Conspiracy theory: United Nations hinge the future of world on U.S. election.
It wouldn't be the most important election in U.S. history without a conspiracy theory or twelve involving the United Nations. From birth certificates to unpaid taxes, and chemical trails in between, the internet is abuzz with enough theories to make the Illuminati start checking their mirrors. In less than 29 days, the United States of America will open the polls to elect the 45th President of the country. Could this very well be the last presidential election this country will ever see?
It isn't enough that each candidate—each party—has resorted to the kind of trash talk that would make a professional football player blush. Will it take more than the president calling his opponent a liar for the entire world to see and hear to get this country to raise an inquisitive eyebrow?
Is there nothing that is able to once again awake the sleeping giant?
Perhaps the most speculative theory to emerge from the psychological toy box that is the United States is the one that sees the United Nations taking a much larger share of control over what was once the last bastion of pure freedom in the entire world. Will President Obama raise taxes on an already cash-strapped nation? Nobody really knows the answer to that except the President. Will President Obama's magnum opus be to fulfill his life long dream of creating a world where everyone is equal; where the playing field is level for all?
If the United Nations has its way, the power of veto will be removed for the U.S., thereby stripping the United States of their sovereignty as an independent nation; forced to submit to another organization whose own leadership is a sleazy, cesspool of corruption.
In case this country hasn't noticed, and judging by the lack of public outcry, it hasn't, President Obama chairs the United Nations. Not only is he the first president to do so, but he's also in direct violation the U.S. Constitution under Section 9, where it clearly states:
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.
That isn't a theory, but a fact; a fact that, strangely enough, has been cleverly hidden from the people of this country.
What Barack Obama can't do as President of the United States, he can do while he chairs the United Nations, and that's to give the UN the leverage necessary to levy taxes from this nation's people. In his new book, "Here come the Black Helicopters: UN Global Governance and the Loss of Freedom," Dick Morris clearly states in what direction he feels President Obama, if re-elected, will take this country.
"... there is now pending in the U.N. all kinds of plans to tax Americans and redistribute their wealth — not to other Americans — but to other countries. These taxes will not be like our U.N. dues paid by a vote of our Congress. Nor akin to foreign aid which we choose to give. They would be mandatory levies imposed by treaty on American citizens. And, since they would be enumerated in a Treaty — not an act of Congress — only the president and the Democratic Senate need be on board. The Republican House has no role in the Treaty-making process."
In the linked article, Morris lists some of the proposed taxes to be garnered by the UN. Whether or not there is any truth to the "theory" remains to be seen. Nevertheless, this country is ripe for a hostile takeover. There's an abundance of natural resources that can't be touched, yet, under UN rule it becomes the property of the rest of the world.
If President Obama's hope of a New World Order is to reach its logical conclusion, it will need to have the authority, as well as the resources to carry it out. As long as the United States stands alone as a sovereign state, the UN, as well as the Commission on Global Governance is powerless against it. The ultimate goal of the UN is to provide an adequate standard of living for all, and yet to achieve that goal, it must have the authority and resources available at its command. Without the United States, and its military might, as well as its natural resources, the dream of a world where everyone has what they need remains a dream.
Is it Obama's plan to take the wealth of this country and freely give it to the rest of the world to share the abundance with those who haven't worked for it, or in some cases earned it? This nation must continue to set the standard of freedom throughout the world; to be allowed to build a life of prosperity out of nothing but a dream for a better life. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness are more than just words, but a way of life attained only by freedom attained by much sacrifice.
Where's the logic in the President of the United States giving away the freedoms and priveleges that so many have sacrificed upon the altar of freedom by handing over the keys to this great nation to the United Nations, in order to fufill a lifelong dream of world peace and equality, when nowhere in history has it ever happened before?
The best conspiracies are those that remain only theories.
Photo Credit: Richard's Photostream
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 36
The thing is, I'm betting that when the comments pile up below this one, there will be several who actually take this seriously.
There are plenty of republicans I like, including many of you on Gather here. And that is the God's honest truth. And yes, I do want what is best for this country, from all of us. I did post a comment on another post saying we all need to take a few steps forward towards each other, and that is what I truly believe.
And although I like R.F. a lot, I can and will speak for myself. He does make me laugh sometimes, though!
BTW, its "aisle" not "Isle".
President Obama chairs the United Nations. Not only is he the first president to do so, but he's also in direct violation the U.S. Constitution under Section 9, where it clearly states:
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.
Why doesn't it bother liberals that Obama ignores and violates our Constitution? What is your problem? It seems you have no respect for the Law of The Land. Do you think Obama is above the Law? Or maybe you would like to do away with our Constitution so it will make it easier for him to destroy our freedoms and our sovereignty. So far we have had no president that has violated his oath of Office to defend and uphold our Constitution to the extent that Obama has , and you people just turn a blind eye to it as we are being stripped of our freedoms and our constitutional rights. What the hell is wrong with you? Don't you even care that Obama is breaking the law? Is criminal activity A-OK with you?
Of course, conservatives will continue to repeat this lie along with all the rest, ignoring the facts.
My sincere hope for the best and a quick recovery.
For any sane person to suggest that by the President of the United States having been afforded the honor to serve as the President of the United Nations, that he is in some way seeking to become President of some imaginary New World Order is ludicris. Additionally, the suggestion that the President will supposedly use American taxpayers revenues to facilitate the operations of this fictional new world order, makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
At times in this article, Jim suggested that the President is a liar, but gives no substaniating documentation to support his position. Jim also charges that President Obamas' administration is a cesspool of corruption which will somehow take away America's freedoms and privilages if he is reelected. Now, I realize that there are some over enthusiastic supporters who will test the bounds of legality in campaigning for their candidate. But, for the most part, there are limitations in stretching the truth and boundaries in creating suspicion, boundaries which sane people do not cross. Jim crossed those lines of honesty many times in this article and appears to have done so, with no regard for moral and ethical standards nor established protocol in journalistic reporting.
I realize that GNP article writers have a broad latitude of factual descretion when it comes to how truthful they are required to be when writing their articles. But in all honesty, Jim has gone way over the line in his GNP reporting with this article. I would also suggest that it would have been far more appropriate for this article to be in the "Entertainment" section of GN, noted as a fantasy story, rather than here in the Politics section.
Keep writing 'em Jim and we will keep wondering about your sanity and laughing at the satirical fallacy of your material.
I should have address my comments to Mark Elliott who was the author of this article.
My apologies to Jim Kane.