National Post scribes Barbara Kay and Robert Cutler asked in yesterday’s column: ‘Is Obama too busy eyeing a plum post-presidential gig?’ to deal in a more rational fashion with the perpetrators of the Paris terrorist attack.
They offer as a hypothesis to their question “as to why he continues to obfuscate the specific nature of the attack, and in a manner consistent with his approach to Islamist terror in general”. (National Post, Nov. 16, 2015)
The answer to “Is Obama too busy eyeing a plum post-presidential gig” is no, because he was eyeing that plum post-presidential gig all along, in point of fact way before Friday’s horrific terrorist attack in Paris.
Aside from imposing martial law and ‘postponing’ 2016 elections, there is no third term in the cards for the high-handed president, whose seven-year-long obsession is to fundamentally transform America. Thus, Obama covets, and even lusts for the job held by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, whose term expires in early 2017.
“We do not begrudge Obama the job of UN Secretary-General. In fact, we approve of it. It is a job where words are considered more important than action, and where his flowery speeches will be at home. He may not do much good there, but he would also be prevented from doing much further harm,” Kay and Cutler posit.
As UN Secretary-General Obama “would also be prevented from doing much further harm”?
Not so fast, National Post. Exactly WHO is going to prevent Obama from making the world more unstable than he’s already made it over at the world’s over-funded largest bureaucracy?
Obama’s own Congress hasn’t been able to prevent him from tanking the United States into 3rd World status; from providing endless verbal cover for the scourge of Islamic terrorism, or from handing nuclear power over to Iran.
How would Obama “be prevented from doing much further harm” when, like Obama, near 30 percent of the UN membership hold Islamist sympathies?
Unless, that is, by some miracle, the Trump-Cruz dream team are installed in the Oval Office.
In that case, holding down the job as UN Secretary-General would be the best place for Obama to be as he would be Donald Trump and Ted Cruz—cornered like the proverbial rat.
The United Nations is in the biggest ‘Hunger Game’ of all time. It hungers, salivating to officially impose One World Order on an unsuspecting world. All we accused of black helicopter conspiracies have been able to do so far is to hold back the timing of all citizens of the world becoming “global citizens” in a one-step-forward, one-step-back march through time.
Kay and Cutler conclude their skillfully written piece by writing: “Indeed, we would regret that he (Obama) did not go straight to the UN from the U.S. Senate, but for the fact that this would probably have meant eight years of Hillary Clinton in the White House; a fate, alas, that looks likely to come to pass after all.”
With Obama as new Secretary-General of the UN and Clinton ensconced as 45th president of the USA, the world would become Hell on Earth.
Yet, it could come to pass because the clear and present danger of the United Nations goes over a majority of humanity’s heads, those who still buy into the fairy-tale image that the UN is a warm and fuzzy blanket, home to the world’s most primary peace keepers.
It’s not, not begrudging Obama taking over from Ban Ki-moon and laying out the welcome mat to the most dangerous president ever elected that should be the goal, but kicking the scandal-ridden, overzealous UN into deserved oblivion.
Copyright © Canada Free Press
Judi McLeod is an award-winning journalist with 30 years’ experience in the print media. A former Toronto Sun columnist, she also worked for the Kingston Whig Standard. Her work has appeared on Rush Limbaugh, Newsmax.com, Drudge Report, Foxnews.com, and Glenn Beck.
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2017 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2017 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement