Thread: Report: Obama Privately Campaigning to Take Over as Secretary-General of United Natio

We are just a rung on Obama's ladder.

Report: Obama Privately Campaigning to Take Over as Secretary-General of United Nations

Jim Hoft Jan 8th, 2016 3:42 pm

Barack Obama has privately campaigned to succeed Ban Ki-moon as United Nations Secretary General at the end of 2016.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is also reportedly working with moderate Arab States to prevent this transition.
The Jerusalem Post reported:

Netanyahu remembers well just how US President Barack Obama brushed aside Israeli objections and went ahead with the P5+1 nuclear agreement with Iran.

Now, Netanyahu is reportedly planning some personal payback.

According to the Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Jarida, Netanyahu will make common cause with moderate Arab governments in order to sabotage Obama’s plan to succeed Ban Ki-moon when the South Korean diplomat ends his term as United Nations secretary-general on December 31 of this year.

Al-Jarida quoted sources as saying that Obama has already discussed the issue of running for secretary-general with Democrats, Republicans, and Jewish officials in the US.

The sources said that once Netanyahu got wind of Obama’s plans, the prime minister began to make efforts to submarine what he has referred to as “the Obama project.”

“Wasn’t eight years of having Obama in office enough?” Netanyahu is quoted in the Kuwaiti daily as telling associates.

“Eight years 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.”

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016...nited-nations/

From 2013.
What Americans Need to Know About the UN Gun Control Treaty


by KEN KLUKOWSKI
2 Apr 2013

Today the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted a global gun control treaty called the Arms Trade Treaty. Now the fight begins here at home. There are several things gun owners need to know to protect their constitutional rights.

Now that it’s been proposed, the treaty goes to all the member states to decide on whether to join. Per the U.S. Constitution, in America it must first be signed by the president (which it will), then be ratified by two-thirds of the U.S. Senate (which it won’t). The United States is not likely to join the treaty as a nation, though President Barack Obama will likely push for it.
The General Assembly can’t do anything at the United Nations except propose (not establish) treaties and admit new U.N. members. Most of the power at the U.N. is in the Security Council, which consists of five permanent members (including the U.S.) and ten rotating seats among all the other U.N. members. So the General Assembly did one of the only things it can by recommending this treaty to its member states.

However, the first danger is that U.S. courts have held we’re bound by “customary international law,” sometimes called the “law of nations.” If enough U.N. member states were to adopt this treaty, a liberal federal court could rule it has become customary international law. The current Supreme Court would never affirm such a ruling, but there is a real danger if Obama changes the balance of the Court over the next three years.

Because federal statutes and treaties are of equal force under the U.S. Constitution, whenever they are in direct conflict, the most-recently passed of the two prevails. So, if somehow this treaty were ratified by the Senate, if Congress were to later pass a statute taking the opposite position, it would trump the treaty.

Of course, you need a president’s signature to pass a statute or two-thirds of Congress to override a presidential veto, so we would need a president in 2016 who supports the Second Amendment to pass such a law.

And if we have such a president, you don’t even need a statute. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that a president’s primary authority in directing foreign affairs under the Constitution means that any president can withdraw us from any treaty. If we elect a pro-Second Amendment president, he can just rescind our participation in the Arms Trade Treaty and can literally strike Barack Obama’s signature from the treaty paper.

Speaking of the Supreme Court, it’s our last resort. As the Supreme Court has repeatedly held, Congress cannot do by treaty anything that would be unconstitutional if it were a statute. Treaties have no more power than statutes.

So a pro-gun majority on the U.S. Supreme Court can strike down this treaty, just as they could an unconstitutional federal law. Such a thing would not happen unless the treaty was used to make some sort of major gun grab, but it’s still a tool in our arsenal if this treaty is used to violate the Second Amendment rights of the American people.

The dangers are obvious, however. If Barack Obama manages to get an anti-gun politician like Hillary Clinton or Andrew Cuomo to follow him in 2016 as president, and changes the balance of the Supreme Court over time, then the Arms Trade Treaty could open America up to a worldwide U.N. gun control regime. That could lay the groundwork and set up a system that a decade or two from now could restrict lawful firearm ownership in this nation.

That must never happen. Second Amendment supporters need to step up, get involved in the electoral process, and make 2014 and especially 2016 banner years for supporters of the Constitution. The right to bear arms may depend on it.
http://www.breitbart.com/national-se...ontrol-treaty/

It looks like the American citizens are going to be paying for his :"King of the World" campaign tour.

Obama's 2016 world tour

The president is planning to travel the globe to seal his foreign policy legacy.
By EDWARD-ISAAC DOVERE

The only continents the White House is ruling out as presidential destinations are Australia and Antarctica. | Getty

• By JOSH ZEITZ

President Barack Obama will be making good use of Air Force One while he still can.

Obama has asked aides to set a busy international travel schedule for him in his final year, with “half a dozen” trips already in the works and more potentially coming together. The travel will be aimed at cementing a foreign policy legacy he hopes will include the Trans-Pacific Partnership, increased attention to Asia, an opening of Latin America, progress against the Islamic State and significant global movement on climate change.

He’ll be fighting the same battle to keep the world from looking past him as he will be at home. But White House aides insist that what they’ve got ahead in 2016 is more than just a standard eighth-year world tour to try to assert themselves and stay clear of the presidential campaign.

The only continents the White House is ruling out as presidential destinations are Australia and Antarctica. And while another multi-stop trip to Africa is also off the table (after a visit to Kenya and Ethiopia in 2015), aides familiar with the matter say, a single stop there tacked onto another trip, perhaps one to Europe, is still possible.

They’re also looking at a stop in the Middle East, though that would also likely be tacked onto a larger trip elsewhere rather than a full swing through the region, which has gotten only more complicated for Obama throughout his presidency.
How little time Obama has left is part of nearly every conversation.

“You’ll see the president spending a lot of time driving to the finish line, obviously with the counter-ISIL campaign, but also with respect to affirmative elements of his presidency,” deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes said in an interview.

Four trips already have their main stops set: Obama will be in Japan for a G-7 meeting in June, in Poland for the NATO summit in July, in China for the G-20 meeting in September, and likely in Peru for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in November, after the presidential election.

Obama said during a July meeting in the Oval Office with Vietnamese Communist Party General Secretary Nguyen Phu Trong that he’s looking forward to visiting the Southeast Asian nation, and aides say they expect him to make good on that, probably as part of one of the Asia trips.

Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff also gave Obama a “standing invitation” to come to Rio de Janeiro for the Olympics in August, and though several White House aides say they’re hoping to go, that trip hasn’t yet been scheduled.

And then there’s the possibility of a trip to Cuba, widely expected but so far still tentative. Obama has said openly that he wants to go, and the White House is working behind the scenes to make it happen.

Aides say Cuba wouldn’t be a one-off destination,but more likely combined with a longer trip to several Central and South American countries. Among the possibilities: Argentina, whose new president, Mauricio Macri, has impressed the White House with his interest in building relations, and one of the bigger economic and political powers that Obama hasn’t yet visited as president. The working peace deal that Colombia signed in September with the FARC revolutionary forces — mediated with the help of Cuban President Raúl Castro — has also caught the White House’s eye, and an encouraging trip there to demonstrate the support of the U.S. is exactly the kind of stop that would fit in with the public diplomacy sensibility.

“What matters more than where he goes is what he does,” said Council on Foreign Relations president Richard Haass. He said the South American trips make sense and that he’d like to see Obama visit Europe in the year ahead to talk with allies about ISIL and the mutating set of issues posed by the assertiveness of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

But there’s only so much Obama can realistically expect to get world leaders to commit to as his time in office ticks down.
“Travel early on in a presidency has the value of investing in the relationship, when the president could be around for another three or seven years,” Haass said. “Traveling at the end of the presidency is very different. They’re no longer looking toward the future.”
Rhodes insisted the opposite, that the last year of a presidency is the time when things actually get done, and pointed to the diplomatic opening to Cuba, and the international agreements on climate change and Iran's nuclear ambitions.

“There is truth to the notion that there is a combination of international experience and freedom of maneuver that presidents have late in their terms that this presidency has clearly been taking advantage of over the course of the last year,” Rhodes said.
Plus, Rhodes said, it’s not as though Obama will be going away: The president will be 55 when he leaves office, and Rhodes said that the expectation around the world that he’ll continue to be a player in international affairs for decades should give him a little extra sway in his lame-duck year.

But for all the hopes White House aides express about starting new business, they’re going into their final year with huge pieces of what they hope will be Obama’s legacy up in the air.

The Iran nuclear deal and Paris climate agreement, both major successes for the administration on paper, probably won’t matter much unless Obama works hard to make them more concrete before the next president’s sworn in.

“On those two issues — and Cuba as well — the administration will have to use its remaining time to protect the accomplishments from fizzling out or worse,” said Strobe Talbott, president of the Brookings Institution and chairman of the State Department’s Foreign Affairs Policy Board. “That’ll take a lot of steady, blocking-and-tackling follow-up diplomacy — including public diplomacy — to maintain such support as the deals have.”

Then there’s Syria, which Talbott calls “the ultimate problem from hell.”

The White House and Hillary Clinton both celebrated the passage of the United Nations Security Council resolution on Syria as major progress. But, Talbott argued, it “was possible only because the parties, especially the U.S. and Russia, agreed to disagree on major factors, kicking the hard decisions down the road.”

Those decisions, Talbott said, include not just the particulars of what Putin now does, but how to get Saudi Arabia and other Sunni-majority states to step up their own efforts to quell Syria's civil war and defeat ISIL.

“There are no signs of those developments, which means that between now and the end of the administration, Syria may not only fester to ISIS’s advantage,” Talbott said. “It could get worse.”

Then there are what Talbott said should be other key issues for Obama in Europe in his last year: supporting German Chancellor Angela Merkel, emphasizing the U.S. relationship with the United Kingdom while urging it to remain part of the European Union and, with the EU generally, maintaining pressure on Putin over Ukraine.

Rhodes said there will also be the expected extra duties of a presidential election year: urging other world leaders not to read too much into the rhetoric of Donald Trump and other candidates that veers into what may sound xenophobic and isolationist or promises massive changes in American foreign policy. And, as always in a White House where knocking on wood is almost as common as checking email, aides worry about an unexpected issue flaring up and consuming the president’s attention.
Or even the possibility that a new breakthrough might emerge.

“There is not a year that the president has been in office that there have not been issues that have emerged, either crises or opportunities, that might have been foreseen,” Rhodes said.

One of Obama’s most significant international encounters, Rhodes predicted, will require him only to fly to Palm Springs, California, where he’ll hosta meeting of Asian leaders right after Valentine’s Day. A major item on the agenda: the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which Obama’s team will be pushing Congress to pass, aides hope, before the expected lame duck session at the end of next year.
For the fast-track trade vote that paved the way for TPP, Obama had to get heavily involved himself, doing the kind of lobbying over the phone and in person that he’s often steered clear of.

“Probably the issue that will have the greatest foreign policy consequence,” Haass said, “will require the president to be in Washington.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/1...#ixzz3wiEvmbvl

Ridiculous. He'd have to renounce his USA citizenship to be eligible. The UN Charter prevents a citizen of any permanent member of the Security Council from becoming Secretary General.

Originally Posted by artclam

Ridiculous. He'd have to renounce his USA citizenship to be eligible. The UN Charter prevents a citizen of any permanent member of the Security Council from becoming Secretary General.

We can only hope.

Americans better stand up for Article II of the US Constitution. There's a reason "natural born citizen" is a requirement to be President and Vice President of the United States and it means without question that the candidate be born in the US two 2 US citizens. And it doesn't matter howo much crap you read on the internet placed in Harvard Law Review or anywhere else, Harvard the alma mater of Obama and Cruz, written by sons of immigrants who not themselves eligible to be President.

That's right. The lead author if the article Cruz had planted in Harvard Law Review was written by Neal Katyal who was born in the US to Indian immigrants, just like Bobby Jindal and Marco Rubio. Paul Clemente, who they ordered to co-write it works in the Soliticor General's Office of the Obama Administration, Obama who is ineligible to be President not just because of a dispute on where he was born but because his father was a foreign national. Cruz not only was not born in the US, he had Canadian Citizenship his entire life until he decides he wanna be President. Rubio is the equivalent of an anchor baby, thanks only to a Supreme Court Ruling pertaining to the 14th Amendment. Laws, 14th Amendment and Supreme Court Rulings weighing either law or the 14th Amendment do not make you a natural born citizen under the Constitution's Article II.

We're in this mess because of who we elect to Office. It's fine to blame everything else in the world for it, but we're the ones who sent these eggheads to the US Senate, which they all use as a springboard to the White House to stick it to US.

Stop doing that. Rome fell because of the Senate. We're falling because of the US Senate. Stop voting for Senators who have created this mess and/or failed to fix it and for God's Sake stop promoting them to the American White House.

Originally Posted by Judy

Americans better stand up for Article II of the US Constitution. There's a reason "natural born citizen" is a requirement to be President and Vice President of the United States and it means without question that the candidate be born in the US two 2 US citizens. And it doesn't matter howo much crap you read on the internet placed in Harvard Law Review or anywhere else, Harvard the alma mater of Obama and Cruz, written by sons of immigrants who not themselves eligible to be President.

That's right. The lead author if the article Cruz had planted in Harvard Law Review was written by Neal Katyal who was born in the US to Indian immigrants, just like Bobby Jindal and Marco Rubio. Paul Clemente, who they ordered to co-write it works in the Soliticor General's Office of the Obama Administration, Obama who is ineligible to be President not just because of a dispute on where he was born but because his father was a foreign national. Cruz not only was not born in the US, he had Canadian Citizenship his entire life until he decides he wanna be President. Rubio is the equivalent of an anchor baby, thanks only to a Supreme Court Ruling pertaining to the 14th Amendment. Laws, 14th Amendment and Supreme Court Rulings weighing either law or the 14th Amendment do not make you a natural born citizen under the Constitution's Article II.

We're in this mess because of who we elect to Office. It's fine to blame everything else in the world for it, but we're the ones who sent these eggheads to the US Senate, which they all use as a springboard to the White House to stick it to US.

Stop doing that. Rome fell because of the Senate. We're falling because of the US Senate. Stop voting for Senators who have created this mess and/or failed to fix it and for God's Sake stop promoting them to the American White House.

Must everything turn into an attack on Cruz with you? This thread is about Obama, not Cruz.

The lead author if the article Cruz had planted in Harvard Law Review was written by Neal Katyal who was born in the US to Indian immigrants

You admit he, Neal Katyal, is a U.S. citizen by birth. So what's the problem? Are you somehow insinuating that the birth place of his parents somehow makes him less loyal than you or I? Your repeated arguments against Cruz being a natural born citizen just don't hold water because there is overwhelming evidence, that of course you disagree with, that suggest otherwise. Unless the U.S. Supreme Court takes on this issue and rules against Cruz, which it has been suggested they probably won't, he is eligible to run for President of the United States.

Your attempt to utilize a Trump tactic to bring discredit to Cruz isn't working on me because I see it for what it is. I know you feel Cruz is Trump's biggest threat to winning the Republican nomination, which makes you feel it is necessary to eliminate him as a threat at all cost. Well, that cost may end up giving us someone like Marco Rubio. Not a wise move IMO. I'm more than happy to let Trump and Cruz wrestle it out for the nomination because I find both men as acceptable choices at this moment. I must admit though, Trump has given me reason to be concerned as of late because of his failure to stay consistent with his message.

Originally Posted by MW

Must everything turn into an attack on Cruz with you? This thread is about Obama, not Cruz.



You admit he, Neal Katyal, is a U.S. citizen by birth. So what's the problem? Are you somehow insinuating that the birth place of his parents somehow makes him less loyal than you or I? Your repeated arguments against Cruz being a natural born citizen just don't hold water because there is overwhelming evidence, that of course you disagree with, that suggest otherwise. Unless the U.S. Supreme Court takes on this issue and rules against Cruz, which it has been suggested they probably won't, he is eligible to run for President of the United States.

Your attempt to utilize a Trump tactic to bring discredit to Cruz isn't working on me because I see it for what it is. I know you feel Cruz is Trump's biggest threat to winning the Republican nomination, which makes you feel it is necessary to eliminate him as a threat at all cost. Well, that cost may end up giving us someone like Marco Rubio. Not a wise move IMO. I'm more than happy to let Trump and Cruz wrestle it out for the nomination because I find both men as acceptable choices at this moment. I must admit though, Trump has given me reason to be concerned as of late because of his failure to stay consistent with his message.

A natural born citizen is a person born in the United States to 2 US citizen parents. Neither Ted Cruz nor Marco Rubio are eligible to hold the Office of President or Vice President under the US Constitution, Article II.

Originally Posted by Judy

A natural born citizen is a person born in the United States to 2 US citizen parents. Neither Ted Cruz nor Marco Rubio are eligible to hold the Office of President or Vice President under the US Constitution, Article II.

You understanding of the U.S. Constitution obviously differs from legal constitutional experts. Hmm, think I'll believe the experts, but thanks for your input.

Actually the point of the article and the thread is Obama's ambitions to be the king of the world and have US taxpayers pay for his worldwide campaign. This could explain why Obama is going for gun control. Isn't that what the UN has been pushing for years?