What are we going to do about the United Nations?  Exactly what has the U.N. accomplished? I will grant that the U.N. began with the most noble and loftiest of intentions, but does it still embody those intentions?

It’s ineffectual, it’s corrupt, it’s unelected, it’s dominated by scores of tiny countries which have learned that if they claim discrimination or claim that their “human rights” are being denied, they can make the wealthy, successful nations feel enough guilt (thanks to the leftists within those countries who rarely if ever made any contribution to either the wealth or the success) to shovel money at them even as they declare their undying hatred for the countries who are being shaken down.

That makes the United Nations sound like it has a lot in common with the U.S. Congress, doesn’t it?

In essence, the United Nations doesn’t work. But then the predecessor of the U.N., the League of Nations, didn’t work too well. The European Union isn’t working out too well. I might be wrong, but there seems to be a pattern emerging. Every attempt to take a bunch of disparate nation-states and use normal (i.e., bumbling and power hungry) bureaucrats to create a one-size-fits-all new world order has always failed.

And we pay an awful lot for their ineffective failures. According to an Office of Management and Budget report to Congress, the United States spent at least $7.7 billion dollars supporting the U.N. in 2010, the latest data available.

Does anyone believe that spending that $7.7 billion is making them safer or reducing the dangers of war? Anyone?

Read More: