Obama King of the UN/ and the World

You read all the transcripts you want it did not happen in a debate it was an interview in his office at the time.

Oh man the level of ignorance here is staggering. Ok lets start with the very basics. The Permanent Representative of the US or any country takes the role of the President of the United Nations Security Council. Anytime a higher ranking member of that government attends a Security Council meeting that person automaticly becomes The President for that time period. So you will see multiple Presidents for a month. For example James Baker Bush Srs Sec State in 1990, Al Gore in 2000 and in 2009 H Clinton and Obama. In this case Obama wanting to push disarmament showed up at a meeting. He for that day is considered President of the Security Coucil because he is of higher rank then the Ambassdor, who in fact retains the job as soon as thier superior leaves. So although the others only show up for one meeting they get listed as President for the month along with the Ambassdor and anyone else who shows up. Just last month the President of Turkey was among them.

reply to post by MrSpad


Ok I am going to make an assumption here, only because I am not sure where to locate the information. I understand what you are saying I truly do, but how ever that is not a requirement from my understanding of the UN, just because a high official is present, that per say official does NOT have to take on the leadership role, nor do I ever recall any other sitting President of the Unites States ever doing so even when it was our turn and he was present. So as you make it sound that it is a fact that no matter what if the high up is there that he has to take the gavel in that regards I think you are mistaken.

Another point, ones he leaves the other normal person for the job takes back over, that also is in correct he being Obama does not in fact have to be present after the first day, and for the full month is considered in charge, after he lays out his agenda for the month the others that stay see towards its accomplishment.

Just like he doesn’t have to stay in the White House all the time, he can go other places and leave others in charge of his agenda if that makes since to you. I am the boss I tell you what to do, do I have to supervise you the whole time NO, but you better do as I say or you’re out of a job.

Like you stated the Ambassador takes his place back, well the Ambassador is nothing more than a go between a representative of the President at all times. The first day of changing of the guard as it were, sets the agenda for the month or time of appointment, and this appointment is on a rotating basis I understand that. But again on that first day everything to be debated for that time period is laid out. The Ambassador is an appointed position and there for takes his lead from the President and not the people making him the fall guy to care out the Un Constitutional plans of the President and is exactly why our founders stated that there should have never set up such a group as the UN. And warned us about the dangers of doing so.

Originally posted by drmeola
reply to post by MrSpad

 

Ok I am going to make an assumption here, only because I am not sure where to locate the information. I understand what you are saying I truly do, but how ever that is not a requirement from my understanding of the UN, just because a high official is present, that per say official does NOT have to take on the leadership role, nor do I ever recall any other sitting President of the Unites States ever doing so even when it was our turn and he was present. So as you make it sound that it is a fact that no matter what if the high up is there that he has to take the gavel in that regards I think you are mistaken.

Another point, ones he leaves the other normal person for the job takes back over, that also is in correct he being Obama does not in fact have to be present after the first day, and for the full month is considered in charge, after he lays out his agenda for the month the others that stay see towards its accomplishment.

Just like he doesn’t have to stay in the White House all the time, he can go other places and leave others in charge of his agenda if that makes since to you. I am the boss I tell you what to do, do I have to supervise you the whole time NO, but you better do as I say or you’re out of a job.

Like you stated the Ambassador takes his place back, well the Ambassador is nothing more than a go between a representative of the President at all times. The first day of changing of the guard as it were, sets the agenda for the month or time of appointment, and this appointment is on a rotating basis I understand that. But again on that first day everything to be debated for that time period is laid out. The Ambassador is an appointed position and there for takes his lead from the President and not the people making him the fall guy to care out the Un Constitutional plans of the President and is exactly why our founders stated that there should have never set up such a group as the UN. And warned us about the dangers of doing so.

The Ambassador always answers to the President. That is just common sense. The seat of President of the Security Council is held by the nation who's turn it is and thus by that nations leader. The Ambassador who represents that leader of course takes a back seat to they leader or any other superior if they come to a Security Council meeting. If a superior of the Ambassador who holds the Presidents chair comes to a UN Security Coucil meeting then they chair it. This the rule and it is also common sense, you would not have a leaders represtative chair a meeting the leader was at. Obama is the first American President to chair a meeting although Vice Presidents and more commonly Secretarys of State do as well. Leaders of foriegn states do as well.

So lets go over this again. The UN ambassador as the Presidents rep and highest ranking member of the US gov holds the seat unless a higher ranking member of the US Gov comes to a meeting. That person for that time holds the title as the highest ranking member of the US gov. The turn lasts for one month and then another nation takes over. In that time the Permanent Ambassador and anyone of higher rank who has chaired a meeting hold the title for the month. This will lead to several people holding the same title. Keep in mind the President of the UN SC does not have any power other then to chair meetings and make statements that the council approves. In the past the position has not been considered important enought for heads of state to bother attending in person. However as the age of 24 hour news coverage began leaders who wished to get some press for whatever issue they wanted would show up, bang the gavel and get some press and then go home. None of this is a secret.

Originally posted by drmeola
The Ambassador is an appointed position and there for takes his lead from the President and not the people making him the fall guy to care out the Un Constitutional plans of the President and is exactly why our founders stated that there should have never set up such a group as the UN. And warned us about the dangers of doing so.

To suggest that our founding fathers were principally against international cooperation is nonsense. In fact America was one of the driving forces behind implementing ideas of "global laws" as well as institutionalizing them in supranational bodies. Just go to the maritime laws and the changes in the field after America won its independance. Many a historian believes that the birth of institutionalized supranational law happened there and therefore can be considered an idea widely accepted by the USA.

It's just that decades of John-Birch-Society claptrap has stiffled any real discussion of the true merits, accomplishments, dangers and failures of the UN - a debate that is alive and productive outside of the US where JBS kind of crazyness traditonally falls outside of the established customs of political discourse.

I will start here, then move into the origanial 13th Amendment.

www.historylearningsite.co.uk...


Background
The League of Nations came into being after the end of World War One. The League of Nation's task was simple - to ensure that war never broke out again. After the turmoil caused by the Versailles Treaty, many looked to the League to bring stability to the world.
America entered World War One in 1917. The country as a whole and the president - Woodrow Wilson in particular - was horrified by the slaughter that had taken place in what was meant to be a civilised part of the world. The only way to avoid a repetition of such a disaster, was to create an international body whose sole purpose was to maintain world peace and which would sort out international disputes as and when they occurred. This would be the task of the League of Nations.
After the devastation of the war, support for such a good idea was great (except in America where isolationism was taking root).
The organisation of the League of Nations
The League of Nations was to be based in Geneva, Switzerland. This choice was natural as Switzerland was a neutral country and had not fought in World War One. No one could dispute this choice especially as an international organisation such as the Red Cross was already based in Switzerland.
If a dispute did occur, the League, under its Covenant, could do three things - these were known as its sanctions:
It could call on the states in dispute to sit down and discuss the problem in an orderly and peaceful manner. This would be done in the League’s Assembly - which was essentially the League’s parliament which would listen to disputes and come to a decision on how to proceed. If one nation was seen to be the offender, the League could introduce verbal sanctions - warning an aggressor nation that she would need to leave another nation's territory or face the consequences.
If the states in dispute failed to listen to the Assembly’s decision, the League could introduce economic sanctions. This would be arranged by the League’s Council. The purpose of this sanction was to financially hit the aggressor nation so that she would have to do as the League required. The logic behind it was to push an aggressor nation towards bankruptcy, so that the people in that state would take out their anger on their government forcing them to accept the League’s decision. The League could order League members not to do any trade with an aggressor nation in an effort to bring that aggressor nation to heel.
if this failed, the League could introduce physical sanctions. This meant that military force would be used to put into place the League’s decision. However, the League did not have a military force at its disposal and no member of the League had to provide one under the terms of joining - unlike the current United Nations. Therefore, it could not carry out any threats and any country defying its authority would have been very aware of this weakness. The only two countries in the League that could have provided any military might were Britain and France and both had been severely depleted strength-wise in World War One and could not provide the League with the backing it needed. Also both Britain and France were not in a position to use their finances to pay for an expanded army as both were financially hit very hard by World War One.

The League also had other weaknesses :
The country, whose president, Woodrow Wilson, had dreamt up the idea of the League - America - refused to join it. As America was the world’s most powerful nation, this was a serious blow to the prestige of the League. However, America’s refusal to join the League, fitted in with her desire to have an isolationist policy throughout the world.

As you can clearly see, America did not want any kind of United Nations from the get go, so no our fore fathers did warn us about such a thing, since in face we were and should maintain a ISOLATIONIST colony. The idea didn't even come into play till after WW1 so wake up. And truly research our fore fathers.

www.apfn.org...

The Original 13th Amendment
This Article of Amendment, ratified in 1819 and which just "disappeared" in 1876, added an enforceable strict penalty, i.e., inability to hold office and loss of citizenship, for violations of the already existing constitutional prohibition in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8 on titles of nobility and other conflicts of citizenship interest, such as accepting emoluments of any kind for services or favors rendered or to be rendered, and is particularly applicable today in the 21st Century as government is increasingly FOR SALE to the highest bidder, as foreign and multinational corporations and individuals compete to line the pockets of politicians and political parties to accommodate and purchase protection or privilege, i.e. honors, for their special interests.
In January, 1810, Senator Reed proposed the "Title of
Nobility" Amendment (History of Congress, Proceedings of the
Senate, p. 529-530). On April 27, 1810, the Senate voted to pass
this 13th Amendment by a vote of 26 to 1; the House resolved in
the affirmative 87 to 3; and the resolve was sent to the States
for ratification: By Dec. 10, 1812, twelve of the required
thirteen States had ratified as follows: Maryland, Dec. 25,
1810; Kentucky, Jan. 31, 1811; Ohio, Jan. 31, 1811; Delaware, Feb.
2, 1811; Pennsylvania, Feb. 6, 1811; New Jersey, Feb. 13, 1811;
Vermont, Oct. 24, 1811; Tennessee, Nov. 21, 1811; Georgia, Dec.
13, 1811; North Carolina, Dec. 23, 1811; Massachusetts, Feb. 27,
1812;New Hampshire, Dec. 10, 1812. Before a thirteenth State could
ratify, the War of 1812 broke out and interupted this very rapid
move for ratification.

No record has been found that the State of Connecticut ever acted
to either accept or reject this original 13th Amendment. Yet, it
was published in three separate editions of "The Public Statute
Laws of the State of Connecticut" as a part of the U.S.
Constitution in 1821, 1824 and 1835. Then, without record or
explanation, it mysteriously disappeared from subsequent editions
prior to the Civil War between the states. However, printing by a
legislature is prima facie evidence of ratification, and it has
been found to have been printed as part of the Constitution in
this and many other states until around the Civil War period -
when it mysteriously disappeared from subsequent printings. It
was found to have been printed by the legislature of this State in
the following: 1821 - The Public Statute Laws of the State of
Connecticut, as revised and enacted by the General Assembly in
May, 1821 pg. 19 1824 - The Public Statute Laws of the State of
Connecticut, as revised and enacted by the General Assembly in
May, 1824 pg.18-19 1835 - The Public Statute Laws of the State of
Connecticut, compiled in obedience to a resolve of the General
Assembly passed May, 1835, to which is prefixed the Declaration of
Independence & Constitution of the United States and the State of
Connecticut, published by the authority of the State of
Connecticut. The Marginal note in all three publications reads:
"Citizenship forfeited by the acceptance, from a foreign power, of
any title of nobility, office or emolument of any kind, &c." The
prima facie evidence of ratification of this Amendment is
overwhelming. Since the creditors of this bankruptcy are foreign
powers and this "unacountable committee of lawyers'" spoken of by
Robert H. Bork have accepted and retained the "office of trustee"
for these creditors and foreign powers, their Citizenship has
been forfeited by this acceptance.


Esquire

A title applied by attorneys to themselves, to officers of the court, to members of the bar, and others of ill repute. No one in the United States is entitled to it by law, and therefore, it confers, no distinction in law.

In England, it is a title next above that of a gentleman, and below a knight. Camden records four kinds of esquires, particularly regarded by the heralds:

1. The eldest sons of knights and their eldest sons, in perpetual succession.

2. The eldest sons of the younger sons of peers, and their eldest sons in like perpetual succession.

3. Esquires created by the king's letters patent, or other investiture, and their eldest sons.

4. Esquires by virtue of their office, as justices of the peace, and others who bear any office of trust under the crown.

NOBILITY. An order of men in several countries to whom privileges are granted at the expense of the rest of the people.

The constitution of the United States provides that no state shall " grant any title of nobility; and no person can become a citizen of the United States until he has renounced all titles of nobility." The Federalist, No. 84; 2 Story, Laws U. S. 851.

There is not in the constitution today any general prohibition against any citizen whomsoever, whether in public or private life, accepting any foreign title of nobility. An amendment of the constitution in this respect has been recommended by congress, but it has not been ratified by a sufficient number of states to make it a part of the constitution. Rawle on the Const. 120; Story, Const. _1346.

The Court, in "Horst v. Moses", 48 Alabama 129, 142 (1872) gave the following description of a title of nobility:

To confer a title of nobility, is to nominate to an order of persons to whom privileges are granted at the expense of the rest of the people. It is not necessarily hereditary, and the objection to it arises more from the privileges supposed to be attached than to the otherwise empty title or order. These components are forbidden separately in the terms "privilege", "honor", and "emoluments", as they are collectively in the term "title of nobility". The prohibition is not affected by any consideration paid or rendered for the grant.
The prohibition of titles of nobility estops the claim of eminent domain through fictions of law. Eminent domain is the legal euphemism for expropriation, and unreasonable seizure given sanction by the targets of this amendment.

Here is the original 13th amendment to the United States Constitution that was ratified in 1819. Then attorneys caused it to disappear in order to establish their claim of superiority with Titles of Nobility over the people. The total ramifications of this earlier 13th Amendment being unlawfully removed are very serious.

All members of the BAR (British Accreditation Registry) including our so called President whom both he and his wife had to give up their membership in the BAR, before running for office. As well as all members of our Government are not by law allowed to hold office of any kind since as a member of the BAR are not considered to be US Citizens. GET IT NOW

Our fore fathers did not want any of this, no United Nations or any thing else, and still researching the exact documents that back that.

www.uhuh.com...

In 1983 David Dodge and Tom Dunn were searching for evidence of government corruption in public records in a Belfast Library on the coast of Maine. They uncovered probably the most explosive evidence ever uncovered in our history. They uncovered the United States Constitution printed in 1825, which was to prohibit lawyers from serving in Government.
Extensive research since then has uncovered the following:
1.) The unlawful removal of a ratified 13th Amendment from the US Constitution.
2.) The Amendment had been printed in at least 18 separate publications by 11 different states and territories from 1819 to 1868.
3.) The Amendment was secretly removed from documents by a group of lawyers and bankers. In its place was entered the slave Amendment, which was the 14th amendment, which was changed to the 13th Amendment. All of this occurred during the turmoil of the civil war.
4.) Since the Amendment was not lawfully repealed, it is still the law of the land.
5.) Colorado printed the correct 13th Amendment in 1668. [This probably should read 1868.]
The following is why the Amendment was written and what the meaning is: (Keep in mind we had just fought the Revolutionary War.) The "title of nobility" and words such as "nobility," "honour," "emperor," "king," "esquire" and "prince" normally would lead you, today, to dismiss this Amendment.
There is a book in the Library of Congress Law Library called 2 VA LAW. This reveals the overthrow of the constitutional government by secret agreements engineered by the lawyers. That is one of the reasons for the 13th Amendment.
In Colonial America, attorneys trained attorneys but most held no "title of nobility" or "honor." There was no requirement that one be a lawyer to hold the position of district attorney, attorney general, or judge. A citizen's "counsel of choice" was not restricted to a lawyer and there was no state or federal bar association. The only organization that certified lawyers was the International Bar Association, chartered by the King of England, head-quartered in London, and closely associated with the international banking system. Lawyers admitted to the IBA received the rank of "Esquire," a "title of nobility."
"Esquire" was the principle title of nobility which the 13th Amendment sought to prohibit, thus prohibiting the holding of office in America by bankers' lawyers with an "Esquire" behind their names who were agents of the monarchy and European bankers.
Article 1, Sect. 9 of the Constitution sought to prohibit the International Bar Association or any other agency from granting titles of nobility. The Constitution was ignored and agents of the monarchy continued to infiltrate and influence the government as in the Jay Treaty and the US Bank charter incidents. Therefore, a "title of nobility" amendment that specified a penalty (loss of citizenship) was proposed in 1789 and again in 1810. The meaning of the amendment is seen in its intent to prohibit persons having titles of nobility and loyalties to foreign governments and bankers from voting, holding public office or using their skills to subvert the government.

For example, anyone who had a specific "immunity" from lawsuits which were not afforded to all citizens, would be enjoying a separate privilege, and "honor" and would therefore forfeit his right to vote or hold public office. Just think of the "immunities" from lawsuits that your judges, lawyers, politicians, and bureaucrats currently enjoy. Or "special interest" legislation your government passes. "Special interests" are simply euphemisms for "special privileges" or Honors.
Without their current personal immunities (honors), your judges and IRS agents would be unable to abuse common citizens without fear of legal liability. Your entire government would have to conduct itself according to the same standards of decency, respect, law, and liability as the rest of the nation. Your government's ability to systematically coerce and abuse the public would be all but eliminated under the 13th Amendment.
Now you know why the bankers and lawyers secretly replaced the 13th amendment. Had they not, you would have the government our founding fathers intended when they passed the 13th Amendment, a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, a government whose members were truly accountable to the people; a government that could not systematically exploit its own people.

The War of 1812 broke out with England. By the time the war ended in 1614 the British had burned the capitol, the library of congress, and most of the records of the first 38 years of government.
Then Virginia ratified the 13th Amendment on March 10, 1819. This completed the 13 states required to ratify an amendment. (Virginia Legislature Act No. 260, Virginia Archives of Richmond, file, page 299, micro-film). It was published by printing 4,000 copies, triple the usual order, with instructions to send a copy to President James Monroe, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson.
Then it was shown as an amendment to the Constitution.
The 14th amendment was the slavery amendment. Now the 13th Amendment is missing.
Word spread of the ratification and the following occurred:
• Rhode Island and Kentucky published the new Amendment in 1822.
• Ohio first published it in 1824.
• Maine ordered 10,000 copies of the Constitution with the 13th Amendment for school use in 1824 and again in 1831 for the Census Edition.
• Indiana Revised Laws of 1831 published the 13th article on page 20, Northwestern Territories in 1833.
• Ohio Published it in 1831 and again 1833.
• Wisconsin Territory in 1839.
• Iowa Territory in 1843.
• Ohio again in 1848.
• Kansas Statutes in 1855.
• Nebraska Territory 1855, 1856, 1857, 1858, 1859 and 1860.
• Colorado Territory printed the U. S Constitution in its Statutes publication showing the 13th Amendment in 1868.
It's there. Just get into your dusty historical records and you will find that your state had it and now you are being robbed of your God given right to the 13th Amendment. You are now a peasant.
Article XIII of the 13th Amendment
"1.) If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain, any title of nobility or honor, or shall, without the consent of congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them. "
If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain, any title of nobility or honor ----
Do you call your judge, "your honor?"
Ask your Lawyer what that Esq. or Esquire means at the end of his name.
Your judges are immune to prosecution. Your judge is your honor and God. If you do not believe it go to court and watch and listen.
Your politicians abuse you, steal from you and make themselves immune to prosecution.
Your government abuses you, poisons you with radioactive waste and takes away your freedom.
The IRS abuses you. The IRS is not a Federal Agency but a collection agency for the Fed Bank, yet people of special privilege. The Fed Bank is owned by a majority, and those being foreign investors.

www.uhuh.com...

The 16th Amendment
was never ratified
The 16th Amendment to the Constitution was never ratified by the required states. But even if it had, it says there are
only three ways you can be taxed:
a.) Import tax b.) Export tax c.) Excise tax (Sales tax)
Take a look at an IRS levy form and you will find it starts with B, C, D, etc. You might wonder where (A) is. Well,
(A) says the only people that can be taxed
by income tax are Federal Employees.
An agreement made back at the beginning of Government was if you are a Federal Employee you agree to a kick back tax when you go to work for them. Thank God for people like David M. Dodge.

Well alright your logic fails at several points here:

First of all, of course President Obama was never in charge of the Security Council directly, as has been stated before.

Second, all of your constitutional arguments are false and deemed frivolous in US courts because the 16th Amendment is seen as ratified and enforced by the courts and the "original" 13th Amendment is not.

Third, titles of peerage are not recognized by the United States government when granted, as such even though former presidents such as Ronald Regan, George H.W. Bush and others have been knighted by the British Crown (in those cases HRM Queen Elizabeth II) they hold no weight within the US and do not violate law.

Fourth, even if they did, UN titles and appointments are not considered titles of peerage or nobility and are thus no covered by any law or statute.

Originally posted by neo96
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.....

Good to see facts, truth and reality wont stand in your way, Patriot.

second line waiting to be called an obamabot