      • Dee says:

        No, move it off America's shore as soon as possible, if not sooner!

      • Cat says:

        Absolutely NO!

      • Frank says:

        I ditto the NO!
        We need to get out of the UN & get the UN out of the US.
        It's too corrupt. I don't believe it can be reformed.
        We should have a place where all nations can gather to talk, probably in Switzerland or Sweden, but with no authority to do anything. Let each nation keep their sovereign rights.

      • Bess A Butner says:

        No We should throw them completely off American soil. We should not be supporting them in any way. I think we should collect all of the charges they have as far as tickets and any thing that they do that is not legal. Why should they have amunity ? This is what should happen to any Country who is not our friend.

      • rick says:

        I don't think we should give em anything whatsoever !!!!!

      • To my friend from West Texas, I agree with you sir. In fact the United States should withdraw its membership in the UN and throw the UN out of the United States. Except for Israel, they are a bunch of socialistic communists who want us to change the principles of our government to confirm with theirs which foster a centralized global government. Our free enterprise system is far more prosperous to a freedom living people who enjoy a limited government. Of course our current administration as well as man administrations of the last century supported expanding our central government. WE THE PEOPLE have to eradicate that notion at election time.

    2. Dave Cook says:

      The should move the UN to Iceland.

    3. Cathy says:

      No we shouldn't carry them!! But I think we need to belong now that the Middle eastern Countries do, just to be watching what they are up too.

    4. Roy Wagner says:

      The USA should pay its Fair Share of the UN Expenses. Take the Number of Member Nations, Divide the Total amount required for the UN by that number of Member Nations to calculate our FAIR SHARE. Then Pay it.
      And, while they are at it, demand that they get the Hell out of the USA.

      • faroglobal says:

        In BHO and UN terms, "FAIR SHARE" is that we pay all of it. Out of NYC and over to the West Bank or preferably Somalia

    5. The UN’s only purpose in the world is to allow third-world kleptocracies to bleed us of money and undermine our interests, while destroying freedom. We should withdraw from the UN and order them out of the US. Seriously. I will link to this from my Old Jarhead blog.

      Robert A. Hall
      Author: The Coming Collapse of the American Republic
      (All royalties go to a charity to help wounded veterans)
      For a free PDF of the book, write tartanmarine(at)gmail.com

    6. Glynnda says:

      Should America Carry the UN? In a word……NO!
      Let me add to that….should the UN be based in NYC? NO!
      The UN if it really wants to do some good, should be centered in the area of the world where the most conflict and upheaval is occurring…….what a bunch of hypocrites….

      glynnda

    7. twodox says:

      The UN is a subversive, antiAmerican and Israeli organization which is populated with representative of nations who clearly harbor anti American sentiment. This organization should be moved to a neutral country where its representatives may spew their venom at leisure but not be supported by the country they despise most. Of course, the amenities accorded these thugs would not be as plus in Afghanistan or other such countries which these thugs support liberally often with the USA's funding. Wake Up America. You have been duped for years. Stop being the good relative who gets often stabbed in the back but continues to serve Thanksgiving dinner to the insolent relatives.

      • Cat says:

        Well said, twodox! The UN has disintegrated into a useless organization and no longer has value for the US.

    8. Dale says:

      The US, as far as I'm concerned, needs to not spend ONE DIME of mine and everyone elses tax dollars on anything to do with the UN!! I have felt for years that the United Nations is a gathering place on OUR soil for our ENEMIES to gather and tell each other how much they hate the US. If the UN wants to add on to their 'social club' building then let someone else pay for it!! Since we as a country cannot seem to get the UN out of the United States then at the very lest we need to stop funneling money into what has turned out to be a worthless organization!

    9. Jim Delaney says:

      JOhn McCain advanced US membership in a "League of Democracies" as a substitute for UN membership.
      Arguably, the only idea he advanced which I favored.

      Were a competing LOD be formed, the US could effectively clip the wings–and dramatically limit the damage–of a UN dominated by despots and crackpots, and, in time, the LOD would politically eclipse the influence of the UN, a goal well-worth pursuing.

      With an LOD to address international political/diplomatic challenges, the UN would be left to handle humanitarian challenges, the only job it does reasonably well.

      Subsidizing an organization which more closely represents American values makes considerably more sense and would more readily accomplish the "world peace" objective of the UN.

      • ThomNj says:

        AGREED – that was about the only good idea McCain had along with choosing Sarah Palin!!!! (Except that I don't even think the UN handles humanitarian efforts so well either).

      • Jack Penland says:

        Jim, has anyone ever told you the difference between a Republic and a democracy? I didn't think so. With all respect, I think it was Benjamin Franklin who said: " A democracy is 2 wolves and a rabbit voting on what to eat for supper. ARepublic is 2 wolves and a rabbit voting for what to eat for supper, except the rabbit has a gun.

    10. Robert Jones says:

      No! Not at the current rate of 22%,the ability to belong to the UN should be a fixed rate to all countries,there by relieving some burden on the UNITED STATES TAX PAYERS.

    11. Longenecker says:

      America needs to comprehend that many nations depend on our integrity as much as anything else from us, which is why we are admonished by socialist nations not to go socialist ourselves. One world is going to be something all nations come to regret, and they know it. The solution: pull out of the U.N., unfund them, and make them pay for their own real estate. We may sell it to them, but the soil remains U.S. soil.

      Time to exercise some of that integrity we're respected for.

    12. In the last three days there have been five stories in the media about the 'antics' of the United Nations.

      I was once told by one of the leading investigative journalists (TV and Print) that since I had chosen as a backdrop to my fiction mystery series, actual events at the United Nations, “…you will never run out of material.”

      Well, unfortunately the United Nations is providing more material than I can possibly produce novels around.

      Now the final laugh. I received an e-mail this morning from a publicist familiar with the upcoming release of my third novel which marries the evil doings at the UN with those in the US and elsewhere. His question, (asked with humor), “Bodell, are you orchestrating the flood of new greed and corruption at the UN just to promote your books?”

      I for one, having spent six years as a consultant to the UN, must answer the question/topic of the Morning Bell piece with an emphatic “NO”.
      http://www.ghughbodell.com

    13. Virgnia says:

      it's time to get rid of the UN.

    14. Victor Barney says:

      I wish you realized that the UN fits perfectly in with the Book of revelation, chapter 11. Yes, as the chicago terrorists william Avrers and Bernardine Dohrn are now in Libyia forming the soon coming caliphate of Islamic countries caled the "BEAST" in Revelation, their appointed marxist(also a self-reported marxist) will enter the UN after his planned marxist economic collapse of our economy, Obama the anti-christ of revelation will ride the white horse of revelation to destroy these "rich(?) white men, but suddenly appears the two-witnesses of revelation, who will testify against u.s. for 3 1/2 years. I only ask you this: And, who do "you" think that it will be the "gives themselves presents" when this self-reported marxist kills these two-witnesses of YHWH? Just saying…

    15. F.D O'Toole says:

      "…the nations of the United Nations are not united."
      Wow! Just a s clear as can be.
      No wonder the main stream media was unsuccessful in its efforts to characterize him as a dumbo.

    16. PippN says:

      The UN can meet in a tool shed out back as far as I’m concerned. We should take back the UN building and let the UN meet in different member countries once a year. Oh, and lets get back the $3 Billion Obama forked over to those crooks.

    17. Victor Barney says:

      CIA is doing it's job isn't it? Again, just saying…

    18. Mrs. JulieWhite says:

      No. We need to get out of the UN for they do not believe in what we as Americans believe in.

    19. Robert A Hirschmann says:

      In my opinion we should drop out of the UN, kick them out of New York and convert the building to a VA hospital. The UN is not on our side. They should go the way of the League of Nations!

    20. Thomas L Jeanne says:

      To answer your question,NO!!I say evict the UN from this country,cut all funds and subsidies to it and then you won't have to worry about your question ever again.Simple,isn't it?

    21. William says:

      yes indeed we should carry it, about fo miles out in the atlantic ocean and dump it along with the worthless twits occupying the building, look how much money we would save while getting a lot of SLIMEBALLS out of our way.

    22. ron hansing says:

      The percentage spent should equal the number of votes each country has… or cost equal percentage of each county's GDP.

      Plus, they should pay their parking tickets. If not lose their votes.

      How about moving it to the Congo?

    23. Robert, TX says:

      No. No and NO. Question for Heritage: who is going to pull us out of the U.N? Do you honestly think little johnny is going to float that bill? Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate to propose pulling out of the U.N. completely. So this is another collosal waste of time. The republicans are not listening to Heritage.

    24. Jo Ann Hancock says:

      NO! NO! The United States should get out of the UN….kick them out of this country. NOT ANOTHER DIME!!!!!!!

    25. Guest says:

      They should move the U.N. to the western part of Los Palmos – a good, solid piece of land that will hopefully sink soon. The U.N. is supposed to recognize every country, i.e., the Palestinians, and not just the special interests of the Israeli's who stole Palestine and renamed it Israel. I do not recognize Israelis as friends of the American people – only friends of big bankers and corporations they've chosen to stay in business. Give Palestine back to their people and let the Jewish people, a.k.a., Gypsy liars, thieves, and murderers find their own country. I'm not prejudiced against Jewish people as they are to other nations. I just think what they've done to the world is outrageous and Americans are supporting the wrong people – terrorists in the guise of poor, helpless allies.

      • jim deffendall says:

        You sir are a twit they never stole the land it was giving to them the palestinians did not own the land.

      • June says:

        Your reading the wrong history book- -Palestinians did not exist prior to (think it was) 1967, when the UK and the UN decided "They" should be a nationality- -they are merely "misplaced" Arabs and should all go back to Saudibaba! Israel and the Jews ARE God's Chosen People- -they are right where they belong and where they have been for thousands of years! No- -I'm not Jewish; just a Christian who believes in the history of the Bible!

      • June says:

        PS-You're confusing gypsies, liars, thieves and murderers with Bulgarians and Russian Mafia!

      • June says:

        Israelis (Jews) have DONE NOTHING to the world- – have you ever studied the (real) history of the Holocaust (6 million+ Jews exterminated by Ugly Adolph-also Poles AND Germans, et. al.); if you haven't, then you're missing a seriously important part of WORLD HISTORY- – and I don't mean some "re-write" done by some liberal/progressive/marxist/nazi- fascist! You "claim" you're not "prejudiced" against Jewish people?? No, but I would say YOU ARE SERIOUSLY MISINFORMED!

    26. ThomNJ says:

      I don't believe that the USA ought to even be in the UN.

      The UN certainly should not be in the USA. Besides our tax dollars being used and abused by the UN, the people of New york pay disproportionately for the constant and incessant violations of law by the "privileged diplomats". Put the HQ in a 3rd world coutnry that needs the investment.

      Put the anti-American UN on an island somewhere that is in another country. The people of the USA ought to get to vote on membership. If we vote to stay in, then at the very least, our "dues" ought to be for our share and our share alone. We most definitely should not be supporting the bulk of the organization at all (not the IMF or World Bank, either).

    27. Jim in Wyoming says:

      Why should The Good Old USA shoulder 22 percent of the expense for an organization of 192 member states? Seems as though we are being asked and paying more than our proportionate share? And forget about a new building……We're BROKE! Face the music and the facts. Very few countries in the world like us and we just simply don't have the money. Who are we trying to impress. Lets quite trying to buy our friends. IT DOES NOT WORK!

    28. Lloyd Scallan says:

      NO!

    29. Carol M Kite says:

      It is so frustrating that every function, country, war or unfortunate catastrophe across the world is dependent on & expectant of America to do the most. Not unwilling to help when we were in our prime but now that we're dangerously near bankruptsy, with many of our own hurting, I have to think it's past time, charity can begin at home, along with our real need to rebuild aspects of our country that are necessary, currently not addressed, not some whim at taxpayers' expense. Somehow, this administration needs convincing, at present not listening, that the spending has to stop, this being a good place to start!

    30. Dave says:

      I think they should build their new HQ in Europe and let them build it with EUROS!

    31. Clearhead says:

      The question is asked…"When does the U.N. become problematic for the United States of America?" Some say it was during the first week following the establishment of the organization. These people however are 'liberals'. The real answer is….within MINUTES after its formation. There is nothing wrong with the building we built for them, but if they're dissatisfied with that one and want another one, then let them pay for it themselves, and build it somewhere other than on the sovereign property of AMERICA. And whatever we do, let's not let mr. obama or mr. bloomberg in on the planning for the location.

    32. C. Hyatt says:

      We need to STOP the spending and elect politicians who get it. Any politician who promotes the spending of tax payers money in lieu of paying down the National debt should be out of office and on the streets looking for a job like many others are.

    33. Mary......WI says:

      NO! The UN is as crooked as arthritic fingers. The UN has lost the main purpose for it's existence….to maintain peace in this crazy world. Build the new UN building in the Antartic.

    34. Ken Rosenlund says:

      The US should abandon the UN for it is the US who has been the major Peace keeper while being laden with heavy distain from the other members. I do not feel the UN as a body supports Christian ethics but is heading to Shelia law and World Order behavior. The United States was built on the concept of a Constitution with freedom for all not some. Our ideals need not be dragged through the mud by communist country’s who do not support the system but only seek the UN as a platform to spread their ideology. Generosity starts at home and we need not be ashamed to state that.

    35. John Pilla says:

      No ! ! ! ! The corruption is exceeded by the UN's refusal to abide by International Norms.
      I say get out of the US & stop paying for the orgainzation…

    36. John T. Sewell says:

      Dear Sirs: I have said this from several years back, the UN would not even consider anything the United States has to offer at the table if the United States were not supporting the UN with a place to meet and with the Millions of Dollars each year. I would VOTE in a Heart beat to send the UN packing and the Un pay for their own expenses and NOT another dime from the USA. We as Americans should not have to CHANGE our COUNTRY for the sake of another race that wants to live here. You come here legally and you and your family want to share in the American Dream, then you LEARN our language and live by our laws, and GOD will Bless you efforts. That goes for all races, even Muslims, if you don't like it, MOVE BACK HOME, Don't come here to IMPOSE your beliefs on us. AMERICA was founded on the principles of THE HOLY BIBLE and the TEN COMMANDMENTS, if that rocks your boat the wrong way, them let it sink or, "GO BACK HOME"! Respectfully, John T. Sewell

    37. Bill Reed says:

      "America played a key role in the founding of the U.N., …" – To our everlasting shame and regret. This was an historic mistake of biblical proportions. An exercise in self-delusional "progressive" hubris ("If we're nice to them, they'll be nice to us").

      Can we still not admit that no one, NO ONE, not just including but especially "progressives" is so smart and sophisticated to justify raiding the fruit of their neighbors' labor to squander on hare-brained schemes, like the U.N.

      "The statesman who should attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals, would not only load himself with a most unnecessary attention, but assume an authority which could safely be trusted to no council and senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it."

      Let the presumptuous fools ("progressives") who think the U.N. is a creature of sheer genius put their own money where their mouths are, and keep their hands out of my, and my grandkids', pockets. This "$400 million", which will turn out to be a fractional downpayment – if the past gives any indication of how these construction projects go in NYC, with taxpayer money, in service to the U.N. to boot – will have to be borrowed and future generations of taxpayers will have to bear the costs. I'm sure they'll be absolutely delighted to find out what their parents and grandparents have done with their erstwhile prosperity. It's bad enough to waste your neighbors' money on these lunatic ideas. Stealing your own progeny's prosperity is several orders of magnitude more repugnant.

      People who leave these considerations out of their calculations are willfully ignorant at the expense of their own children. Even if it could be demonstrated that the U.N. is somehow providing us with some net benefit (which it clearly is not) it would still not justify plundering our kids' futures. Talk about "taxation without representation"!!!

      "…so our stake in its success is important." – Only to those who accept the "progressive" presumptions. How those who've abandoned the innovations of Judeo/Christian ethics to embrace the coercive behavior of our proto-human ancestors could be termed "progressive" is a mystery to me.

      1. The fallacious assumption that simply getting the petty dictators and miscreants of the world to assemble would bear fruit is hopelessly naive, as has been proven demonstrably and repeatedly since the U.N.'s inception.

      2. Paying for it by plundering our progeny's futures only adds despicable insult to expensive injury.

    38. Timothy Ross says:

      It seems as the western cultures of the world are struggling to get their fiscal responsibilities in order the only reason the United Nations would make such an expensive plan is to play on the emotion of pride, and not what is in the best interest of the future of each nation in the world. If the united nations as a whole has a larger member population that is pro socialism, Islam, and communism they would love to see the western civilizations collapse so they could use this weak moment in the western societies history to sweep in and move their socialist, Islam and communist agendas forward. Maybe the United Nations should think about improvements to their present location, and wait for the western societies to stabilize their economies before trying to launch such an expensive project. It could be thought of as an act of aggression to make such plans during such a time of economic recovery for our society.

    39. Valentino Procida says:

      Over the years I've seen the Unithed Nations to be a joke at the cost of the Unigthed States since it was started up. Comeon now, what has happen to comminsense? I know you can not get a degree in it, it's either we have it, or go through all that is going on today. I feel this country that Ive always been proud in, has lost it's way, I heard this morning that those in Washington feel that they are all working hard for this country of ours. I ask, Doing what? I've not seen anything done that makes sense to me since 2006 when the Democrates took over both House and Senate, and today they are rated at 4%. We need to get this country back on the foundation it was built on, It meant something then, why not NOW?

    40. chatmadu002 says:

      Give the UN 5 years to locate and move to a new host country. The US has done it's fair share of hosting these self indulgent oligarchies. Cut back our funding to the level of other major countries.

    41. Hauptman says:

      The UN is nothing more than a debating society for tin pot dictators. Nothing the UN has done in its history validates the expense and effort of the US. Shut them down, throw them out of the US and never again be a member of this dysfunctional group of thugs.

    42. Guest says:

      Absolutely not, they have given us Agenda 21 and have all kinds of rules for us to say nothing of the fact that they want our sovereignty and to be leaders of the NWO. We need to get out of the UN. Geo Wash said that we should not favor one country over another or we would become entangled in their business and battles. Look at the pathetic mess we have made of our country…our boys join the military to protect our country only to be farmed out to protect the borders of others.

    43. Owen K. says:

      In short, the answer is NO. What the U.S. should do is to tell the U.N. to relocate the new building in another country either of their choosing, or to whichever country would allow them to build this building. (Good luck with That) Second, no more participation in the U.N. In my opinion, this is an organization that has outlived its usefulness.

    44. paul says:

      no, move the u.n. headquarters to Geneva, Switzerland. The reduce our contributions accoriding
      to the new world economic order.

    45. AR15Rick says:

      my senator Jim DeMint has been saying this for a long time .

    46. Mary M. says:

      LOL. We should have been charging the UN rent all this time. Seriously, we should never have been involved in UN. It was the first step into world government. Throw them out!!!!!

    47. Dave says:

      NO, NO, Hell NO!!! We should have quit the UN years ago, and kicked them off our soil.

    48. Joan says:

      No we should not contribute one dime to the U N . Let them move out of NY instead of building a new building for us to help pay for. NO NO NO

    49. FlaJim says:

      The US contribution should be limited to its proportional representation. That would be 1/214? I keep losing track as new countries come into being. In additional, the UN's building permit should be denied. There are already too many unsavory types in NYC — both the foreign and domestic variety.

      The US should form a coalition of the major English speaking countries to protect the interests of the large democracies. Other countries could apply but they'd be subject to close scrutiny. Can't think of too many countries that would be able to pass muster. Isreal, Poland, and the Czech Republic are the only ones that come readily to mind.

    50. eggsbenedict says:

      Not only should we not support it, we need to get out of the UN. I am in favor of the UN being moved to a far away place from this country. I read an article written on another blog concerning if a rebilion breaks out in this country and the US troops refuse to kill their fellow Americans, then the UN troops would be called in to put the riot down an even kill our American citizens. Do not rule it out as a possibilty. I would not put anything past this person in the White House who is a fraud and anti-american!!

    51. Ray C says:

      It is a good idea to keep your enemy close by but not in your own front yard. It is also stupid to feed the beast. Take away the money and let the UN run on its own merit.

    52. TexasTea says:

      Get. Out. Now. It's a waste of billions that WE DON'T HAVE. The U.S. already sends "foreign aid" to countries that hate us and countries we borrow from, so the UN is redundant. Also useless – it's hardly been effective in deterring wars. We're simply paying for people who hate us to come to our soil, infest our hotels, and hang out in our plush building giving speeches denouncing us as greedy and evil. What a deal!

      Suggestion for new meeting location: GITMO! World "leaders" can see how nice it is AND visit their incarcerated terrorist pals.

    53. MJF in CT says:

      Should America Carry the U.N.?

      YES! Right to the East River! Get rid of it along with all those with "diplomatic immunity"!

    54. JIm, CA says:

      I've heard it said, "…keep your friends close and your enemies closer" But these guys have their hands so deep into our wallets they make Wall Street and Congress pale by comparison. Kick 'em out now.

    55. Robert says:

      "NO" to supporting the UN as we have foolishly done for decades. Before they add another building, I suggest that the UN move its HQ to Belgium or other and we reduce our participation to matching Russian contributions.

    56. tom s says:

      I wish that the above votes could decide the fate of the UN. I vote along with those who wish the USA out of the UN & the UN out of the USA. Its way past time for our country to be looking after our own welfare & to quit supporting the majority of the world that hate us but continue to take our handouts. Any future support given to foreign nations should go to the countries that are really our friends/allies.

    57. Roy Fitz says:

      I think we should, just as long as we give the CIA the contract to bug the h_ll out of all the reinforced concrete girders, like the soviets did to the U.S. Embassy during the cold war. But why stop there, the CIA should put more spy stuff in there to "learn' how the U.N. spends the U.S. Tax payers' money. A "check and balance" approach. BTW, isn't there an island off the coast of the U.S. where that building can be placed so vips can visit, but not soil U.S. territory?

    58. Gene McCain says:

      We should get rid of the UN it is useless and costly, Move it anywhere, stop supporting the UN period

    59. Don39 says:

      I agree with all those above that say we shouild not only not support enlarging the UN, but should have them move it to some other country and reduce our support. Our support should be no more than our equal share based on % of world population which is far less than 22%. The current leftist administration has destroyed our soveriegnty and runs to the UN to influence internal decisions like we already have a one-world governing body in the UN. At least we should put them (the UN) in tinbuctu or whereever it would be more difficult for them to run crying to them when they need hate-America allies.

    60. Peggy, Idaho says:

      The United States has "hosted" the United Nations for far too long….paying more than our fair share and providing the real estate as well. It's time for that organization to be housed offshore – let some other country provide the land. The U.S. should not allow another United Nations building to be built in our country.

    61. Michael says:

      HELL NO!!

    62. Marlajean Hamby says:

      Get out of the UN has been talked about for years and nothing has happened. What must we taxpayers do to pull this off. I recently received an e=mail about the Africa they don't want us to know about. Beautiful cities and resorts, expensive georgeous mansions, incredible wealth. Let the UN go there. Get the spys and anti US delegates out of our country.

    63. The idea of a United Nations that would allow all the countries of the world to come together and make decisions that would help countries in need, help countries and people during natural desasters or stop civil wars by providing peace keeping forces was an idea that could only come from a country like the United States of America and its free people. We look at other countries as nations and people that need help not people and countries we would like to take by force and control. The United Nations has become a hot bed of graft and corruption by countries and governments that want to control rather than help. Unfortunately the United States has been pulled into these graft and corruption games. We excuse our actions by saying we have to fight fire with fire. Using fire to extinguish fire has never worked very well. A heavy dose of water has been found to cool the fires much better. To keep funding the United Nations with the expensive fire process versus a much less costly water process may, in time, put the fires of corruption, graft and greed out.

    64. David says:

      The presence of the UN undoubtedly brings lots of money for NYC, but in today's wired world it could move, say, every four years like the Olympics, to another country. Let other countries share the wealth. Let them host the villainous crowd that wants Americans dead. Every country might pay based on population. Who can estimate the real cost to the average American of the UN in NYC? It's a staggering bureaucracy. If it's moved to a small African country there will be very poor attendance. Everyone from abroad on their country's payroll loves the NYC highlife. It's a shame and a shame.

    65. Charles Renno says:

      The United Nations is a group of nations united against US. We are self-flagelating to continue to support them.

    66. George, FL. says:

      A study S/B made by The Heritage Foundation to determine what would be a fair assessment to the USA and pay no more than that. We should move the UN to another location outside the USA and use the property to better advantage for us. Also, let's stop all foreign aide to those countries who hate and mock us. We give them money and they laugh at us…time to stop!

    67. Nana says:

      Get out of the UN. They do more harm than good. Every country should pay its own way. But Eurpoe has done paid its own way since WWII. Its about time they started.

    68. Observer says:

      March 5, 1947 Winston Churchill made a famouse speech at Westminster College in Fulton, Mo. It was entitled "Sinews of Peace", aka "The Iron Curtain" speech. He was extolling the United Nations but was describing "NATO". Move the UN to Geneva Switzerland and let every member bear their share of the cost. If 3rd world countries have to pay their own way they may not be so hot to join.

    69. WFJM says:

      NO! BUT IT SHOULD BE MOVED TO THE LEFT COAST !

    70. gary says:

      Of coarse not___GB

    71. N C Timpson says:

      Not Only No! HELL NO!!!! Move it to Switzerland or some other nutral country. Turn the UN building into a conference center on the main floors and Homeless shelter as well as move all the homeless and social services in the City into it the building. Since we are already paying for the use of the building it would most likely save us money and get those ingrates out of our country.

    72. Disheartened says:

      I think we should send them all home to get them out of New York and cut their funding.
      They do not appreciate what we do for them. If they are going to stay split the bill but all nations and make everyone pay their parking tickets and if they break the law send them home.

    73. Jerry says:

      The U.N. needs to move to another country then our government should carefully consider how much and what to fund. When country's who treat their own citizens harshly and are on the Human Rights committee something is wrong with this picture.

    74. Jeanne Stotler says:

      No and we should go back to the Monroe Doctrine, James Monroe warned about getting involved in the internal government of other nations, maybe it's time to take heed. We also need to stopouring millions of our tax dollars into nations that hate us. If there is a Hurricane, tsunami, earthquake or any other work of God, let churches and Red Cross take care of geting funds, our tax dollars need to take care of us here, We need to look into the fact that China was given a lot of money over the years and is now loaning?? it back to us, this smells and needs an answer to how this happened. Also collect monies owed us for our help.

    75. Robert Murry says:

      NO! The UN is nothing but a bunch of theives, dictators and ne'er do wells. We should cut their charter and see how they like holding their meeting in glamorous Botswana. I'll bet they can't get Gucci shoes there. "Throw the bums out!"

    76. Carol says:

      NO! We need to get out of the UN and if we can send them packing. I had no idea that they owned the building they are now in. We have no use for the UN and we sure do not want them telling us how to live and what to do. NO SHARIA LAW. If we stay in they will enforce it.

    77. Nedlip says:

      The U.N. is a waste of our money. They seek "New World Order" government. Send them to Switzerland and leave us in peace!

    78. Susan Drollinger says:

      Know the UN and their hate for the US and NO UN in the US!

    79. Michael says:

      NO! It's time to cease being a member and evict the whole damn outfit. Nothing but a bunch of useless, lying, money thieving, blowhards! They're only here to suck off us and give it to their own corrupt governments. I live by the Constitution the way the founding fathers wrote it, (not the perverted mess it is now), and that's the only governing law I live by, besides the law of God all mighty!

    80. Bobinboro says:

      If the UN wants a new building have them build it in Teheran. Maybe that would finally get them out of the US. Then we could begin in earnest to force our politicians to get us out of the UN

    81. frugaloter says:

      Perfect opportunity to suggest they find another site in another country ASAP!

    82. Karla, CA says:

      NO! And why do they "need" a new building, anyway? What's wrong with the old one? Not cushy enough?

    83. Edward Perkins says:

      There is no international organization that has done more harm to the USA, than the UN. It talks peace and sews divisiveness while helping bankrupt the USA. Now it wants the USA to spend $88,000,000 on a new UN building to do more of the same? We have got to be fools to continue to support the UN. Get out of the UN.

    84. Chuck says:

      I would not give this 'one world government' bunch of bums the time of day much less money. They are socialist crooks bent on destroying the U.S.

    85. William Brown says:

      After reading about this topic per above, I can only reply to Robert of TX…..Congress is not only NOT listening to the public, they are going off half-cocked and do their own thing which has NEVER worked. When are we going to truly have a body of REPRESENTATIVES that represent the will of the people and abide by the Constitution. Let's all of us …. "We the People" study the two sentences in the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence and take the advice of our Founders. We do that first and then ….. get the US out of thde UN and get the UN out of the US and then rebuild America for posterity. .

    86. mort_f says:

      The UN was a vain attempt to correct the failings of the League of Nations, and like its forerunner, it too has failed miserably. June 26, 1950 should have been the eye-poener. It is insane to believe that the situation will ever get any better in the UN.

      Under the League of Nations, there were several useful forums established. They have stood the test of time, and have even continued where there has been open warfare. Only because they were of mutual intest to absolute adversaries. They do not need a UN for them to continue.

      With the present administration, it has become even more egregrious. With attempts to elevate the UN to negate the US Constitution.

    87. Disgusted says:

      No, absolutely not! Since we are the major supporter of this organization, why were we not asked before they undertook a massive and expensive building program as they will look to us to finance this project? “The vision of the U.N. Charter–to spare succeeding generations this scourge of war–remains real. ", real? The reality is that our involvement in the U.N. has not prevented any war! Recently, under the cover of the U.N. we used drones to bomb Lybia, and have now sent troops into Lybia…using our troops, at American taxpayer expense, to police the world, NO to any American taxpayer dollars being spent on a project that will surely soar beyond $4 million dollars! We need to withdraw from the U.N., and request they withdraw from the United States.

    88. Thesageoftheprairie says:

      Was this supposed to be a hard question; well, it's not. The answer is NO!
      Why would we want to pay for the rest of the world to gang up on US (USA)?
      What the [blank], I knew in the 1950s when I took a college course, International
      Organizations, that, sooner or later, the UN would be a bust. But, as usual,
      the so-called intelligencia of the United States is 40 to 50 years behind the curve.

    89. larry says:

      I have said for years, the U.S. should get out of the U.N. and get the U.N. out of the U.S. I don't like my tax dollars going to the support of the U.N. This is another step toward one world Government.

    90. Charles Claywell says:

      Ray, Mo.
      We should NOT allow this new building to go up!!! We should stay in the UN BUT we should lower our "Contribution" to equal that of the least member with veto power. If we did that, the UN would leave our country voluntarily.

    91. doc-polymer says:

      Removing ourselves from the UN would most likely cause the collapse of the UN. No longer would we be subjected to the arbitrations of a body that holds the USA in contempt. Without this power over the USA, most of the member countries would find no profit in belonging and go home. They would still hold us in contempt, but would have to spend their own funds to exercise their contempt. Most would decide that the dollars and effort excerted to support the powerless UN were not worth it.
      In a simple statement. Why are we supporting a group of anti americian, anti-freedom, anti-liberty,anti-Christ, anti- democracy. Allo the values that America stand for.

    92. Harold Colvard says:

      Get us out of tha UN immediately

    93. Mell Kilpatrick says:

      The League of Nations no longer exist, the United Nations is also ineffective, time too leave.

    94. ThomNJ says:

      Wow – it is bad enough that some of my posts don't get listed – and none have contained foul language or the like – and I am even a contributing member of the Heritage Foundation – I commented on this earlier agreeing with others and replied to one. My reply was listed earlier, but now I see even that has been deleted – what gives Heritage? Is it because I don't use intensedebate, wordpress, twitter or facebook?

    95. buck says:

      America needs to get out of the U.N and the U.N needs to be removed from America . America needs to organize a new world body that will accept Americas constitution and bill of rights for membership qualification . No members should be permitted whose human rights records are worse than America . This would preclude all Muslim countries as well as all dictatorehips and royalty run countries as well as all communist countries and socialist countries .

    96. richard s. smith says:

      Discontinue the U>S> membership inb the U>N. They can move to someother country.

    97. Guest says:

      We should remain in the UN only if we pay only our proportionate share of the costs based on equal division among countries at one share per country.
      I believe that that would reduce our share to less than 0.5%of the total.

    98. Billy Bowlegs says:

      Withdraw and no more funds until the US has a balanced and reduced buget.

    99. John Beans says:

      We need to make Obama the Secretary General of the UN and Move it to The Hague.

    100. hankrearden says:

      After the oil scandal exposed by Fox News a few years ago it bacame clear that nothing short of murder would extract us from our commitment to the U.N. Wait – there ARE murderous regimes in the U.N. Wjile we distract our children from studying history by diverting their attention to sex ed and diversity, the historical example of U.N. failure lies in the vaunted League of Nations. From trashing the Polish anti ballistic missile agreement to letting Iran get away with assassination plots on our soil, the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue has proven his naivete regarding foreign affairs is even more dangerous than his ignorance of basic economics.

    101. Larry Zunino says:

      They've got to be kidding!!! Spend a half-billion dollars+, by the time they are through with a new building…. That's crazy in a world of financial turmoil. Besides, the UN has always been corrupt in more ways than one….
      Who in heck are we trying to fool? Most of the nations have nothing but disdane for the U.S., always have!
      Let the "UN" decide where to locate and how to finance another home for themselves…not, simply "expect" it from the U.S.

      LarryZ

    102. Pat O'Lone says:

      How long will it be before muslim nations demand that the USA give up it's veto power in the security council because it is a christian Nation? How many friends do you think we have to help us defeat that motion? Our own President would likely support the idea!

    103. Bald Eagle says:

      The UN is antagonistic to most things that the US stands for. It is an easy access to this country for the dregs of the world societies. It wastes even more resources (money) than our own congress. This (My) country would be far better off if the new UN building was in some other country – maybe then we could pay a more fair part of its expenses, altho I believe we are better off without it in its current form.

    104. James says:

      NO, What does our government not understand? No!!!!!! Move it! close it down, be done with it!!!!! They serve no purpose other than to give killers a platform to spread their hate!!!!!!!

    105. Jack says:

      We should get the hell out of the UN and kick their butts out of America. I am angry that my tax money is used to support that crooked, corrupt, ineffective group of morons and yes, the American Ambassador to the UN is also a moron.

    106. June says:

      The UN is obsolete and top heavy with self serving, bigoted nations, which years ago were banned from membership. It has outlived its usefulness and exceeded its original mantra to areas where it has no business. And now it's a cash cow – run, don't walk out of the organizantion.

    107. edmac says:

      NO! NO! NO! The UN is anti-American and I believe it works to bring down the U.S. any way it can.
      They serve no purpose but to drain money form the U.S.

    108. Jim Buzzell says:

      The United States of America should be out of that Socialist organization. We have no business or security interest that would require the US to maintain it's membership in that organization; and we should definitly not participate in building a new building for the Rockerfeller Foundation who owns the property, and building thereon. If the UN wwere to move to another location thsy cannot talke the property and buildings with them therefore the Rockerfellers profit at taxpayer expense, and whoever else contributes to the new building. The UN is a socialist, Onw World Order joke.

    109. bill says:

      We should ask the UN to leave and relocate some where else. The UN is a place where poeople of other countries go and find ways to enrich themself but not the countries they represent. It is corrupt and offers the world nothing but greed and self enrichment.

    110. Leith N Wood says:

      The U. N. has been a farce for some time. We should get out and not pay another cent. There is no common sense at the U. N., no great love for America and we are fools, if we remain.

    111. Peter Welles says:

      Get the UN out of the United States completely! Let them build their bureaucratically bloated building elsewhere. And while we're at it, cut funding to 5% or less. Better we create a new organization of free nations, which will serve the same purpose as the UN but without the total animosity.

    112. turtle says:

      The UN shouldn't be in NYC or anywhere in the States. For years I have wanted it moved to a neutral country like Switzerland or Sweden. Enough already. Diplomats get free parking, huge expense accts.
      What a $$ pit!! Enough already!!

    113. T.F.Conley says:

      The UN has long been just another theater of conflict with our enemies whether communists, statists, radical islamists or economic competitors. We are asked by the liberals to remain in the UN in order to support its humanitarian goals. When confronted by superior numbers, however, the experienced defender withdraws from exposed positions to one more secure, sacrificing those sectors which seemed beneficial to broader goals. Americans seem unable to give up "moral causes" simply because of their supposed morality. Realpolitik demands that we pull out and now, perhaps finding other, less injurious ways to help those peoples and nations in need.

    114. Kirby says:

      "However, each country's own priorities come first.." I believe this statement alone explains why we should, as a temporary measure, withdraw funding to other countries and THEIR interests (UN) until we can set our own fiscal issues on a manageable course. Our friends will understand. Our enemies will complain and become someone else's financial sinkhole.

    115. SFC (Ret) J.Harvey says:

      When we get 20 percent of the vote, then and only then is it justified to charge us 22 percent of the cost. The UN was set up to foster world peace. They have failed sibce the first day. We were told that WW2 was started because we did not belong to the Leaque of Nations and we were shamed into joining. I firmly beleive that we should get the UN out of the US and let them go it alone.
      SFC (Ret) John W/ Harvey

    116. Ron Ceres says:

      Carrying the U.N. makes as much sense as a second term for our "Liar in Chief."

    117. Ric Farrah says:

      We are already suffering through a corrupt DC. Do we really need another corrupt organization in NYC? Cut them loose and save the 22% we pay in dues, borrowed from China. The question kind of answers itself.

    118. Steve says:

      Get out these are not out friends

    119. Thor H. Asgardson says:

      The United States of America is Supreme Shogun of the planet, NOT the phony storefront of the international bankers, known as "U.N.."

      The great question for the American people to decide is whether they will allow this nation to be remain a vassal state of the United Nations, or whether America wil continue to exert freedom and independence, by ruling the oceans of the world with a strong, beefed-up Navy.

      U.S. naval blockade is far more effective in advancing our national interests, than so-called " United Nations sanctions."

    120. Eileen says:

      I agree – I too, think that they should move their headquarters to ICELAND or how about Saudia Arabia! Simply get out of our country. THE USA SHOULD NOT BE SUBSIDIZING A GROUP THAT TOLERATES INSURRECTION. THEY ARE A GROUP OF FINANCIAL HANGER-ONS THAT DO NOT SUPPORT THE USA..we must not give them another COPPER!!! WE MUST get out of the UN..
      Eileen.

    121. THE SOOTHSAYER says:

      "OTBM" (OCCUPY TURTLE BAY MOVEMENT) to gather together to live in tents and squat free of charge and have haute cuisine chefs feed us just to get face time on MSNBC with Chris Matthews. Our White Paper demands are few and simple; first, vacate the East 42nd Street facility and, after intense extermination, turn it into a senior citizens living facility; second, exit the United States completely moving the entire office operation to the 110 story tall building in Abu Dabai.

    122. chris keller says:

      My opinion is that the United States needs to kick this organization out of this country and move to a different country!!! The United Nations has turned into a Marxist Socialist ogranization and these diplomatic flunkies and crooks do is mock and spit on the United States!!! I wish the United States starts a new group of freedom loving and liberty global organization.

    123. George says:

      I think that the UN should move to Dafur, What a economic boon to one of Africa's Countries or regions!!!

    124. ;LIKHOSIDJF says:

      It looks censors are at work here. I wrote a positive comment about America and free enterprise and wouldn't be surprised if it never sees the light of day.
      So far the comments have not been listed. I guess free speech is censored unless the wright things are said.

    125. Anita says:

      Hell No. To top it off we should get out of this communist,fascist, marxist organization. We should take all of our marbles and go home. Let them rent space in the UN Bldg. in New York at $50,000 a sq. inch and pay all of this money toward our National Debt. The world owes us this.

    126. John in PA. says:

      I am old enough to remember when the UN was chartered. From the beginning I always suggested that the UIN should be located on the Canary Islands. They have a very adequate airport…….and good housing.

    127. Wm. Poole says:

      The United Nations is a complete farce! Allowing totally incompetent individuals , AT GREAT EXPENSE, to set our Nations Policies is obsurd. The John Birch Society of 40 to 50 years past were way ahead of us!

      The United States should resign from this group immediately. Their Headquarters should be moved to Iceland where one of our group suggested. This would reduce the U.N. Cost of operation for those who wish to continue the idea. The Numbers present and cost of Lodging would be greatly reduced since the Dining and Night Clubs would not be available and Attendant would drop due to lack of attractions such as New York. Only serious Attendees would venture there!

    128. S. Gearing says:

      The 200 M$ the UN is said to cost is surely a piffle compared to the business having it in New York generates. If 22% is the wrong share for the US to pay, negotiate a better deal. If we abandon every group with which we have important differences, we have to get rid of the Federal Congress, with, I suppose, a cocktail-party-supported noCong amendment to the Const. Recognizing Palestine is probably a good thing. Sniveling at Bibi has done absolutely nothing to abate building settlements in areas everyone except religiously extremist Israelis recognizes as rightly allocated to Palestine in any two state solution to the impasse there and UN recognition may help do that. Neither, speaking of where we could save some big US taxpayer bucks, has the 3 billion odd we send to Israel every year given us much clout in achieving a deal. The UN does lots of non-controversial things that are very useful, having it here lets us monitor general assembly buzz more closely than if it were abroad; foreigners come here and get a look at what we are about – a good thing.

    129. Mike says:

      UN stands for UnNecessary. In my opinion, it is the most dysfunctional and corrupt organization on the face of the earth, and the US taxpayers should not carry its water!

    130. TEDRO says:

      It's time we kicked the un out of the USA , it has become a corrupt , money hungry group of dictators that is only interested in a one world order and they as the supreme leaders. stop funding the useless un.

    131. Ron W. Smith says:

      The questions to ask about the U.N. should begin with these: (1) Without a United Nations organization, what will replace it as an international forum?, (2) If the United States doesn't put up most of the funding for the U.N. or a replacement organization, who will and what will possible consequences be?
      There's no question the United Nations has been in too many ways a dismal failure. All the peoples of the world, though, are on this planet together and have no evidence that going it alone–without an international organization–has ever worked or ever can. History is crammed full with the bad outcomes of life in this world without a unifying, uniting organization.
      The dilemma for us is that we really can't afford to"carry the U.N." any longer any more than we can afford to maintain 700 military installations around the world. Priorities here are going unmet because we're far in debt and insist on international presence as we've known it ever since WWII. Something has to give. That's obvious. Wide open debate and discussion would be a nice start in lieu of the kinds of agenda-driven solutions by vested interests that are rapidly becoming "The American Way."

    132. Mark Hawthorne says:

      The UN is definitely UNAmerican. Give them the boot and get America out of there.

    133. Jan Zimmerman says:

      The U.S. should definitely get out of the UN and force it to move to some Middle East enclave. Just like the League of Nations, we should leave. Of course, the liberals in New York will complain about the economic impact. So what! There are many ways for countries to work together for common causes without these "group gropes" which are self-serving instead of serving the world. It is a an insult when you place Cuba and China to Chair the Humanities organization in the UN. The UN is watering down the sovereignty of the United States under the Obama administration who believes in world bodies, laws and currencies.

    134. Gerri Randall says:

      Get out of the United Nations.

    135. Gerri Randall says:

      We need to get out of the United Nations and no new building.

    136. Judith says:

      NO! The UN has become Anti-American and Anti-Israel. It is mostly made up of thugs and political hacks. One can only imagine how much money, that was supposed to go to aid other countries, ended up in the pockets of of these diplomats.

    137. Larry Boeckmann says:

      There is sufficient evidence to prove that the purpose and intent of the UN is establish a one world government with the only god allowed is the state itself. It is evident that they are trying to establish a one world currency. Get us out of the UN and the UN out of what is left of America

    138. June says:

      Our present "Goal" should be to defund, disband AND eject the un from American shores! The un has, NEVER, backed US, in any arena, nor have they lived up to their own charter – -helping to found this fraudulent dirtpile was a serious mistake! Time to make it "go away"! The un has always been a "taker"- – the USA has always been a "giver"!

    139. @Chimpestry says:

      The US should inform the UN that it is withdrawing from the organization, giving up its voting rights in both the Security Council and General Assembly at some set future date between 2 and 5 years. The US should also end all funding for the UN and its subsidiary organizations and programs on the same schedule, allowing some flexibility determined by the importance of the program for the US and previous contractual obligations made by the US. Arrangement should be made for the continued use of the current UN headquarters, so long as the organization agrees to pay a reasonable rental fee and covers the extra costs imposed on the US and NYC by the UN HQ's location and operations. No expansion of the facility on US soil should be allowed and the UN should be urged to relocate outside the US, as soon as possible.

    140. Guest says:

      Short answer to your headline: NO!
      we should not contribute any greater amount than (at most)
      the average amount from other nations

    141. Robert Turner says:

      Why should we support the UN in any way, materially, financially or with another building to house other socialist organizations that seek to destroy us. I believe it to be in our best interest to have the UN permanently removed from American soil. What have we benefited by having this corrupt organization in America? It has been a financial drain on our resources when other countries have used oil money to further their agenda at our expense.
      I take issue with those who are against Israel. The trials we are enduring are as the result of ignoring the ordained nature of a nation and people that existed long before Palestine became an issue.

    142. Blair Franconia, NH says:

      Since 1945, the United States has always helped the UN. This debate is an old one. It dates back to the founding
      of the United Nations. We should bear no more than what we can afford. We can't afford 22% of what the UN
      costs right now. We can afford 12%, if that, right now. The League of Nations was our idea. It was in the Treaty of
      Versailles. The Treaty of Versailles, which ended World War I, went down to defeat in an Isolationist U.S. Senate.

    143. gary says:

      get the UN out of the USA!!!!

    144. Marian Lampl says:

      No. The preponderance of nations do not have our beliefs and yet have an equal weight in the vote,. Our only edge is our veto in the Security Council. In todays financial times the UN should not be building a new buiilding. What's wrong with the present one. I also do not think we should conribute 22% to it. How can we avoid the 22%?

    145. George Tolhurst says:

      Take a giant bulldozer push the U.N. into the East River and let them all drown after giving them 15 minutes to get out.
      The U.N. created by the Douncil of Foreign Relations and insiders to create a one world goverment with it's charter written by the convicted communist Algier Hiss.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×