Huckabee: We should jackhammer the UN into the East River

[mystery-ak]

Huckabee: We should jackhammer the UN into the East River
By Mallory Shelbourne - 12/27/16 08:30 AM EST

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) on Tuesday called for the U.S. to rid itself of the United Nations, after the U.N. voted to censure Israel for settlement building.

“I think we ought to get jackhammers and we ought to jackhammer the whole thing off, float it into the East River,” Huckabee told “Fox & Friends.”

“Ask anybody who would like to host it, to come pick it up, haul it off. And it will be a lot easier to park in Manhattan after we get rid of it.”

The U.N. Security Council on Friday voted 14-0 to condemn Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The U.S. had the ability to veto the resolution, but abstained from doing so.

more
http://thehill.com/policy/international/311857-huckabee-we-should-jackhammer-the-united-nations-into-the-east-river

[Bigun]

Right on Huck!  RIGHT ON!

The UN has NEVER served any useful purpose for the USA that I can discern!

[andy58-in-nh]

Bulldoze the building, salt the earth beneath it, and then nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

[skeeter]

Bulldoze the building, salt the earth beneath it, and then nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

The lunatic Dreyfus showed us how to do it forty years ago.

[Suppressed]

If we did that, we would owe them a heck of a lot of money for demolishing their property on their land.  They could use the money they'd get to become even stronger.

[Chosen Daughter]

I'm all for it.  Worthless disgusting organization.

[corbe]

   Nikki will certainly have her hands full, I definitely want to give her the benefit of the doubt, she's smart and the bar is set pretty low here:

[truth_seeker]

Could not our Congress pass a bill demanding the UN move within a set time limit, and could not a President sign such a bill?

It could be along the lines, of "It has cost us a lot of money, to play host for all these years. Time for somebody else to step up. Plus we are not happy with stunts that bring results we do not approve of."

I think this could be done in 100 days or less. Give them a couple of years to move. I'm sure any number of countries/cities would love the economic activity from hosting the UN's Hq.

[Suppressed]

Could not our Congress pass a bill demanding the UN move within a set time limit, and could not a President sign such a bill?

It could be along the lines, of "It has cost us a lot of money, to play host for all these years. Time for somebody else to step up. Plus we are not happy with stunts that bring results we do not approve of."

I think this could be done in 100 days or less. Give them a couple of years to move. I'm sure any number of countries/cities would love the economic activity from hosting the UN's Hq.

I know that fascism and eminent-domain seizures of private property are the new chic trend, but some of us will still stand up to oppose big government intruding on property it doesn't own.

[Bigun]

I know that fascism and eminent-domain seizures of private property are the new chic trend, but some of us will still stand up to oppose big government intruding on property it doesn't own.

Under both customary international law and the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic and Consular Relations of 1963 (of which IIRC the U.S. is not a member but generally abides by its provisions), property of foreign missions (whether embassies or something less formal) or the facilities of non-governmental organizations like the UN or NATO is not "foreign soil" as the movies would have you believe -- it is and always remains the property of the host country. However, the host country makes certain promises when granting permission for a foreign on NGO entity to establish a mission; in particular, it promises that it will hold the facilities inviolate and will not enter or otherwise harass them or the personnel without that government's permission.

We could witdraw from the UN tomorrow and require them to get their asses out of our country IF we had the cajones to do it!

[thackney]

Under both customary international law and the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic and Consular Relations of 1963 (of which IIRC the U.S. is not a member but generally abides by its provisions), property of foreign missions (whether embassies or something less formal) or the facilities of non-governmental organizations like the UN or NATO is not "foreign soil" as the movies would have you believe -- it is and always remains the property of the host country. However, the host country makes certain promises when granting permission for a foreign on NGO entity to establish a mission; in particular, it promises that it will hold the facilities inviolate and will not enter or otherwise harass them or the personnel without that government's permission.

We could witdraw from the UN tomorrow and require them to get their asses out of our country IF we had the cajones to do it!

A special headquarters agreement, signed by Secretary-General Trygve Lie and US secretary of state George C. Marshall at Lake Success on 26 June 1947, has been in force since 21 November 1947.

It defines the 18 acres of land in New York City located between 42nd and 48th Streets and First Avenue and the Franklin D. Roosevelt Drive as the Headquarters District of the United Nations.

Subsequently, by supplemental agreements between the UN and the US, additional office space located in buildings in the vicinity has been included in the Headquarters District.

The Headquarters District is "under the control and authority of the United Nations as provided in this agreement."

It is the seat of the UN, and the agreement stipulates that the district "shall be inviolable."

Federal, state, and local personnel on official duty may enter it only with the consent of the Secretary-General.

The UN may make regulations for the area.

US federal, state, and local law, insofar as it is inconsistent with UN regulations, does not apply here; otherwise, the US courts would have jurisdiction over actions and transactions taking place in the Headquarters District.

Read more: http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/United-Nations/United-Nations-Headquarters-HEADQUARTERS-AGREEMENT-BETWEEN-THE-UN-AND-THE-US.html#ixzz4U8zx62XF

[driftdiver]

I know that fascism and eminent-domain seizures of private property are the new chic trend, but some of us will still stand up to oppose big government intruding on property it doesn't own.

@Suppressed
Does the UN OWN the property they sit on?   The UN was created with the idea that nations talking would reduce war.    There is more violence and war in the world now than ever before and the UN is a big part of it.  The UN has made statements that the worlds population is the biggest problem facing earth and it needs to be reduced by 75%.   This view guides every policy they make.  Which is why they don't act to protect people but instead to protect natural resources and the powerful.   

The UN is a pawn of the Muslim & globalists to subjugate the 99% of the world that doesn't have billions of dollars in their pocket.

You may want to find a different hill to die on to defend personal freedom.

[Suppressed]

Under both customary international law and the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic and Consular Relations of 1963 (of which IIRC the U.S. is not a member but generally abides by its provisions), property of foreign missions (whether embassies or something less formal) or the facilities of non-governmental organizations like the UN or NATO is not "foreign soil" ...

So, are you Cliffy, or did you just plagiarize him without attribution or reading the rest of that thread.

This is not a foreign mission or an embassy, nor are the facikities owned by the US, etc. It was John D. Rockefeller, Jr's, property that he gave to the UN.  They built the complex on it.

So Cliffy's post was irrelevant/wrong.

[driftdiver]

A special headquarters agreement, signed by Secretary-General Trygve Lie and US secretary of state George C. Marshall at Lake Success on 26 June 1947, has been in force since 21 November 1947.

It defines the 18 acres of land in New York City located between 42nd and 48th Streets and First Avenue and the Franklin D. Roosevelt Drive as the Headquarters District of the United Nations.

Subsequently, by supplemental agreements between the UN and the US, additional office space located in buildings in the vicinity has been included in the Headquarters District.

The Headquarters District is "under the control and authority of the United Nations as provided in this agreement."

It is the seat of the UN, and the agreement stipulates that the district "shall be inviolable."

Federal, state, and local personnel on official duty may enter it only with the consent of the Secretary-General.

The UN may make regulations for the area.

US federal, state, and local law, insofar as it is inconsistent with UN regulations, does not apply here; otherwise, the US courts would have jurisdiction over actions and transactions taking place in the Headquarters District.

Read more: http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/United-Nations/United-Nations-Headquarters-HEADQUARTERS-AGREEMENT-BETWEEN-THE-UN-AND-THE-US.html#ixzz4U8zx62XF

@thackney
Those in control of the UN ignore the law when its useful.  They ignore International law, federal, state and local law which they are subject to when outside the UN space.

The UN is a tool that the powerful and rich are using against us.  I will not ever defend them.

[driftdiver]

So, are you Cliffy, or did you just plagiarize him without attribution or reading the rest of that thread.

This is not a foreign mission or an embassy, nor are the facikities owned by the US, etc. It was John D. Rockefeller, Jr's, property that he gave to the UN.  They built the complex on it.

So Cliffy's post was irrelevant/wrong.

@Suppressed
Well well well, such a shocking surprise to see that name attached to this evil organization.  /s

[thackney]

@thackney
Those in control of the UN ignore the law when its useful.  They ignore International law, federal, state and local law which they are subject to when outside the UN space.

The UN is a tool that the powerful and rich are using against us.  I will not ever defend them.

I'm not defending the UN.  I am defending property rights by the owners.  The owners are the UN and have an agreement with the US government.

I support the US leaving the UN and really want them to start by withdrawing funding.  But I do not support ignoring the rule of law, regardless of the actions of others.

[Bigun]

So, are you Cliffy, or did you just plagiarize him without attribution or reading the rest of that thread.

This is not a foreign mission or an embassy, nor are the facikities owned by the US, etc. It was John D. Rockefeller, Jr's, property that he gave to the UN.  They built the complex on it.

So Cliffy's post was irrelevant/wrong.

NO! You are wrong! We could and IMHO should withdraw from the UN immediately and require them to get their sorry asses out of our country but of course, we won't do that because we have become FAR too gutless and politically correct for that!

[Suppressed]

I'm not defending the UN.  I am defending property rights by the owners.  The owners are the UN and have an agreement with the US government.

I support the US leaving the UN and really want them to start by withdrawing funding.  But I do not support ignoring the rule of law, regardless of the actions of others.

 :thumbsup2:

[Suppressed]

@Suppressed
Well well well, such a shocking surprise to see that name attached to this evil organization.  /s

@driftdiver

Yeah...no big shock there, eh?

I know that Trump says that people whose property is taken by eminent domain are "happy" about it, but I doubt that the UN would be happy, nor would Trump if his tower was taken.  In fact, it's amusing to see that on the Straight Dope thread Bigun posted from, someone points out: "I think that the UN owns the UN building, in much the same way that Donald Trump owns the Trump Tower."

I'm no fan of the UN.  I do think that we should remain in it, just to be a thorn in their side (and, it has its uses to American interests), but I don't think we should be funding it much.

[driftdiver]

I'm not defending the UN.  I am defending property rights by the owners.  The owners are the UN and have an agreement with the US government.

I support the US leaving the UN and really want them to start by withdrawing funding.  But I do not support ignoring the rule of law, regardless of the actions of others.

@thackney

The rule of law has become ineffective where it concerns the UN and its getting worse.     

[thackney]

@thackney

The rule of law has become ineffective where it concerns the UN and its getting worse.     

I don't favor ignoring the rule of law because of the law breaking of others.

Which laws would you find it acceptable to have the feds take your property if you broke them? 

[driftdiver]

@driftdiver

@Suppressed
I'm no fan of the UN.  I do think that we should remain in it, just to be a thorn in their side (and, it has its uses to American interests), but I don't think we should be funding it much.

Why?   The concept of the United Nations is appealing but as in everything the Devil is in the details.  The UN was created to prevent another WWII.   Instead its being used as a way to subjugate people, redistribute wealth, and consolidate power among the un-elected power brokers of the world.

On Fox this morning they had a graphic that showed the UN has passed 20 resolutions this year condemning Israel.  During that same time they passed just 4 for the rest of the world; one for North Korea, one for Syria, one for Iran and one for Russia.

[driftdiver]

I don't favor ignoring the rule of law because of the law breaking of others.

Which laws would you find it acceptable to have the feds take your property if you broke them?

@thackney

And that predisposition for law and order is being used against you and will turn our children into slaves if we don't stop it.   This isn't about ignoring the law to stop your neighbors dog from pooping in the yard.  Its about stopping people intent on destroying this nation and its people.

[Hondo69]

I'm not defending the UN.  I am defending property rights by the owners.  The owners are the UN and have an agreement with the US government.

I support the US leaving the UN and really want them to start by withdrawing funding.  But I do not support ignoring the rule of law, regardless of the actions of others.

You bring up an interesting dilemma - I do not support ignoring the rule of law, regardless of the actions of others.

Having lived in a Banana Republic the past 8 years, I've learned the hard way that the Rule Of Law is a very fungible term.  As of right now today the term Rule Of Law means whatever the hell the president decides it to be.  I can solidly back this notion up with a few encyclopedia's worth of facts and data, but I'll spare you the details for now.

That is Part I of the dilemma.  Part II comes into play when you toss in the fact that not all presidents are treated equally.  When Bush was president he caught hell from both sides when he overstepped his bounds.  The 50/50 split of the country did not matter, he caught hell from both sides.  Yet when Obama overstepped his bounds half of the country was strangely silent.  Absolutely zero push back from the Lockstep Left.

So the dilemma consists of two sad realities:
  [1] The law is determine by the president at whim
  [2] Trump will catch hell no matter what he does - right or wrong

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

@thackney

And that predisposition for law and order is being used against you and will turn our children into slaves if we don't stop it.   This isn't about ignoring the law to stop your neighbors dog from pooping in the yard.  Its about stopping people intent on destroying this nation and its people.

Idiotic comment.