Graham threatens to cut UN funds if Obama tries "end-around" on Iran...

Posted by MinorLiberator 4 years, 4 months ago to Politics
56 comments | Share | Flag

This seems like an excellent "gauntlet" to thrown down right now. I don't know Congressional procedure well enough to say for sure, but it seems that Graham, along with some additional members, could make this happen. This not only seems right to me, but it's the kind of battle we might possibly win, unlike the war to repeal Obamacare righrt now.

Of course, Obama's a slippery SOB, and who knows exactly what he's going to try and do. In the very article his spokesman Earnest says that lifting sanctions "now" would not be part of any deal. And we can sure trust what he says.

And there's always the possibility of a "cave", but I think this is an issue the American people can readily understand, and I don't think cutting of funds to the UN would be seen as the "mean, nasty" thing that a government shutdown would be.
SOURCE URL: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/20/graham-threatens-funds-to-un-bypass-congress-on-iran-sanctions/


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by SaltyDog 4 years, 4 months ago
    Serious question:
    Can anyone on these boards explain to me how ANYTHING that the UN has done over, say the last 50 years or so that has produced a lasting benefit to our country?

    It seems to me that our sole function at that August body is to provide funding for some new (or old) corrupt, hair-brained scheme. Why shouldn't we just tell the UN that we no longer want to play and that they have to move their headquarters out of New York. Greece might be a good spot...they could use the money. With the money we save, we could convert the present UN complex to the worlds' largest homeless shelter! (How could a liberal NOT like that?)
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by freedomforall 4 years, 4 months ago
      "Why shouldn't we just tell the UN that we no longer want to play ..."
      Because they are a socialist, statist organization who want a one world (camouflaged dictatorship) government and so are the elite who control the fedgov.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by SaltyDog 4 years, 4 months ago
        That seems to be a reason why we should tell them to pack up and go and not a reason why we shouldn't.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by freedomforall 4 years, 4 months ago
          Our "we" is not the "we" that they will listen to. Unless you have a way to force them out.
          That would include forcing out the elite in the Dark Center and NYC.
          While I agree with your suggestion, it isn't a practical solution at present.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by SaltyDog 4 years, 4 months ago
            The fact is that there is nothing at all that we as individuals can do about any of the things we all gripe about.

            That's why I decided several years ago that I'd just sit it all out.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by freedomforall 4 years, 4 months ago
              Sounds a lot like dictatorship to me.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by SaltyDog 4 years, 4 months ago
                Alexander Tytler wrote:
                "A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.
                The average age of the world's greatest civilisations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to complacency; From complacency to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage."
                It's really not too hard to discern where we are on this timeline.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by freedomforall 4 years, 4 months ago
                  Thats why it was designed to be a republic, not a democracy. Would have been better yet as an association of independent states under the articles of confederation. Combined together only to facilitate trade and defend liberty of the several states. But Alexander Hamilton and his banksters couldn't pervert and control that as easily, so they used fear of european armies to destroy it and impose the constitution without even a bill of rights. We need an army of Thomas Jeffersons, Aaron Burrs, and Andrew Jacksons to regain what has been stolen,
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by SaltyDog 4 years, 4 months ago
                    While it's true that in original concept, we were to be a democratic republic. It's been quite a while since that description has been appropriate. Edmund Burke wrote that a representative owed the electorate his diligence and his good judgement. In this new century of ours, we are getting neither.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 4 years, 4 months ago
      Serious answer: no, zilch, nada lasting benefit to the US, in fact the direct opposite. The majority of members despise the US, and their primary function seems to inhibit any good the US tries to do, and then make us look like the bad guy in the process. I've been for getting out and throwing them out for years.

      And while I'd prefer a more market oriented solution than yours of a giant homeless shelter, even that would raise the level of integrity and class well above its current level.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 4 years, 4 months ago
    Whatever BHO proposes can be countered by congress. One just needs to know how. Somewhere among the GOP there must be a man who either knows the senate/congressional rules from the inside out, or has someone on his staff that does. It's time to have the courage to counter every Barry move, make it a priority, now that they have the majority. Otherwise, they're just a bunch of thumb-suckers.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  allosaur 4 years, 4 months ago
      Courage is also needed to counteract Opinocchio's favorite water boy, the RINO House Boo-hoo Speaker, who takes true conservative opponents off of committees, doing such angry little boy things.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by sumitch 4 years, 4 months ago
      The House could just not fund it. I imagine when the free lunch ends they'd pack up and leave. Obama said he's going to the UN and do an end around Congress. I thought he is supposed to be a constitutional scholar. If he is (which I very seriously doubt) then he should know that the UN doesn't have squat to say about how or what the United States does or doesn't do. The Senate might want to send them a letter much like was sent to Iran..
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 4 years, 4 months ago
        Your doubts are correct. If you do a little digging on the Net you'll find that Obama was no more a "Professor of Constitutional Law" than Jimmy Carter was a Nuclear Engineer. And yet the latter was able to use those inflated credentials to do great harm to the nuclear industry, as Obama is to the Constitution.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  blarman 4 years, 4 months ago
    I'm tired of threats from the Republicans. I just want action. They've already caved on specific campaign promises that got them elected.

    There's no need to threaten Obama. He's never listened to the threats before and he shows no signs of doing so in the future. Just deny the money already and let's see what he does.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 4 years, 4 months ago
      I do't think anyone here will disagree (and if they do we will hear about it, I'm sure). Empty threats without action are worse than just keeping your mouth shut in the first place. Not that I expected better from him, but look at the "good" Obama's "line in the sand" in Syria did.

      Now that the Rewpublicans have at least some power, this will be a good test case as to whether they'll actually grow some and take action.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Tap2Golf 4 years, 4 months ago
    I was glad to hear Graham m make this announcement. He best move on it post haste. If congress could show healthy bipartisan numbers on this vote it would send a hugh message to bho that I think might shock him. He lives in a cocoon. The problem is getting the dem's votes. I'd be all for it.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Pyawakit 4 years, 4 months ago
    I have said for years that "If your life depends on the UN, you're dead." That is now even changing to allow for the UN to SUPPORT evil in the world. Very little good comes from the UN even on the occasion when their "intentions" are good. I recently read that Nigera, Chad and Cameron and other other African countries are joining to fight Boko Haram and the UN is not supporting and possibly even hampering their efforts.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by woodlema 4 years, 4 months ago
    Empty chatter...Worthless. These GOP Republicrats, Demicans or whatever you want to call the spineless GOP, they don't have the balls, primarily because they are no different than the spendthrift, liberals hell bent on controlling everyone and everything..
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 4 years, 4 months ago
    First of all there is no such thing as a government shutdown. That's Lie number one. Unfortunately the government never shuts down for all essential services. Military, Law Enforcement, Protective Echelon, IRS, Medicare, Social Security, all payrolls, Intelligence agencies. What they shut down are non-essential services - and not much of those. Might not get a mushroom picking license from the Forest Service but the rest goes on.

    Cut funds to the UN? Make my day.

    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 4 years, 4 months ago
      Absolutely agree. Just to clarify, I know there is no such thing as a "government shutdown", but a lot of the public does not, and that is how the MSM portrays it, causing tremors with the R "leadership". It was just a point of comparison, making the point that I don't think there is even an "imagined" reason to cave on this threat. I think a lot of Americans would applaud it, many would go "ho-hum", and the Left, the Administration (and the UN) would go ape-s**t. So be it.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jdg 4 years, 4 months ago
    It seems clear to me that the UN isn't long for this world anyway.

    Like the League of Nations and Congress of Vienna before it, the UN's purpose in being is to freeze in place the result of the World War it was founded after -- and what's left of that result isn't going to last no matter what the UN does now.

    There is about to be another World War. And whatever triggers it, I'm not at all confident that the US will win. Most people here no longer "believe in" our country -- and it may not be possible to reverse that, because the country has splintered into so many groups with differing demands. The Middle East has also splintered -- but China has not.

    I wish I were not living in a major city right now.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 4 years, 4 months ago
    Ha!
    (Next Cave)
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 4 years, 4 months ago
      Well, I think I've covered myself there. But we'll see...

      As I said I'm not sure of the exact machinations required to cut funds to the UN. If it's anything like approving the XL pipeline or repealing Obamacare, i.e., pass both House and Senate and then override the certain veto, then Graham need not have even opened his mouth. If it's something that can be done at the committee level, or, by a simple majority in Congess, I still think it's possible.

      And if it is possible, then I don't see near the political risk that went along with shutting down Homeland Security. In times past (pre-2009 for some reason) there were times we did not pay our UN "dues" and I don't recall it was any big deal to the American people.

      But, they may well cave, and we'll be stood up for the prom again.

      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  jlc 4 years, 4 months ago
    According to Steven Pinker (Better Angels of our Nature) the statistics show that Peacekeeping missions actually do work. By putting someone whose name is neither "Hatfield" nor "MaCoy" down between the feuding parties, you have a better chance of working out a solution that does not involve killing a lot of people (most of whom are non-combatants).

    What the UN gives us in exchange for that funding is the ability to distance ourselves from that process as a country. It is not the "USA" who is sending the peacekeeping mission, it is the "UN". This is important because "USA" is beginning to sound to much of the rest of the world like "HatfieldMacoy".

    Unfair? Yes. Should we mend our fractured fences at home before we venture to other folks' fields? Yep. Am I frequently tempted to endorse isolationism...at least until the other countries say, "Pretty please. We love you."? Boy am I! But then I think how things would have turned out if isolation had won during WWII, and I wonder how many lives would have been saved if we had entered the War a couple of years earlier...

    Jan
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by sumitch 4 years, 4 months ago
      It may be that the military that goes is under the name of the United Nations, but it's mostly our people and dollars that do the going.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  jlc 4 years, 4 months ago
        Precisely. The name is what we are buying from the UN. The decrease in world warfare is what we are investing in.

        Jan
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by SaltyDog 4 years, 4 months ago
          How's that been working out?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  jlc 4 years, 4 months ago
            See above. It does seem to be working, PickledPup (had to do that!), but like you I often begrudge our paying the bill in dollars and lives.

            Jan
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by SaltyDog 4 years, 4 months ago
              I see. Where have you noticed this decrease in world warfare?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  jlc 4 years, 4 months ago
                I did cite my source: Steven Pinker's "The Better Angels of our Nature". He details the statistics of the decrease in warfare due to third party peacekeeping missions. It was surprising to me too - as I had thought that these were a waste of time and money. (Lots of other interesting info in the book too.)

                We tend to suffer from historical myopia, but if you look at a timeline from the 14th century (first era where there were good data) to the present, you can see there were a lot more wars, deaths-via-warfare, and deaths-from-violence then. The graph bumps an lumps its way downwards over the centuries, and does show a significant decrease when third party peacekeeping forces were introduced in modern times.

                Jan
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by SaltyDog 4 years, 4 months ago
                  Has this decrease only come since the inception of the UN, or even the League of Nations? In other words can this decrease that you see be directly or indirectly attributable to the UN? Or could the decrease come from the proliferation of thermonuclear weapons for example?
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by  $  jlc 4 years, 4 months ago
                    I would have to reread the pertinent chapters to answer that level of detail. Sorry - I just do not recall that specifically. My general impression was that he made a good case for peacekeeping missions (which surprised the heck outta me).

                    Jan
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by 4 years, 4 months ago
                  Jan, I will definitely check out your source, it sounds interesting. But just curious where his "present" ends? For example, does it include the past couple of years, Syria, ISIS etc...
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by  $  jlc 4 years, 4 months ago
                    His book was published in 2011, so it does not come right up to the present. I think that his graphs would continue with a big bump for the present turmoil. Nonetheless, it is a compelling overview of the role of civilization and culture to...well...civilize. The general trend is hopeful; our immediate present, not so much!

                    http://www.amazon.com/The-Better-Angels-...

                    Jan
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo