It was more than just a referendum to defy the politicians and bureaucrats. The historic June 23 British “Brexit” vote to exit the European Union was a massive blow to globalism and the globalist establishment, perhaps unprecedented in contemporary history — the vote heard ’round the world, so to speak. The vote was not simply a repudiation of the increasingly totalitarian EU, but of the entire internationalist agenda to crush national sovereignty and replace it with unaccountable transnational governance beyond the reach of citizens. And the reverberations have inspired people around the world, especially in the United States and across Europe, to fight for their national independence and their right to self-government.

Now, Europeans and Americans are hoping to seize on the momentum created by Brexit to push various other “exits,” including an “Amexit” from the United Nations and national secession from the EU superstate by various formerly independent peoples of Europe. Some analysts are even forecasting a domino effect: Frexit, Swexit, Nexit, Auxit, Grexit, and so on. In this article, we will take a look primarily and specifically at the push for an #Amexit from the UN: Who is pushing it? Is it a good idea? If so, why? What can Americans do to make it happen? In fact, before the phrases “Brexit” and “Amexit” even became known, an Amexit bill was introduced in Congress to “end membership of the United States in the United Nations.” Known as the American Sovereignty Restoration Act, or H.R. 1205, the bill would also evict the UN from U.S. soil. Now it just needs to be passed.

The primary reason for withdrawing from the UN is the same as the chief reason for the Brexit: restoring national sovereignty. The EU now rules the formerly independent peoples of Europe practically without restraint. The UN has not gotten quite that bad yet, of course. But if the peoples of the world — and especially the American people — do not stop it, that is exactly where the agenda is going. In our July 4 cover story, we showed how the UN was increasingly threatening U.S. independence with its demands for global “interdependence” and “governance.” In fact, in many ways, the UN is already behaving as if it were a global government — it has its own police, “peace” armies, courts, education plans, health schemes, and more.

And it is only getting more extreme by the minute. From positioning itself to become what UN chief Ban Ki-moon called the “Parliament of Humanity,” to trying to subject every person on the planet to the UN Agenda 2030 “Declaration of Interdependence,” the UN and the establishment behind it have boundless ambitions for centralizing coercive power. If left unchecked, the internationalists literally intend to rule the world through outfits such as the UN. With an #Amexit, though, the American people can deal a devastating blow to that agenda — preserving the hard-won principles of self-government, individual liberty, limited government, Judeo-Christian morality, and national independence for future generations of Americans to enjoy. And the ball is already rolling.

Palin: Get US Out

The day after Brexit, the first nationally recognized figure to promote an American withdrawal from the UN was former Alaska governor and GOP vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin. In her June 24 statement posted online, Palin blasted “special interest globalists” and the plot for one-world government. Casting Brexit as a British “Declaration of Independence,” Palin’s statement was hugely popular, receiving tens of thousands of likes, shares, and comments just over the weekend. A brief sampling of the close to 1,000 comments revealed massive support for the ideas, not just from Americans but from anti-establishment and anti-globalist forces around the world.

Palin’s comments were blunt and to the point. “When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another.... The UK knew — it was that time. And now is that time in the USA,” she declared. “The Brexit referendum is akin to our own Declaration of Independence. May that refreshed spirit of sovereignty spread over the pond to America’s shores! Congratulations, smart Brits. Good on you for ignoring all the fear mongering from special interest globalists who tend to aim for that apocalyptic One World Government that dissolves a nation’s self-determination and sovereignty … the EU being a One World Government mini-me.”

Indeed, as this magazine and others have documented, globalist forces waged an unprecedented campaign of fear-mongering and propaganda against the British independence movement. From claiming it could spark another world war to threatening people’s jobs and pensions, the top echelons of the establishment shrieked hysterically for months about the doom and gloom that would surely follow a Brexit. But the British did it anyway. Now, according to Palin, it is time for Americans to do the same. “America can learn an encouraging lesson from this,” continued the former governor. “It is time to dissolve political bands that connect us to agendas not in our best interest. May UN shackles be next on the chopping block.”

