Speaking at The Heartland Institute’s Madrid climate conference on December 3, Dr. William Happer, a former science advisor to the president said, “By far the most important thing that Mr. Trump did concerning climate change was to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. That was not an easy decision because a good fraction of his own supporters, his own party, were begging him to remain in the treaty.”
Happer is right. It took great courage for the president to announce that the U.S. would get out of Paris this year, the very first opportunity to do so. And it was indeed the right thing to do. Besides its nonsensical objective of limiting ‘Earth’s temperature’ rise as if we had a global thermostat, the agreement lets developing countries largely off the hook. This despite the fact that non-OECD countries are now the greatest source of energy-related carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions.

But it is not enough. If Trump wins another term, he should get out of the treaty that underlies the Paris Agreement and all the others like it. This would be highly flawed 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Trump could work to get the U.S. out of, or disregard, each of the UNFCCC-based agreements one by one. But this would result in years of conflict. It is far better to be done with the hugely expensive and unscientific UNFCCC climate fiasco once and for all. Joe Bast, former president and CEO of Heartland (now a Senior Fellow at Heartland), a national non-profit research center based in Arlington Heights, Ill., summed up the situation well: “This really is a case where cutting the tail off the dog all at once, rather than an inch at a time, is the right move. It would be the shot heard around the world and bring the whole man-made global warming house of cards tumbling down.”
Bast is also right. But there is an even bigger fish to fry in a second term of a Trump administration – get America out of the United Nations entirely.
So many Americans, particularly those in politics, have been brainwashed into thinking the U.N. constitutes something beneficial to the United States. It is not. Nevertheless, we’re not sure that even Trump can extricate us the way he got us out of Paris and the Iran nuclear deal. But it’s worth his best effort.
Most of us are aware that the members of the organization are the worst imaginable human rights offenders. They include Russia, China, North Korea and over two dozen Arab and Muslim dictatorships. Two of those nations, Russia and China, even have veto power over all U.N. activities.

The diplomats spend most of their time passing anti-Israel resolutions, trying to bully the U.S. into surrendering its sovereignty to those who desire a One World government and allowing countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia to head up the Committee on Human Rights (that is not a joke).

We all know about UN peace-keepers, but you may not know that frequently, at the first sign of danger, the guys in the baby blue helmets turn and run. Their own human rights record in Africa and Asia on peacekeeping missions is deplorable. The fact that we even pick up most of the expense to run the UN is really embarrassing. We do this while reaping no benefits from the organization whatsoever. The foreign staffs of the member countries of the U.N. have diplomatic immunity, allowing them to thumb their noses at the New York City police as they double-park all over the City.
What the U.N. most closely resembles is a bizarre comedy film of children running a school for their own benefit without adult supervision. They tend to elect people from Third World countries to act as front men and women in order to promote the illusion that even the smallest, poorest nations are the equal of the richest and most powerful. Why else would the nine U.N. Secretary Generals have come from Norway, Sweden, Burma, Austria, Peru, Egypt, Ghana, South Korea and, currently, Portugal?
The most democratic aspect of the U.N. is that the offspring of these Secretary Generals, such as Kofi Annan’s son, get to use their father’s influence to get rich in much the same way as Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, did.
When Democrats like Bernie Sanders insist that felons, including convicted terrorists, should be allowed to vote in our elections, he’s merely following the lead of the United Nations, where the worst tyrannies on earth, such as China, which sends political dissidents and members of religious minorities to concentration camps, are encouraged to condemn Israel for human rights violations.
There are 193 nations that are official members, along with two — the Catholic Church and the state of Palestine — that have observer status. When it comes to those issues that matter the most to the United States, we can only count on seven or eight votes to support our position and maybe a dozen or so abstentions from our alleged friends and allies in Europe. But that’s a lot more than Israel can ever expect.
One of the few American politicians who has voiced any interest in getting the U.S. out of the U.N. and the U.N. out of the U.S. is House member Thomas Massie (R-Kentucky) who has sponsored the American Sovereignty Restoration Act (HR 204) which he has nicknamed “Amexit” after the Brits voted for a “Brexit” from the U.N.-like EU.
Rep. Massie sums it up in this fashion: “The best thing you can say about the United Nations is it’s mostly ineffective, but I hate that we waste our hard-earned taxpayer money on it. A lot of the foreign relations bills that come before us in Congress will include lines like ‘Whereas the U.N. has said this…’ or ‘the U.N. has decided that…’ – well, that’s almost an automatic no vote for me, because why would I defer to the United Nations if we’re a sovereign country?”
Whether Trump can succeed in getting the U.S. out of the U.N. is an open question. But let’s hope the American people give him a chance to try do so with a second term.