By Thomas Mcardle, Investors.com—
BD warned over a year and a half ago that President Obama wasn’t about to spend his post-presidency building houses, like Jimmy Carter, but that there were discernible signs that he would seek to become secretary-general of the United Nations.
In the West Point speech he gave in May 2014, IBD pointed out that the president denied the reality of the American global decline he has engineered. “Think about it,” he told the assembled cadets. “Our military has no peer.”
It was disturbingly similar to Carter’s pathetic 1979 “malaise” speech, in which Carter boasted of “the outward strength of America, a nation that is at peace tonight everywhere in the world, with unmatched economic power and military might” — as Americans suffered gasoline lines stretching blocks.
Just as Obama was bestowed a Nobel Peace Prize before his chair in the Oval Office was even warm — for “multilateral diplomacy,” according to the Nobel Committee, and for placing an “emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play” — the UN, with Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s term ending in early 2017, could make Obama “president of the world.”
Numerous news organizations are now reporting that the effort to crown Obama chief of the corrupt, tyrant-loving international body has begun. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is reportedly committed to preventing it from happening, urging moderate Arab states to oppose it, and reportedly asking in private, “Wasn’t eight years of having Obama in office enough … during which he ignored Israel? And now he wants to be in a position that is liable to cause us hardships in the international arena.”
A Secretary-General Obama would actively seek to place the U.S. under UN authority. As he wrote in 2007 as a presidential candidate, “the security and well-being of each and every American depend on the security and well-being of those who live beyond our borders. The mission of the United States is to provide global leadership grounded in the understanding that the world shares a common security and a common humanity.” He added: “Our alliances require constant cooperation and revision if they are to remain effective and relevant.”
And UN chief Obama would have friends in both Reagan Supreme Court appointee Anthony Kennedy and his Clinton-appointed colleague, Stephen Breyer, both of whom operate under the belief that the U.S. Constitution is subject to foreign law.
Many may ask: Who ever paid attention to the UN secretary general? No one’s ever heard of Ban Ki-moon, Kofi Annan or Boutros Boutros-Ghali.
That would change big time under Obama.
Today, as attorneys Lee Casey and David Rivkin describe it, international law is “a body of norms made by states for states, and its content and application are almost always open to honest dispute,” with “no global power or authority with the ultimate right to establish the meaning of international law for all.”
Obama would be no faceless UN secretary general like the previous ones. He would redefine the office and expand its powers — simply by his visibility. And he would ceaselessly agitate within America for … “change” in the authority of the United Nations over the lives, sovereignty and tax dollars of all Americans.
For the mostly undemocratic powers represented in the UN, having a former U.S. president who serves their interests as, for all intents and purposes, “King of the World” would be a dream come true.