The UN is non-functional. It accomplishes little of worth. It is composed of appointed delegates from all the world, many/most from despotic countries who would love to harm the US and our interests. Unfettered, the UN would be a terrible enemy.
The US, with veto power, is a powerful fetter, limiting US despotism. We leave it, we lose our control, we empower a terrible enemy.
It is unwise to give up our assured control over a likely enemy.
I get your point, and it is not without merit (if we lived in a different reality). But...
1) The U.S. pays about 1/4th of the budget for the U.N.
2) Our globalist representation at the U.N. is leading the globalism, not putting it in check.
3) Even the best President, with the best intentions, will never get a delegate who pushes back against globalism. Nikki Haley comes to mind.
Now, before you say "the globalist bankers will just reroute their funding through a different Member-State"... that may be true, but the snowball effect will have begun, and other Member-States will follow suite, and leave the U.N.
Another 'devil's advocate' point against my argument is that even if we crushed the U.N., it would just resurface, rebranded (like Common-Core). And, my counterpoint to that would be that that may be true, but all of that takes time, disrupts the flow of tyranny, pushes back their timelines and plans, and that may be all we can hope for at this point. Evil will always exist. Satan will always attempt to be appointed King of the World, and sit in the Seat of the Synagogue. Satan is never going to say to man, "I give up, you win". At least not until He comes, riding a horse, and wielding a sword. Until that day, we keep doing our part.
But, at any rate, if we do not stop the WHO takeover in May, most of us won't be here to see any of that.
The UN is non-functional. It accomplishes little of worth. It is composed of appointed delegates from all the world, many/most from despotic countries who would love to harm the US and our interests. Unfettered, the UN would be a terrible enemy.
The US, with veto power, is a powerful fetter, limiting US despotism. We leave it, we lose our control, we empower a terrible enemy.
It is unwise to give up our assured control over a likely enemy.
I get your point, and it is not without merit (if we lived in a different reality). But...
1) The U.S. pays about 1/4th of the budget for the U.N.
2) Our globalist representation at the U.N. is leading the globalism, not putting it in check.
3) Even the best President, with the best intentions, will never get a delegate who pushes back against globalism. Nikki Haley comes to mind.
Now, before you say "the globalist bankers will just reroute their funding through a different Member-State"... that may be true, but the snowball effect will have begun, and other Member-States will follow suite, and leave the U.N.
Another 'devil's advocate' point against my argument is that even if we crushed the U.N., it would just resurface, rebranded (like Common-Core). And, my counterpoint to that would be that that may be true, but all of that takes time, disrupts the flow of tyranny, pushes back their timelines and plans, and that may be all we can hope for at this point. Evil will always exist. Satan will always attempt to be appointed King of the World, and sit in the Seat of the Synagogue. Satan is never going to say to man, "I give up, you win". At least not until He comes, riding a horse, and wielding a sword. Until that day, we keep doing our part.
But, at any rate, if we do not stop the WHO takeover in May, most of us won't be here to see any of that.
I misspoke: limiting UN despotism, not US.