Representative Thomas Massie Pushes #Amexit

The day after Palin’s post, popular Republican Congressman Thomas Massie of Kentucky, a leading constitutionalist, pointed to his support for the American Sovereignty Restoration Act and asked if it is now “Time for #amexit?” Yes, he says. “I’m a cosponsor of H.R. 1205 to get the US out of the UN. #brexit.” When asked in a comment why it would be a good idea, the congressman responded: “In one word, Sovereignty.” “As a member of the UN, we bind our citizens to decisions made by undemocratic countries, when in fact our constitution should be the supreme law,” he explained, garnering massive support from readers. His note sparked headlines across America, in addition to being shared thousands of times by supporters on social media.

On his campaign website, ThomasMassie.com, the congressman has also been circulating a petition to “support an #Amexit from the UN.” “United Nations membership includes Third World dictators and as a member of the UN, we bind our citizens to decisions made by undemocratic countries,” states the petition. “Our constitution should always be the supreme law of the land. The United Nations also costs our country billions of dollars and I believe we should bring those tax dollars back to America. In addition, the UN pre­sents a real threat to our 2nd Amendment rights, most obviously in their push for the UN Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). This treaty encourages members to set up national rec­ordkeeping requirements for those with firearms and pushes members to share these lists with other member countries.”

“Now that the world has watched Britain fight to regain some of the sovereignty they had lost, America should do the same,” Massie’s petition concluded. “It is time to remove ourselves from the United Nations and once again hold the Constitution as the highest law in America.”

Massie has also provided an eloquent defense of an Amexit and explanation of the bill on the radio. In a radio interview with South Carolina-based host Vince Coakley, Massie began by noting that the bill to get the United States out of the UN was not a response to Brexit, as the latest iteration of the legislation was actually introduced in Congress last year. The measure was first introduced in Congress in 1997 by then-Congressman Ron Paul, the Texas Republican who for decades was America’s leading constitutionalist in Congress. “It has had as many as 50 plus co-sponsors in the past,” Massie said.

But while the bill may not be new, now is a good time to move it forward, Massie explained. “Hopefully all the attention given to the Brexit will help us raise the profile of this bill, which we’re calling Amexit. In the past, the United States has withheld funding to the United Nations. Now, they eventually paid it back, but by withholding funding, they were able to negotiate a lower fee to be a member,” he said. “When it did come to a vote we came just 70 votes short of cutting funding for the United Nations, and 70 votes is not a lot. You know, you flip 35 votes and it’s passed, out of 435. I think there will be more attention paid to it as time goes on, I think we’re going to pick up momentum. This was trending yesterday on Facebook, this issue. The only way to move it forward is to get more co-sponsors in the house.”

Why “Get US Out”?

Massie went on to outline a number of key reasons for America to exit the UN. He also addressed the various arguments put forth by globalists and useful dupes for staying in the UN. “Who would be crazy enough to stay in the United Nations and pay the majority of their funding while it’s attended by Third World dictators who are writing rules and regulations that are supposed to bind our country? That’s what I want to ask,” the popular congressman said. The host agreed, saying it was an “excellent question.” On being asked why America should withdraw from the UN, Massie pointed out that over half of the UN’s member governments were unfree, pointing specifically to North Korea, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Cuba, and Venezuela, among many others. “Stalin was a founding member of the United Nations,” Massie added.

The liberty-minded Kentucky congressman went on: “People talk about ‘we need to stay on it because we’ve got this special position, we’ve got veto power because we’re one of the permanent members,’ well, guess what, so are China and Russia,” Massie observed. “Now, ostensibly, this organization exists to keep us from going to war. I would say they failed at that. If anything, it’s nuclear weapons and the desire not to blow ourselves up that’s kept us from going to war. Yet we keep getting in all these small wars around the globe.” Indeed, UN resolutions have been cited on numerous occasions by U.S. presidents to justify unconstitutional, undeclared wars. The most recent and obvious example, of course, was Obama’s illegal war on Libya, which had non-establishment members of both parties in Congress calling for impeachment. The result of that war: tragedy and terror that defy belief.

Another UN selling point is what the UN disingenuously terms “human rights,” which, as this magazine and others have documented extensively, means something very different to the UN than what America’s Founders intended with the Bill of Rights protecting Americans’ pre-existing God-given rights. “Look at the membership of this organization!” said Massie. “How the heck are you going to promote human rights when these are the members. And when China and Russia have veto power, of course they are going to stick up for their Third World dictatorships that they’ve allied themselves with. So it really doesn’t have a good track record when it comes to human rights when we have some of the biggest abusers of human rights as members of the United Nations.” Indeed, UN military and police forces around the world are facing a tsunami of scandals over atrocities. Many of those horrors have been covered by The New American, including the systematic rape and abuse of children in numerous nations occupied by UN “peace” forces, as well as the subsequent persecution of brave whistleblowers who expose the monstrous crimes.

The UN’s attacks on gun rights are also troublesome, Massie said. “Finally, the thing that concerns me the most here recently, they promoted laws, a treaty — an international treaty they are pushing — to curb small arms trafficking,” he explained. “Now, think about this, if the United Nations is populated with Third World dictators, what interest do they have in civilians owning firearms? I’ll tell you, absolutely none. They don’t want their civilians to own firearms. So when they talk about an international treaty to prevent small arms trafficking, what they’re talking about is keeping civilians from owning firearms. So it should come as no surprise that that’s what this treaty is aimed at.” After the jihadist terror attack in Orlando in June, the UN’s “human rights” chief, Jordanian prince Zeid Al Hussein, even claimed the U.S. government had an “obligation” to impose what he called “robust gun control.”

As for the UN’s anti-gun rights treaty, Massie said it would be unconstitutional even if ratified. “It would have to be ratified by the Senate, now that’s one thing that concerns me, [Secretary of State] John Kerry has signed it, but think about this, I don’t even think this is constitutional for us to sign into a treaty without it going through the House of Representatives,” he said. “This treaty would infringe on our Constitution, so I don’t see how you can take away constitutional rights just by consulting one body of Congress, without consulting the other.” Indeed, although treaties are ratified by a two-thirds majority vote of the U.S. Senate, the Founders and the Supreme Court have already made abundantly clear that treaties cannot grant new powers to the federal government that were not delegated in the U.S. Constitution.

Then there is the squandering of U.S. tax dollars and the congregation of dictators on U.S. soil. “To add insult to injury, we pay probably about $8 billion per year to the United Nations, we are the biggest funder of the United Nations,” Massie continued. “So there are a litany of reasons why we should pass H.R. 1205, we call it the American Sovereignty Restoration Act. And among other things, we say get the U.S. out of the UN; this bill would also get the UN out of the U.S.,” he said. “They’ve basically been free parking in New York City — I don’t mean just parking, they run up tickets, they’ve got diplomatic immunity, and their headquarters is right in New York. So this is where all the dictators come, to congregate in our country to promulgate rules that would affect our citizens.”

As an example of U.S. sovereignty being eroded, Massie pointed to a recent ruling by the World Trade Organization purporting to override the U.S. Congress on its Country of Origin labels for meat. Indeed, the WTO decree provides a clear and irrefutable example of how international organizations are increasingly usurping Americans’ right to govern themselves under the Constitution. UN bosses and experts now regularly lecture and harangue Americans on alleged “requirements” under what the UN calls “international law.” Just this year, a group of self-styled UN “experts” even demanded that the United States ratify a treaty, the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women,  and amend the U.S. Constitution to conform with the treaty, which the Senate has thus far refused to ratify. As just one example among many, in blatant disregard for the Constitution’s protections of free speech, the UN has been agitating increasingly loudly for the criminalization of certain forms of speech. And the attacks are only getting more blatant and extreme.

Coakley, the host, urged all listeners to call Congress and ask their representatives to advance the legislation. Massie agreed, saying, “Absolutely, that’s how we move this bill forward.” He also suggested that, if Speaker Paul Ryan would allow separate funding bills, lawmakers could offer an amendment to cut off funds for the UN to the legislation funding the U.S. State Department. “Even if a member of the House or Senate does not support this bill, the question, I think, that deserves a debate, is how much should the United States pay the United Nations? Right now it’s on the order of $8 billion, and we’re just one of 193 members yet we’re paying over a fifth of the bill. So even if you don’t want to withdraw completely, how much is it worth and how much should we keep paying for dismal results?”

Others Join In

Another cosponsor of the legislation, Representative Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan.), also took to Twitter calling for a U.S. withdrawal from the UN. “Why are we giving any money and sovereignty to the UN? #America #AmExit,” he wrote on the social-media service on July 12 above a news report about UN-sponsored textbooks promoting jihad against Israel.

In the U.S. Senate, pro-sovereignty sentiment is also growing. Last year, Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.), then a leading contender for the 2016 GOP presidential nomination, blasted the UN and suggested it should be dismantled. “I dislike paying for something that two-bit Third World countries with no freedom attack us and complain about the United States,” explained the senator. “There’s a lot of reasons why I don’t like the UN, and I think I’d be happy to dissolve it.”

Even some neoconservatives appear to be joining the bandwagon. Writing in National Review Online, Josh Gelernter, also a regular contributor to the neocon journal Weekly Standard, headlined his article “Let’s Take a Cue from Brexit and Leave the U.N.” “There is no fixing the U.N.,” writes Gelernter, urging readers to contact Congress. Gelernter goes on to call for the creation of a “United Free Nations,” but it is clear that the movement to destroy the UN with an Amexit is going increasingly “mainstream.”

H.R. 1205: The American Sovereignty Restoration Act

The key tool for an #Amexit is the American Sovereignty Restoration Act, introduced last year by Congressman Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) and in many other previous Congresses. If approved, the legislation would repeal the UN Participation Act of 1945 and shutter the U.S. government’s mission to the outfit. It would also “terminate all membership by the United States in the United Nations, and in any organ, specialized agency, commission, or other formally affiliated body of the United Nations.” That specifically includes UNESCO, which President Ronald Reagan withdrew from, along with the World Health Organization, the UN Environment Program (UNEP), and more. It would end all U.S. involvement in all UN conventions and agreements, too.

The proposed law, introduced in numerous legislative sessions of Congress in recent decades, would also end all funding to the UN and all of its agencies — with estimated savings to taxpayers reaching into the billions per year. The legislation also aims to end all U.S. military involvement in UN military “peacekeeping” schemes and ban U.S. troops from serving under UN command. Finally, the bill would evict the UN and its dictator- and spy-infested headquarters from U.S. soil. It would also ban any use of American government facilities by the global outfit, while stripping UN bureaucrats and “dignitaries” of diplomatic immunity.

Citing wasted tax dollars and attacks on the constitutionally guaranteed liberties of the American people, Rogers declared that enough was enough. “The U.N. continues to prove it’s an inefficient bureaucracy and a complete waste of American tax dollars,” the congressman said when announcing his bill, echoing widespread concerns about the international outfit expressed across America and worldwide. “Why should the American taxpayer bankroll an international organization that works against America’s interests around the world? The time is now to restore and protect American sovereignty and get out of the United Nations.”

Amexit Broadly Speaking

In addition to a U.S. withdrawal from the UN, former Congressman Ron Paul, the original author of the American Sovereignty Restoration Act, called for exiting other institutions as well. In his June 27 column, Ron Paul seized on Brexit to declare that the United States should exit “a few things” as well.

“Getting out of NATO would be a good first move,” the former congressman explained. “Likewise, the US would do well to exit the various phony ‘free trade’ agreements that provide advantage to the well-connected elites while harming the rest of us. The act of exit is liberating. We should make a longer list of those things we would like to get out of. I am only getting started.”

For more information about entangling so-called "free trade" regimes, see our article "Trade Trap: EU as Model for Misnamed TPP, TTIP."

U.S. States’ Secession and Other Uses of Amexit

Not everyone riding the Brexit wave or using the term Amexit shares the same goals, however. Even Richard Haass, the president of the globalist-minded Council on Foreign Relations, which played a key role getting the United States entangled in the UN and other international outfits to begin with, used the term Amexit. “Happy Fourth of July (or what the Founding Fathers called #Amexit),” Haass wrote on Twitter on July 4.

Some have also taken the Brexit opportunity to call for states to leave the union. In a column at Forbes, Doug Bandow, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, said it might be good if some American states pushed for an “Amexit” from the union. “Washington, a city filled with government buildings and housing a distinct ruling class, looks an awful lot like Brussels,” he argued. “Washington also operates much the same way, an overbearing Leviathan more interested in regulating and dictating than liberating and empowering. If the United Kingdom would do better outside of the European Union, might not individual and groups of states do better outside of the American union? … Americans would be better off if they slew Leviathan and started over. It’s time for a vote on Amexit.” One big problem with that, though, is that the U.S. Constitution already provides a wonderful guide to good, limited government — and unfortunately it is doubtful that such a masterpiece could emerge in today’s political climate, even in the most liberty-minded and constitutionalist states. Instead of withdrawing from the Union and starting over, states could insist that the U.S. government abide by the Constitution by declaring null and void unconstitutional federal laws, regulations, and edicts within their borders through the power of nullification.

Anti-globalist Sentiments

For more than half a century, The John Birch Society, a constitutionalist organization and the parent company of this magazine with chapters in all 50 states, has been pushing for a U.S. withdrawal from the UN. The organization also advocates withdrawing from pseudo-free trade deals such as NAFTA, similar to those used to trick Europeans into surrendering their independence to the EU. After the Brexit, JBS CEO Art Thompson said Americans should get active in pushing for an Amexit from globalist institutions that compromise the independence, liberties, and self-government of the American people.

“Enough of the British people were able to recognize the entangling aspects of their alliance with the EU to vote for Brexit,” Thompson said. “Americans promoting Amexit likewise understand the problems with entangling alliances. Washington and Jefferson warned us against such alliances. It is time we heed their words or we will lose our independence, not just control over our own economy.”

Indeed, the JBS position of the last 50 years appears to be finally becoming “mainstream” — and there is a real possibility that, with enough education and organized action, Amexit can become a reality. Even GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump has indicated hostility toward globalism and globalist institutions generally. After Brexit, for example, Trump showed up in the United Kingdom to tout national sovereignty and slam the globalist establishment. Separately, in addition to slamming the UN as a “political game” and NATO as “very obsolete,” he has also called for canceling the UN climate regime.

The American public generally shares those anti-UN sentiments, with a 2014 Gallup poll showing that a staggering 57 percent of Americans believed the UN was doing a “bad job,” versus 37 percent who thought it was doing a “good job.” More than two-thirds of Republicans were upset with the UN, and Independents were also overwhelmingly opposed. But even among Democrats, half thought the UN was doing a bad job. The New American’s online article about the latest legislation to get the United States out of the UN, published on June 12 of 2015, has become extraordinarily popular, garnering more than 217,000 Facebook “likes” as of July 2016.

Despite ever-growing support in Congress for restoring U.S. sovereignty by withdrawing from the UN over the years, the legislation still faces an uphill battle. It is currently sitting in the House Foreign Affairs Committee chaired by Representative Edward “Ed” Royce (R-Calif.), who will play a key role in deciding whether it will receive a fair hearing and move on to the full House for a vote by the American people’s elected representatives. Americans who support U.S. sovereignty and the U.S. Constitution should urge their representatives to take action as quickly as possible.

For now, it is true that Obama would veto any bill to crush the UN. As efforts to fully restore U.S. sovereignty proceed, though, the Republican Congress should completely de-fund the UN as a stop-gap measure. Without action, the increasingly lawless UN and the establishment behind it will continue seeking to further empower themselves at American expense — trampling on liberty and sovereignty in the process. But as the British have shown the world, even the full weight of the establishment can be successfully opposed by people demanding their independence back. It is time for an Amexit!

*     *     *

European Secession Movements

In addition to Amexit, Brexit has sparked surging interest among Europeans in regaining their independence. As soon as the results of the Brexit were announced, political leaders from across the continent vowed to pursue similar referendums for their own people on continued subjugation to the EU.

Dutch Freedom Party leader Geert Wilders, for example, one of the nation’s most popular politicians, said the Netherlands should follow the British. “I congratulate the British people for beating the political elite in both London and Brussels and I think we can do the same,” he said. “We should have a referendum about a ‘Nexit’ [Netherlands Exit] as soon as possible. There is no future any more [for the EU].” French political leaders echoed those comments, with Marine Le Pen, whose National Front Party is currently at the top in polls for next year’s presidential election, said France should have a “Frexit” as soon as possible. Italians, Swedes, Spaniards, Danes, Austrians, Greeks, and others are also pushing to exit the EU, with large majorities in many countries demanding a Brexit-style referendum.