Obama King of the UN/ and the World

Ok just another reason to have Obama arrested as a traitor to the Unites States and removed from office. I did a search and did not find any threads on this action so here it is read for yourself and you decide. President of the US or King of the world.

www.knowthelies.com.../4422

UNPRESEDENTED!... Obama Has Chosen HIMSELF as Chairman of United Nations Security Council! (UNCONSTITUTIONAL!)
Submitted by SadInAmerica on Mon, 09/14/2009 - 9:39am.
Some unprecedented news today, folks. NEVER in the history of the United Nations has a U.S. President taken the chairmanship of the powerful UN Security Council. Perhaps it is because of what could arguably be a Constitutional prohibition against doing so. To wit: Section 9 of the Constitution says...
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
Nonetheless, the rotating chairmanship of the council goes to the U.S. this month. The normal course of business would have U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice take the gavel. However, this time will be different. Constitution be damned, Barack Hussein Obama has decided to put HIMSELF in the drivers seat, and will preside over global nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament talks slated to begin September 24th. The Financial Times says...
Barack Obama will cement the new co-operative relationship between the US and the United Nations this month when he becomes the first American president to chair its 15-member Security Council.
The topic for the summit-level session of the council on September 24 is nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament – one of several global challenges that the US now wants to see addressed at a multinational level.
UN officials also hope a climate change debate on September 22 will give fresh impetus to the search for a global climate deal at Copenhagen in December. There are also hopes a possible meeting between Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel Prime Minister, and Mahmoud Abbas, Palestinian Authority president, that Mr. Obama would host, could lead to a breakthrough about a timetable for Middle East peace.
Here is what the UN Security Council does. Picture Obama as the Chair of this committee with this power.
Under the UN Charter, the functions and powers of the Security Council are:
* to maintain international peace and security in accordance with the principles and purposes of the United Nations;
* to investigate any dispute or situation which might lead to international friction;
* to recommend methods of adjusting such disputes or the terms of settlement;
* to formulate plans for the establishment of a system to regulate armaments;
* to determine the existence of a threat to the peace or act of aggression and to recommend what action should be taken;
* to call on Members to apply economic sanctions and other measures not involving the use of force to prevent or stop aggression;
* to take military action against an aggressor;
* to recommend the admission of new Members;
* to exercise the trusteeship functions of the United Nations in “strategic areas”;
* to recommend to the General Assembly the appointment of the Secretary-General and, together with the Assembly, to elect the Judges of the International Court of Justice.
No American president has ever attempted to acquire the image of King of the Universe by officiating at a meeting of the UN’s highest body. Obama apparently believes that being flanked by council-member heads of state like Col. Moammar Qaddafi — who is expected to be seated five seats to Obama’s right — will cast a sufficiently blinding spell on Americans.
He undoubtedly hopes that the horrid state of the nation’s economy, turmoil over healthcare, and a summer of racial scapegoating will pale by comparison. This role as UN Security Council chair will allow him to make decisions, influence legislation and resolutions, and set the agenda.
September 9, 2009 - source RightSoup
IMPEACHMENT!

enough is enough when are we going to stop the madness?

Another posting on the topic and I am just scratching the tip of the iceberg as it were.

www.nationalreview.com...

SEPTEMBER 5, 2009 2:49 P.M.
Obama’s UN Gambit: King of the Universe and the Polls
He'll chair a Security Council meeting -- and pander to rogue states.
Looking for a quick and easy boost in the polls, President Obama has decided to go to the one place where merit bears no relationship to adulation: the United Nations. On September 24, the president will take the unprecedented step of presiding over a meeting of the UN Security Council.
No American president has ever attempted to acquire the image of King of the Universe by officiating at a meeting of the UN’s highest body. But Obama apparently believes that being flanked by council-member heads of state like Col. Moammar Qaddafi — who is expected to be seated five seats to Obama’s right — will cast a sufficiently blinding spell on the American taxpayer that the perilous state of the nation’s economy, the health-care fiasco, and a summer of “post-racial” scapegoating will pale by comparison.
After all, who among us is not for world peace?
Unfortunately, however, the move represents one of the most dangerous diplomatic ploys this country has ever seen. The president didn’t just decide to chair a rare council summit; he also set the September 24 agenda — as is the prerogative of the state holding the gavel for the month. His choice, in the words of American UN Ambassador Susan Rice, speaking on September 2 at her first press briefing since the United States assumed the council presidency, is this: “The session will be focused on nuclear nonproliferation and nuclear disarmament broadly, and not on any specific countries.”
This seemingly innocuous language has two profoundly disturbing features. First, UN documents indicate that the Security Council is currently dealing with over 100 issues. While “non-proliferation” is mentioned, “disarmament” is not. Similarly, a UN Secretariat compilation “forecasting the Council’s program of work” for the month of September — based on prior activities and requests — lists non-proliferation specifically in relation to Iran and North Korea and does not list disarmament. But in light of Obama’s wishes, a tailor-made subheading will likely be adopted under the existing entry “maintenance of international peace and security.” The new item will insist on simultaneous consideration of nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament and make no mention of particular states.
This is no trivial technicality. The linguistic formula, which Obama’s confrere Qaddafi will undoubtedly exploit, shamelessly panders to Arab and Muslim states. It is a familiar recipe for stonewalling efforts to prevent Iran or other Muslim and Arab states from acquiring nuclear weapons until Israel is
disarmed or Israel’s (unofficial) nuclear capacity is exposed and neutralized. It is also a frequent tool of those whose real goal is to stymie America’s defenses.
Second, Obama’s agenda preference indicates that he is dead-set against chairing a session on the non-proliferation issues already on the council’s plate — those that name Iran and North Korea. This stretches his “beer summit” technique to the global scale. Naming names, or identifying the actual threats to world peace, would evidently interfere with the spectacle of proclaiming affection for world peace in the abstract. The problem is that this feel-good experience will feel best of all to Iran, which has interpreted Obama’s penchant for form over substance to be a critical weakness. As a Tehran newspaper close to the regime snickered in July: “Their strategy consists of begging us to talk with them.”
At Ambassador Rice’s news briefing, she gave “an overview of the principal important meetings” to be held in September on her watch. After finishing the list of subjects without mentioning Iran or North Korea, she added: “So those are the highlights. We also have . . . three sanctions regimes that are up for regular review, chaired by the heads of the sanctions committees. We have Sudan, Iran and North Korea, and these are, I expect, likely to be uneventful and routine considerations of these various regimes.”
Even hard-boiled UN correspondents were surprised. Rice was asked to explain how the recent capture by the United Arab Emirates of containers of ammunition en route to Iran from North Korea could be construed as “uneventful and routine.” Her answer highlights the administration’s delinquency: “We are simply receiving . . . a regularly scheduled update. . . . This is not an opportunity to review or revisit the nature of either of those regimes.”
A brutalized Iranian population, yearning for democracy, has repeatedly been met by nothing but sad faces from this administration. An Iranian president installed by treachery has been legitimized by American recognition of his government, a decision that has sidelined other eminently justifiable alternatives. The leaders of this state sponsor of terrorism aim to annihilate the Jewish state and are on the verge of acquiring the means to do so. But instead of making the isolation and delegitimation of Iran the top priority for America’s turn at the council presidency, the Obama administration has taken Iran off the table at precisely the time when top decision-makers will be present.
The administration’s zeal for the front-page photo-op on September 25’s New York Times has now become a scramble to manufacture an “outcome” for the session. The president’s idea for a glorious finish was described by Ambassador Rice as some kind of joint statement declaring in part “that we are united in support for effective steps to ensure nuclear nonproliferation.”
Such a result would be breathtaking — for the audacity of claiming exactly the opposite of what it really represents. Even allied council members France and the United Kingdom are reported to be very unhappy with Obama’s no-names strategy for his September rollout.
Far from bolstering his flagging image, the president’s group-hug theory of diplomacy deserves the disdain of anyone who can separate rhetoric from reality.

Where to start? Let's forget that the article is from a year ago for now

Ok, the quote from the Constitution states that

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States...

So how is Chairman of United Nations Security Council considered a position of nobility? It isn't Duke of the UN, or Earl of the security council.

I find it quite naive to arguet that this is unconstitutional. There's this ultra-literalist view, of course, and I guess it used to have some merrits in an unglobalized world but this is jumping the shark. The UN is neither a "king" nor a nobility of any kind and it surely does no constitute a "foreign state" in any true sense.

This seems like another one of these knee-jerk "let's criticize anything that comes to mind, who needs facts"-threads that are preached to the choir here. If you're going to hate Obama, or disagree with him, do that for a reason, one grounded in reality preferably.

Using such an ultra-literalist stance would basically retroactively condemn any and all US presidents and politicians back to the founding days of this nation. I find Obamas chairing of the US rep to the security council a good idea. It has been an ineffective platform for second-rate personnel and maybe having some first-rate people with actual power there will help transform the council to something that is worth existing. Humanity could might as well have lived without it with no regrets considering the insignificance of the council so far.

reply to post by Alora


Yes the article is from a year ago, the reason for the post is that the second seating is due and again Obama will place himself in that seat.

Also you did not quote the whole constitutional law regarding the issue as I have done, and it is the proper place for the US Ambassador to take the gavel not a seating President.

Section 9 of the Constitution says...
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.


Clearly states, office or title, chairman is a title and a position there for he is in affect wearing two hats.


And this is just another way he out right disobeys our constitution that he has sworn to up hold, and as a so called teacher of the constitution and its laws as both he and his wife were lawyers knows darn well what he is doing and knows it to be wrong but he just don’t care he has one agenda and that is to become the first President of the World period and will do what ever he pleases to accomplish his goals.

reply to post by drmeola


A good thing that the UN is neither a nobility nor a foreign state when it comes to its standing in front of international law. If not, you could at least argue that you do have a case - just one with no substance. With things as they are, you don't even have a case.

Let's try to deny ignorance, not promote it!

Originally posted by NichirasuKenshin
reply to post by drmeola

 

A good thing that the UN is neither a nobility nor a foreign state when it comes to its standing in front of international law. If not, you could at least argue that you do have a case - just one with no substance. With things as they are, you don't even have a case.

Let's try to deny ignorance, not promote it!

My thoughts exactly.

Thou shalt not leave without a second line. Amen.

reply to post by drmeola


No Sir! i dont not like this at all...............No Sir!

appointed himself strike one

that council is answerable to the secretary general

strike two
the council has a very important role to play in preventing the spread and use of nuclear weapons, and it’s the world’s principal body for dealing with global security cooperation

strike three


YOUR FIRED!!!!!!!!!

giving the un more power bowing to their wills selling out this countrys own right to sovereignty its own right to govern itself..


TREASONOUS! IMPEACH!!!!! but in all reality the only way we can get rid of mr obama is to vote him out.....

Something tells me that Obama is an Antichrist; a predecessor to the coming Biblical Antichrist, aka Maitreya the Christ.

Obama surely displays most of the characteristics of the Antichrist.

other then this one questionable article, anyone confirm this from another source?

Uh oh! It's another "black hole thread!"

The ignorance! It's CRUSHING ME! AAAAAAHHHH!


I love how everyone screams IMPEACH whenever this POTUS does anything.

Have any of you ever read how an impeachment goes? Do any of you at all know what is an impeachable offense? When you do, then come back and make a better argument, until then....

reply to post by whatukno




He did move to the country (From Kenya).

2nd line.

-m0r

reply to post by HomerinNC


several just have to google it. there is even a recorded video of him slamming the gavel to start the meeting.

reply to post by whatukno


US Constitution section 3 The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
Because only the Senate has the ability to impeach is the reason it will never be done for any offence.

www.cftech.com...

I: Introduction [Return to Top]
The Constitution deals with the subject of impeachment and conviction at six places. The scope of the power is set out in Article II, Section 4:

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
II. Historical Origins of the Impeachment Process [Return to Top]
The Constitution provides that the President"... shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." The framers could have written simply "or other crimes" - as indeed they did in the provision for extradition of criminal offenders from one state to another. They did not do that. If they had meant simply to denote seriousness, they could have done so directly. They did not do that either. They adopted instead a unique phrase used for centuries in English parliamentary impeachments, for the meaning of which one must look to history.
The origins and use of impeachment in England, the circumstances under which impeachment became a part of the American constitutional system, and the American experience with impeachment are the best available sources for developing an understanding of the function of impeachment and the circumstances in which it may become appropriate in relation to the presidency.

So do I now need to give you a incomplete list of things the sitting President has done under the laws of impeachment. And I say incomplete because we will never know the full extent of the crimes bribes and out right treason he has committed. But I will provide the definitions of all then you decide.
C. American Impeachment Cases [Return to Top]
Thirteen officers have been impeached by the House since 1787: one President, one cabinet officer, one United States Senator, and ten Federal judges. In addition there have been numerous resolutions and investigations in the House not resulting in impeachment. However, the action of the House in declining to impeach an officer is not particularly illuminating. The reasons for failing to impeach are generally not stated, and may have rested upon a failure of proof, legal insufficiency of the grounds, political judgment, the press of legislative business, or the closeness of the expiration of the session of Congress. On the other hand, when the House has voted to impeach an officer, a majority of the Members necessarily have concluded that the conduct alleged constituted grounds for impeachment.
Does Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution, which states that judges "shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour," limit the relevance of the ten impeachments of judges with respect to presidential impeachment standards as has been argued by same? It does not. The argument is that "good behavior" implies an additional ground for impeachment of judges not applicable to other civil officers. However, the only impeachment provision discussed in the Convention and included in the Constitution is Article II, Section 4, which, by its express terms, applies to All civil officers, including judges, and defines impeachment offenses as "Treason, Bribery, and other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
In any event, the interpretation of the "good behavior" clause adopted by the House in deciding to impeach a judge has not been made clear in any of them. Whichever view is taken, the judicial impeachments have involved an assessment of the conduct of the officer in terms of the constitutional duties of his office. In this respect, the impeachments of judges are consistent with the three impeachments of non-judicial officers.
Each of the thirteen American impeachments involved charges of misconduct incompatible with the official position of the officeholder. This conduct falls into three broad categories: (1) exceeding the constitutional bounds of the powers of the office in derogation of the powers of another branch of government; (2) behaving in a manner grossly incompatible with the proper function and purpose of the office; and (3) employing the power of the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain.

The Criminality Issue [Return to Top]
The phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" may connote "criminality" to some. This likely is the predicate for some of the contentions that only an indictable crime can constitute impeachable conduct. Other advocates of an indictable-offense requirement would establish a criminal standard of impeachable conduct because that standard is definite, can be known in advance and reflects a contemporary legal view of what conduct should he punished. A requirement of criminality would require resort to familiar criminal laws and concepts to serve as standards in the impeachment process. Furthermore, this would pose problems concerning the applicability of standards of proof and the like pertaining to the trial of crimes.
The central issue raised by these concerns is whether requiring an indictable offense as an essential element of impeachable conduct is consistent with the purposes and intent of the framers in establishing the impeachment power and in setting a constitutional standard for the exercise of that power. This issue must he considered in light of the historical evidence of the framers' intent. It is also useful to consider whether the purposes of impeachment and criminal law are such that indictable offenses can, consistent with the Constitution, be an essential element of grounds for impeachment. The impeachment of a President must occur only for reasons at least as pressing as those needs of government that give rise to the creation of criminal offenses. But this does not mean that the various elements of proof, defenses, and other substantive concepts surrounding an indictable offense control the impeachment process. Nor does it mean that state or federal criminal codes are necessarily the place to turn to provide a standard under the United States Constitution. Impeachment is a constitutional remedy. The framers intended that the impeachment language they employed should reflect the grave misconduct that so injures or abuses our constitutional institutions and form of government as to justify impeachment.
This view is supported by the historical evidence of the constitutional meaning of the words "high Crimes and Misdemeanors." That evidence is set out above. It establishes that the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" -- which over a period of centuries evolved into the English standard of impeachable conduct -- has a special historical meaning different from the ordinary meaning of the terms "crimes" and "misdemeanors." "High misdemeanors," referred to a category of offenses that subverted the system of government. Since the fourteenth century the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" had been used in English impeachment cases to charge officials with a wide range of criminal and non-criminal offenses against the institutions and fundamental principles of English government.
There is evidence that the framers were aware of this special, non-criminal meaning of the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" in the English law of impeachment. Not only did Hamilton acknowledge Great Britain as "the model from which [impeachment] has been borrowed," but George Mason referred in the debates to the impeachment of Hastings, then pending before Parliament. Indeed, Mason, who proposed the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors," expressly stated his intent to encompass "[a]ttempts to subvert the Constitution."
It is useful to note three major presidential duties of broad scope that are explicitly recited in the Constitution: "to take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," to "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States" and to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States" to the best of his ability. The first is directly imposed by the Constitution; the second and third are included in the constitutionally prescribed oath that the President is required to take before he enters upon the execution of his office and are, therefore, also expressly imposed by the Constitution.
The duty to take care is affirmative. So is the duty faithfully to execute the office. A President must carry out the obligations of his office diligently and in good faith. The elective character and political role of a President make it difficult to define faithful exercise of his powers in the abstract. A President must make policy and exercise discretion. This discretion necessarily is broad, especially in emergency situations, but the constitutional duties of a President impose limitations on its exercise.
The "take care" duty emphasizes the responsibility of a President for the overall conduct of the executive branch, which the Constitution vests in him alone. He must take care that the executive is so organized and operated that this duty is performed.
The duty of a President to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution" to the best of his ability includes the duty not to abuse his powers or transgress their limits -- not to violate the rights of citizens, such as those guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, and not to act in derogation of powers vested elsewhere by the Constitution.
Not all presidential misconduct is sufficient to constitute grounds for impeachment. There is a further requirement -- substantiality. In deciding whether this further requirement has been met, the facts must be considered as a whole in the context of the office, not in terms of separate or isolated events. Because impeachment of a President is a grave step for the nation, it is to be predicated only upon conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the presidential office.
And so it goes round and round, I encourage anyone interested to read the entire report it’s a great history lesson and way to long to post here.

reply to post by drmeola


First, learn to use the external source tags so that we know when it's what you are writing, and what is from an external source.

Second, Ok, so you have absolutely nothing, nothing that is a crime in any way shape or form, no high crimes, no misdemeanors, no crimes. But you still want Obama impeached?

Why?

reply to post by whatukno


The funny thing is that you, me and everyone else reading this thread already has the answer to that question...

The evidence for impeachment although over whelming may still be considered circumstantial and it cost the House funds to investigate before bringing the charge for impeachment to the Senate is why we no longer see impeachments in the US. Since most elected officials have performed impeachable offenses they would have to fire themselves before firing the President.

Now lets go back some, Obama before his election into the Senate during and interview was asked about his birth place (Kenya) he responded and I Quote “so what it’s not like I’m running for President” his words not mine. More questionable background, when asked under oath have you ever been known under any other names or aliases? He responded “no”. NO, ok then who was Barry Sorrento? The same Barry Sorrento that in 1981 went to Pakistan for 3 months and came back with the name Barrack Hussein Obama? Must have been someone else with that name, but hey in 1981 the US wasn’t even issuing travel visa’s into Pakistan so how did he get one. Obama makes a slip of the tongue when mentioning 57 states no we don’t have 57 states and quickly back tracks, but wait there are 57 states of Islam making up the Muslim countries, but no Barry is not a Muslim practicing Taqiyya. Or how about the chosen name of Barrack he said it came from his father, but wait you can unscramble it to read (Akbar) depending on how you spell it but that is a stretch and add to lighten the mood.

Fact, I don’t care were he was born, point is his father was not a US citizen and that alone disqualifies him to hold the office of President of the United States period. But they play word games to achieve their goals. It’s all nothing more then a red herring to accomplish the goal of one world order under the U.N. and that is where this whole thread started. So I think we have come full circle as they say, and I digress to you the readers.

reply to post by drmeola

Obama before his election into the Senate during and interview was asked about his birth place (Kenya) he responded and I Quote “so what it’s not like I’m running for President” his words not mine.

That's a lie, we have already proven that was a complete lie already, we went through the transcripts with a fine tooth comb of those debates and he never EVER said that he was born in Kenya.

Ok never-mind, I am not going to get into this with someone who doesn't have any facts, and tries to use known lies to push their agenda. Never-mind.

reply to post by whatukno


Sorry since they changed the site I am still trying to fig out how to do it every time I try it messes up lol. And not only do I want Obama impeached but most of the house and senate seats and several judges. And other Presidents before him I have also wanted to impeach so it’s not and Obama thing with me. And do I really have to go through his entire voting record and all the brides oh sorry money trails he has left behind when in the Senate.

Ok let me explain further, first any candidate that excepts funds for election purposes, that is fine on it’s own, but then upon election to office grants such things as government contracts or giving them appointed positions within the government then that becomes a bribe. In my opinion no company or lobbyist should be allowed to contribute to anyone’s campaign, and contributions should only be left up to the general public, by the people for the people.

Also his allowing to let what’s his name to be sworn in with his hand on the Koran is also and act of treason hate to tell you.

reply to post by whatukno


Oh you didn’t read what I said, I did not say he was from Kenya, that is what the reporter asked him, I was only stating his response, he never admitted or denied the fact, just avoided the question and said again I quote * so what its not like I am running for President*