I want to begin by thanking James Lewis for broaching the most important subject the MSM never touches:
If Washington rumor has it right this is the first time I remember reading an article published anywhere that said an American president was ACTIVELY campaigning for the job. Bill Clinton always wanted the job, but the media went along when he acted like Frosty the Snowman running away from the job. His game was to make it look like the UN came begging. Articles about the possibility of a Secretary General Clinton appeared on the Internet. As far as I know nobody in the MSM ever touched the topic on orders from the paymasters:
Critics of a one government world are dismissed as conspiracy theory nuts. Nevertheless, Rockefeller’s remarks about a one government world are supported by numerous statements and actions attributed to leading Democrats/Socialists. For me, Lewis’ piece effectively dispersed the Left’s favorite defense strategy; call your opponents conspiracy theory nut jobs when you get caught.
Having said the above, I strenuously disagree with James Lewis’ fabulous article on this one thing:
Here’s my disagreement. Hussein will have to kill Hillary Clinton before she lets him beat Bill to the secretary-general’s job.
Mr Lewis is right on the money in this next excerpt:
Aside from the secretary-general job, the MSM mumbles about getting to the truth in Benghazi. Look no further. Mr Lewis’ piece lays it out in plain English.
Returning to Hussein
I would add that S. 2433 (The Global Poverty Act) leaves no doubt Hussein was angling for the job when he was a senator. Not only was he laying plans for the UN job when he was a cipher in the Senate —— he assumed he would become president irrespective of his blank résumé. Getting the secretary-general job based on his time as president was a foregone conclusion. In short: He was attempting to buy General Assembly votes with tax dollars even before he got the Democratic party’s nomination. That explain’s his conduct as president; leading from behind etc. Luckily S. 2433 died.
This brief article will tell you just what that the Chicago Sewer Rat and Big Mouth Biden were trying to do to this country when they were senators:
Moving on to the Clintons
When Hillary Clinton first ran for the US Senate in the year 2000 I said this:
In the years after 2000 I posted many messages about the Clintons and their dream of running the world together. In 2006 I said this:
Now that Goofy Annan’s time as secretary-general draws to a close (Dec. 31, 2006) it is time, once again, to sound a warning about his possible successor.
For years I said that Bill Clinton was after the job. It my firm belief that the Clintons only moved to New York because the UN is headquartered there. They would have moved to the North Pole if that’s where UN Headquarters was located.
Last year Clinton finally admitted in an interview that he would like the job. He let the cat out of the bag as though the idea had just occurred to him. If the prospect of a President Hillary Clinton and a Secretary General Bill Clinton doesn’t scare the apathy out of you —— you have to be brain dead.
Let’s first look at how one becomes secretary-general. The UN General Assembly votes on a nominee. Any member of the SC (Security Council) can veto a candidate before they are offered up for a vote in the General Assembly. In case of a veto another nominee is found. (President Clinton vetoed a second term for Boutros Boutros Galli so Goofy Annan could keep the seat warm.)
It is important to understand why four of the five permanent SC members won’t veto Clinton. Those four are France, Great Britain, Russia, and Clinton’s old pals in China. Clinton has long demonstrated that he wants to abolish sovereign nations; including the independence of his own country. Clinton’s track record has earned him the trust of the International community. He will do the right thing because the UN is his first loyalty after socialism. That’s what counts to UN member states, and that’s why Clinton will not be vetoed by the four I listed.
Clinton is a cinch to get the required votes in the General Assembly. Everybody at the UN knows how much the majority of Americans despise the UN. They also know that the only hope of turning Americans around is for the UN’s vast propaganda apparatus to sell the UN as mankind’s only hope of avoiding nuclear war, global warming, poverty, HIV/AIDS, worldwide famine, and God only knows what else.
In order to finalize the sale a media propaganda campaign like you never thought possible is essential in canonizing the first American secretary-general. Every time Secretary General Clinton utters a word the press will report it around the clock as though utopia has finally arrived.
The US is the fifth SC member and the only possible member that might veto Clinton.
Why not Secretary General Clinton? Where’s the harm?
1. Secretary General Clinton stands the best chance of moving America closer to accepting a global government. That government will be totalitarian. Clinton would not be for it if it is anything less.
2. The UN’s Declaration of Human Rights is a blueprint for a global welfare state paid for with taxes levied on the wealth producers in First World countries. Clinton’s knowledge of how Washington works will go a long way towards instituting a universal welfare state.
3. Clinton is not alone in his betrayal. There are a lot of influential Beltway insiders who will help Clinton abolish America’s sovereignty. They include a few Republicans as well as a majority of elected Democrats.
4. Secretary General Clinton, working with President Hillary Clinton, has the political savvy to finally put some kind of an International tax like the Tobin Tax in place. Even Senator Hillary Clinton in a Democrat-controlled senate offers Secretary General Clinton limitless opportunities to advance the Socialist agenda. Think about the UN treaties they will bring up for ratification!
In October of 2007 I posted this:
The MSM is deifying Bill Clinton the same way it canonized JFK after he was assassinated. To this day the media talks about JFK as though he was universally loved. The truth is that at least half of the American people had no use for him or his politics but remained silent out of respect.
Bill Clinton can speak for himself, and often does; so it is hard for me to understand why the media treats him like he is sacred. The man spends more time in the public’s eye than does Lucille Ball in reruns. Clinton just will not go away like a good little former president should because he wants to be secretary-general so much he cannot letup for a second.
Last week Senator Clinton did the talkies. This week it was her husband’s turn. She was campaigning for the presidency; he is campaigning for the job of secretary-general.
Most of what Bill Clinton said on Meet The Press was standard political pap; everything from fictional global warming to fictional Jack Bauer being mean to a terrorist. I did find one of Clinton’s responses worth dissecting. Bear with me because his comments are jumbled as well as being couched in doublespeak:
The entire response to Russert’s question is about him becoming secretary-general. Let me make my case by interpreting a few key points. The first one:
He established the obvious. He cannot take a cabinet post. If memory serves, I believe that in the recent past Senator Clinton also issued the same disclaimer. Now, that the world knows he cannot be secretary of state all he has to do is avoid mentioning the UN.
This next selection slips in the International community without mentioning it by name:
The biggest foreign problem that Democrats face is that most Americans despise the United Nations. The plan has always been for him to give the UN legitimacy. Clinton may very well tour the country talking about his wife’s domestic agenda until Secretary General Ban Ki-moon leaves office one way or another. Bill Clinton’s tour will really be designed to win the trust of the American people. The idea is to have Americans first trust him, then trust the UN after he becomes secretary-general.
No foreign secretary-general will ever fool the American people into believing that the UN is a good deal for Americans. Only an American of stature can do that. Colin Powell and Bill Clinton are the only two who might pull it off with a lot of help from the media. Obviously, Powell would be running a distant second to President Hillary Clinton’s husband.
This next one is pure political opinion phrased in International community rhetoric:
I think they help create a false need for global government more than they help America.
Clinton knows that no one can knock what he says about the tax deductible “good works” he and the global government crowd engage in. I am not saying that he is lying. I am saying that he is smart enough to use the charity hustler’s gimmick; i.e., who will say they do not want to help children even knowing what the hustlers are pulling?
No matter how Global Initiative goals are presented, neither the Clintons nor anyone else can say why America must surrender its independence in order to solve the world’s problems. Once any of them say that Americans must give up their sovereignty to make the world a better place, Socialists expose themselves for what they are. Any debate on sovereignty must be avoided at all costs because such a debate must lead to the subject of UN taxing authority. That is why the sneaks are trying to get it done through phoney UN treaties like the LOST and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (Kyoto). That is why Secretary General Clinton must not become a campaign issue for Senator Clinton.
This next one is classic doublespeak:
What is Bill going to do? say NO when she “asks” him to take the top UN job.
And finally:
I am not sure if he means help her or help the UN. Either way, installing him as secretary-general is the goal.
Here is the link for the transcript of the entire Russert interview:
NOTE: Aside from the billions of tax dollars the UN gets from the American people every year, Clinton is the chief fund-raiser for UN charity hustles. Every dime he raises is tax deductible. In business lingo he is the UN’s top salesmen.
World leader my ass
Just what is a “world leader?” Then there is the question of more than one, which leads to my second question: Which world leader leads the other world leaders? The answer to question number two is obvious: The secretary-general of the UN.
I often asked myself what one must accomplish to become a “world leader?” First becoming the head of a national government appears to be the only qualification one needs to don the title. I never saw Mother Teresa referred to as a world leader; so I finally concluded it is a media tag. Once that became clear it was easy to see that being a national leader will become a lesser position in the overall scheme of things because one need not have been a head of state before becoming supreme leader over at the UN. No secretary-general of the UN has been a head of state beforehand.
On a lighter note, I should point out that an unusual sounding first name, at least unusual sounding to English-speaking people, might help if you want the secretary-general’s job.
1. Trygve
2. Dag
3. U (If I remember right that was pronounced “ooh"..)
4. Kurt (Nothing unusual there; so I’m not sure how he got in.)
5. Javier (Fairly common in Spanish-speaking countries.)
6. Boutros (That one was so good he used it twice.)
7. Kofi (Definitely the norm.)
8. Ban Ki-moon (Not too shoddy. He has the roll-on deodorant thing going for him.)
My point. I just can’t see a secretary-general with a first name like Bob, or Leroy, or Jack; those names seem lacking after names like Kofi and Ooh. William just doesn’t cut it; so the whole thing might hinge on the name Barack —— unless Bill legally changes his name to Bubba.
And let’s not forget the pecking order.
There has always been a pecking order in every form of government. In European monarchies it was kings, dukes, counts, no-accounts, and so on. In our republic it is president, vice president, member of Congress, governor, mayor, and so on down to the local ward heelers. With that in mind media propagandists are looking to eventually move UN secretaries-general to the head of the line over American presidents whenever they refer to one schmuck or another as a world leader.
Naturally, no one can attain the media status of world leader until they swear fidelity to the UN. Being a Socialist/Communist doesn’t hurt either. An American president who works to strengthen the UN, à la Clinton, was a world leader when he was in office. A president who is lukewarm towards the UN is not a world leader. In fact, such a president is not even a good national leader when judged by media standards.
Americans have former presidents. Is there such a thing as a former world leader? I doubt it because Clinton stopped being a world leader after he left office.
The “world leader” gambit is the slickest stratagem yet devised by media quislings for the sole purpose of convincing the American people that the secretary-general of the UN should be the world’s supreme world leader. What else would you call him when all of other world leaders are in town.
Let’s close on a serious note.
Ban Ki-Moon’s second term ends on December 31, 2016. That means the stars are aligned for an American to take over. Elect Hillary and it will be Clinton. Elect a Democrat other than Hillary and it might be Hussein. That’s why it will be important knowing where Republican wannabes stand on US membership in the UN before they get the nomination.
Here’s a scary scenario for the Memorial Day holiday. Hussein resigns after the nominating convention so Biden can make him secretary-general in time to take over on January 1, 2017. That would beat Hillary and Bill to the finish line should she become president-elect.
The worst of it
An American secretary-general will hold office for 10 years at the most. After that it will be one foreign secretary-general after another until NORTH AMERICA’S turn comes around again. That could take 40 or more years. And there is no guarantee preventing a Canadian Socialist, or a Mexican drug lord, from getting the job.
Here’s another choker. The authority over the American people the first American secretary-general hands to the UN will pass on to his successors. Naturally, that authority will increase just as the federal government increased its authority to where it is at today. THINK IRS.
Also, there is a sick possibility the parasitic democracy-loving crowd will demand and get a popular vote. You figure out the odds of an American, or a Christian, winning such an election.
p.s. For all of the messages I posted on this topic liberals seldom debated my contention. The few that did try to defend the UN presented weak arguments that were more absurd than serious. Their arguments usually settled on touchy-feely garbage unsupported by economic realities. Not a one of them ever made the case for Americans giving their hard earned dollars to the Third World through the United Nations.
p.p.s. Domestically, the Chicago Sewer Rat is a firm believer in showering tax dollars on the parasite class. Apply that belief worldwide and you’ll see that neither Hussein nor Clinton nor any American should ever be secretary-general. Reason: An American secretary-general can only work against Americans. There is no other way. Withdraw from the UN and the problem goes away forever.
If Washington rumor has it right this is the first time I remember reading an article published anywhere that said an American president was ACTIVELY campaigning for the job. Bill Clinton always wanted the job, but the media went along when he acted like Frosty the Snowman running away from the job. His game was to make it look like the UN came begging. Articles about the possibility of a Secretary General Clinton appeared on the Internet. As far as I know nobody in the MSM ever touched the topic on orders from the paymasters:
Critics of a one government world are dismissed as conspiracy theory nuts. Nevertheless, Rockefeller’s remarks about a one government world are supported by numerous statements and actions attributed to leading Democrats/Socialists. For me, Lewis’ piece effectively dispersed the Left’s favorite defense strategy; call your opponents conspiracy theory nut jobs when you get caught.
Having said the above, I strenuously disagree with James Lewis’ fabulous article on this one thing:
Here’s my disagreement. Hussein will have to kill Hillary Clinton before she lets him beat Bill to the secretary-general’s job.
Mr Lewis is right on the money in this next excerpt:
Aside from the secretary-general job, the MSM mumbles about getting to the truth in Benghazi. Look no further. Mr Lewis’ piece lays it out in plain English.
Returning to Hussein
I would add that S. 2433 (The Global Poverty Act) leaves no doubt Hussein was angling for the job when he was a senator. Not only was he laying plans for the UN job when he was a cipher in the Senate —— he assumed he would become president irrespective of his blank résumé. Getting the secretary-general job based on his time as president was a foregone conclusion. In short: He was attempting to buy General Assembly votes with tax dollars even before he got the Democratic party’s nomination. That explain’s his conduct as president; leading from behind etc. Luckily S. 2433 died.
This brief article will tell you just what that the Chicago Sewer Rat and Big Mouth Biden were trying to do to this country when they were senators:
Moving on to the Clintons
When Hillary Clinton first ran for the US Senate in the year 2000 I said this:
In the years after 2000 I posted many messages about the Clintons and their dream of running the world together. In 2006 I said this:
Now that Goofy Annan’s time as secretary-general draws to a close (Dec. 31, 2006) it is time, once again, to sound a warning about his possible successor.
For years I said that Bill Clinton was after the job. It my firm belief that the Clintons only moved to New York because the UN is headquartered there. They would have moved to the North Pole if that’s where UN Headquarters was located.
Last year Clinton finally admitted in an interview that he would like the job. He let the cat out of the bag as though the idea had just occurred to him. If the prospect of a President Hillary Clinton and a Secretary General Bill Clinton doesn’t scare the apathy out of you —— you have to be brain dead.
Let’s first look at how one becomes secretary-general. The UN General Assembly votes on a nominee. Any member of the SC (Security Council) can veto a candidate before they are offered up for a vote in the General Assembly. In case of a veto another nominee is found. (President Clinton vetoed a second term for Boutros Boutros Galli so Goofy Annan could keep the seat warm.)
It is important to understand why four of the five permanent SC members won’t veto Clinton. Those four are France, Great Britain, Russia, and Clinton’s old pals in China. Clinton has long demonstrated that he wants to abolish sovereign nations; including the independence of his own country. Clinton’s track record has earned him the trust of the International community. He will do the right thing because the UN is his first loyalty after socialism. That’s what counts to UN member states, and that’s why Clinton will not be vetoed by the four I listed.
Clinton is a cinch to get the required votes in the General Assembly. Everybody at the UN knows how much the majority of Americans despise the UN. They also know that the only hope of turning Americans around is for the UN’s vast propaganda apparatus to sell the UN as mankind’s only hope of avoiding nuclear war, global warming, poverty, HIV/AIDS, worldwide famine, and God only knows what else.
In order to finalize the sale a media propaganda campaign like you never thought possible is essential in canonizing the first American secretary-general. Every time Secretary General Clinton utters a word the press will report it around the clock as though utopia has finally arrived.
The US is the fifth SC member and the only possible member that might veto Clinton.
Why not Secretary General Clinton? Where’s the harm?
1. Secretary General Clinton stands the best chance of moving America closer to accepting a global government. That government will be totalitarian. Clinton would not be for it if it is anything less.
2. The UN’s Declaration of Human Rights is a blueprint for a global welfare state paid for with taxes levied on the wealth producers in First World countries. Clinton’s knowledge of how Washington works will go a long way towards instituting a universal welfare state.
3. Clinton is not alone in his betrayal. There are a lot of influential Beltway insiders who will help Clinton abolish America’s sovereignty. They include a few Republicans as well as a majority of elected Democrats.
4. Secretary General Clinton, working with President Hillary Clinton, has the political savvy to finally put some kind of an International tax like the Tobin Tax in place. Even Senator Hillary Clinton in a Democrat-controlled senate offers Secretary General Clinton limitless opportunities to advance the Socialist agenda. Think about the UN treaties they will bring up for ratification!
In October of 2007 I posted this:
The MSM is deifying Bill Clinton the same way it canonized JFK after he was assassinated. To this day the media talks about JFK as though he was universally loved. The truth is that at least half of the American people had no use for him or his politics but remained silent out of respect.
Bill Clinton can speak for himself, and often does; so it is hard for me to understand why the media treats him like he is sacred. The man spends more time in the public’s eye than does Lucille Ball in reruns. Clinton just will not go away like a good little former president should because he wants to be secretary-general so much he cannot letup for a second.
Last week Senator Clinton did the talkies. This week it was her husband’s turn. She was campaigning for the presidency; he is campaigning for the job of secretary-general.
Most of what Bill Clinton said on Meet The Press was standard political pap; everything from fictional global warming to fictional Jack Bauer being mean to a terrorist. I did find one of Clinton’s responses worth dissecting. Bear with me because his comments are jumbled as well as being couched in doublespeak:
MR. RUSSERT: What would your role be? What would you be called? You’re not first lady. Would you be first man? How does that work?
MR. CLINTON: I have no idea. You know the Scots say I should be first laddy. But I don’t know. I’m more interested in what I’d be called upon to do. And it’s been illegal for 40 years, since Robert Kennedy served as attorney general, and then the Democratic Congress with President Johnson in office made it illegal for the members of families of the president to be in the Cabinet. I actually agree with that. I think it would be a mistake for Hillary to give me a line policy-making job. I think I should be available to help her with specific foreign problems, that she said, and maybe to help to promote the domestic agenda, go around the country and help promote it. I think that it would probably be good for America if I could continue to do this, the Global Initiative, and all my foundation work around the world. I think that helps America. I think the Gates Foundation work. I think all these religious groups. I think all of us that work around the world, I think we help America. But I will do whatever I am asked to do. I don’t care what I’m called, I don’t care where my office is. I just want to do whatever helps her most. I think that’s what—that’s what you do if you’ve been president and you get a president. Is the fact that, you know, we’re—our situation’s unique. It doesn’t change that. I think I’ll let any president, but particularly to her, I just want her to—whatever she wants me to do I’ll do.
MR. CLINTON: I have no idea. You know the Scots say I should be first laddy. But I don’t know. I’m more interested in what I’d be called upon to do. And it’s been illegal for 40 years, since Robert Kennedy served as attorney general, and then the Democratic Congress with President Johnson in office made it illegal for the members of families of the president to be in the Cabinet. I actually agree with that. I think it would be a mistake for Hillary to give me a line policy-making job. I think I should be available to help her with specific foreign problems, that she said, and maybe to help to promote the domestic agenda, go around the country and help promote it. I think that it would probably be good for America if I could continue to do this, the Global Initiative, and all my foundation work around the world. I think that helps America. I think the Gates Foundation work. I think all these religious groups. I think all of us that work around the world, I think we help America. But I will do whatever I am asked to do. I don’t care what I’m called, I don’t care where my office is. I just want to do whatever helps her most. I think that’s what—that’s what you do if you’ve been president and you get a president. Is the fact that, you know, we’re—our situation’s unique. It doesn’t change that. I think I’ll let any president, but particularly to her, I just want her to—whatever she wants me to do I’ll do.
The entire response to Russert’s question is about him becoming secretary-general. Let me make my case by interpreting a few key points. The first one:
And it’s been illegal for 40 years, since Robert Kennedy served as attorney general, and then the Democratic Congress with President Johnson in office made it illegal for the members of families of the president to be in the Cabinet.
He established the obvious. He cannot take a cabinet post. If memory serves, I believe that in the recent past Senator Clinton also issued the same disclaimer. Now, that the world knows he cannot be secretary of state all he has to do is avoid mentioning the UN.
This next selection slips in the International community without mentioning it by name:
I think I should be available to help her with specific foreign problems, that she said, and maybe to help to promote the domestic agenda, go around the country and help promote it.
The biggest foreign problem that Democrats face is that most Americans despise the United Nations. The plan has always been for him to give the UN legitimacy. Clinton may very well tour the country talking about his wife’s domestic agenda until Secretary General Ban Ki-moon leaves office one way or another. Bill Clinton’s tour will really be designed to win the trust of the American people. The idea is to have Americans first trust him, then trust the UN after he becomes secretary-general.
No foreign secretary-general will ever fool the American people into believing that the UN is a good deal for Americans. Only an American of stature can do that. Colin Powell and Bill Clinton are the only two who might pull it off with a lot of help from the media. Obviously, Powell would be running a distant second to President Hillary Clinton’s husband.
This next one is pure political opinion phrased in International community rhetoric:
I think that it would probably be good for America if I could continue to do this, the Global Initiative, and all my foundation work around the world. I think that helps America. I think the Gates Foundation work. I think all these religious groups. I think all of us that work around the world, I think we help America.
I think they help create a false need for global government more than they help America.
Clinton knows that no one can knock what he says about the tax deductible “good works” he and the global government crowd engage in. I am not saying that he is lying. I am saying that he is smart enough to use the charity hustler’s gimmick; i.e., who will say they do not want to help children even knowing what the hustlers are pulling?
No matter how Global Initiative goals are presented, neither the Clintons nor anyone else can say why America must surrender its independence in order to solve the world’s problems. Once any of them say that Americans must give up their sovereignty to make the world a better place, Socialists expose themselves for what they are. Any debate on sovereignty must be avoided at all costs because such a debate must lead to the subject of UN taxing authority. That is why the sneaks are trying to get it done through phoney UN treaties like the LOST and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (Kyoto). That is why Secretary General Clinton must not become a campaign issue for Senator Clinton.
This next one is classic doublespeak:
But I will do whatever I am asked to do. I don’t care what I’m called, I don’t care where my office is.
What is Bill going to do? say NO when she “asks” him to take the top UN job.
And finally:
I just want to do whatever helps her most.
I am not sure if he means help her or help the UN. Either way, installing him as secretary-general is the goal.
Here is the link for the transcript of the entire Russert interview:
NOTE: Aside from the billions of tax dollars the UN gets from the American people every year, Clinton is the chief fund-raiser for UN charity hustles. Every dime he raises is tax deductible. In business lingo he is the UN’s top salesmen.
World leader my ass
Just what is a “world leader?” Then there is the question of more than one, which leads to my second question: Which world leader leads the other world leaders? The answer to question number two is obvious: The secretary-general of the UN.
I often asked myself what one must accomplish to become a “world leader?” First becoming the head of a national government appears to be the only qualification one needs to don the title. I never saw Mother Teresa referred to as a world leader; so I finally concluded it is a media tag. Once that became clear it was easy to see that being a national leader will become a lesser position in the overall scheme of things because one need not have been a head of state before becoming supreme leader over at the UN. No secretary-general of the UN has been a head of state beforehand.
On a lighter note, I should point out that an unusual sounding first name, at least unusual sounding to English-speaking people, might help if you want the secretary-general’s job.
1. Trygve
2. Dag
3. U (If I remember right that was pronounced “ooh"..)
4. Kurt (Nothing unusual there; so I’m not sure how he got in.)
5. Javier (Fairly common in Spanish-speaking countries.)
6. Boutros (That one was so good he used it twice.)
7. Kofi (Definitely the norm.)
8. Ban Ki-moon (Not too shoddy. He has the roll-on deodorant thing going for him.)
My point. I just can’t see a secretary-general with a first name like Bob, or Leroy, or Jack; those names seem lacking after names like Kofi and Ooh. William just doesn’t cut it; so the whole thing might hinge on the name Barack —— unless Bill legally changes his name to Bubba.
And let’s not forget the pecking order.
There has always been a pecking order in every form of government. In European monarchies it was kings, dukes, counts, no-accounts, and so on. In our republic it is president, vice president, member of Congress, governor, mayor, and so on down to the local ward heelers. With that in mind media propagandists are looking to eventually move UN secretaries-general to the head of the line over American presidents whenever they refer to one schmuck or another as a world leader.
Naturally, no one can attain the media status of world leader until they swear fidelity to the UN. Being a Socialist/Communist doesn’t hurt either. An American president who works to strengthen the UN, à la Clinton, was a world leader when he was in office. A president who is lukewarm towards the UN is not a world leader. In fact, such a president is not even a good national leader when judged by media standards.
Americans have former presidents. Is there such a thing as a former world leader? I doubt it because Clinton stopped being a world leader after he left office.
The “world leader” gambit is the slickest stratagem yet devised by media quislings for the sole purpose of convincing the American people that the secretary-general of the UN should be the world’s supreme world leader. What else would you call him when all of other world leaders are in town.
Let’s close on a serious note.
Ban Ki-Moon’s second term ends on December 31, 2016. That means the stars are aligned for an American to take over. Elect Hillary and it will be Clinton. Elect a Democrat other than Hillary and it might be Hussein. That’s why it will be important knowing where Republican wannabes stand on US membership in the UN before they get the nomination.
Here’s a scary scenario for the Memorial Day holiday. Hussein resigns after the nominating convention so Biden can make him secretary-general in time to take over on January 1, 2017. That would beat Hillary and Bill to the finish line should she become president-elect.
The worst of it
An American secretary-general will hold office for 10 years at the most. After that it will be one foreign secretary-general after another until NORTH AMERICA’S turn comes around again. That could take 40 or more years. And there is no guarantee preventing a Canadian Socialist, or a Mexican drug lord, from getting the job.
Here’s another choker. The authority over the American people the first American secretary-general hands to the UN will pass on to his successors. Naturally, that authority will increase just as the federal government increased its authority to where it is at today. THINK IRS.
Also, there is a sick possibility the parasitic democracy-loving crowd will demand and get a popular vote. You figure out the odds of an American, or a Christian, winning such an election.
p.s. For all of the messages I posted on this topic liberals seldom debated my contention. The few that did try to defend the UN presented weak arguments that were more absurd than serious. Their arguments usually settled on touchy-feely garbage unsupported by economic realities. Not a one of them ever made the case for Americans giving their hard earned dollars to the Third World through the United Nations.
p.p.s. Domestically, the Chicago Sewer Rat is a firm believer in showering tax dollars on the parasite class. Apply that belief worldwide and you’ll see that neither Hussein nor Clinton nor any American should ever be secretary-general. Reason: An American secretary-general can only work against Americans. There is no other way. Withdraw from the UN and the problem goes away forever.
Last edited:
