Connect with us


Obama speech in England shows: UN over US



The United Nations, and especially its General Assembly, is chief instrument of globalism and international government today, and precursor of world government. (And zero population growth) The UN works against the sovereignty of nation-states.

The latest Obama speech, before the British parliament, shows that Obama is loyal to the United Nations, not the United States. Obama does not say this straight-out. But when a UN resolution conflicts with the Constitution and laws of the United States, Obama sides with the UN.

Obama speech unremarkable – except for Libya

Most of the Obama speech was unremarkable. For about half an hour, Obama spoke in platitudes about freedom, democracy, and economic development. He made a point of saying that America still had a role to play, even a leading role, in helping other people become free and prosperous.

This could be a strike against those who believe that the United States is sticking its nose into many things that are none of its business. It could also be a nod to those who want the United States involved in “nation building” and other such projects.

But when the Obama speech turns to Libya, that theory breaks down. In plain fact, US military forces have mixed it up in the Libyan civil war for longer than the sixty days that current law allows. Obama never sought any authority from Congress to use force in the region. The War Powers Act says that after sixty days, he must come to Congress for authority to stay. Even his Democratic friends notice this. But Obama seems to take no notice.

True, the Libyan adventure rates only one paragraph in the Obama speech. But further on, the Obama speech gives this line:


Being American or British is not about belonging to a certain group; it’s about believing in a certain set of ideals—the rights of individuals, the rule of law.

By continuing to commit US troops, ships and planes to the Libyan adventure, even if it is under NATO command, Obama breaks the law. So his nod to the rule of law rings hollow.

Unless the law that rules is not US law at all, but UN law.

Obama sought UN but not US authority

The people talking about the Libyan war today have forgotten that Obama did go to a body of “lawmakers” to get authorization for military “action” in Libya. But he did not go to Congress. Instead he went to the Security Council of the United Nations.

On February 26, 2011, the Security Council passed Resolution 1970. By itself that Resolution ordered few actions beyond evacuating foreigners from the war zone, and referring Col. Moammar al-Qaddafi to the International Criminal Court.

But on March 17, 2011, the Council passed Resolution 1973. That document authorizes the “no-fly zone” and “directs” the “Member States” to set it up. (In fact, the Resolution authorizes “Member States” to act and then calls upon all Member States to help those who act.)


The US Constitution does not recognize UN resolutions as if they were treaties. No UN “authorization” can take the place of a Congressional declaration of war or similar authority to use the US military beyond US borders. Yet Obama, when he had UN Resolution 1973 in hand, did not even go to Congress. He acted as if a UN resolution was all the authority he needed. And today’s Obama speech shows that Obama still has that attitude.

[amazon_carousel widget_type=”ASINList” width=”500″ height=”250″ title=”” market_place=”US” shuffle_products=”True” show_border=”False” asin=”B00375LOEG, 0451947673, 0800733940, 0062073303, 1595230734, 1936218003, 0981559662, 1935071874, 1932172378″ /]

What does the Obama speech mean?

The Obama speech clearly shows that Obama answers to no one except the United Nations. The Congress must bring him to heel for breaking the War Powers Act. If it does not, then from now on the only thing that a President will need to go to war will be a UN Resolution saying that he may go to war, and with whom, and for how long. Obama cannot benefit from that personally unless he hopes, someday, to become Secretary General of the United Nations—for life.

Since at least 2002, various utopians have sought to give the UN the power to lay and collect direct or indirect taxes on the citizens and subjects of Member States. Again, the Obama speech does not mention any such tax straight-out. But the President now believes that the UN Security Council’s “authorization” for war trumps the Congress’ power to limit war. What then would stop him from laying an impost or excise tax on personal activities, and paying it to the UN? He might well believe that all he needs is another UN Resolution to make that happen. The next step would be asking US citizens to file “Form 1040-UN”

What this would mean for Israel, no one could guess. Other lines in the Obama speech plump for billions of dollars more in foreign aid to Tunisia, Egypt, and other Arab countries. These are bribes to persuade them not to fight Israel. But maybe Obama hopes to pass another UN Resolution to impose peace on the Middle East—maybe for seven years. (Daniel 9:27)


Featured image: the flag of the United Nations. Public domain as per UN policy.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
+ posts

Terry A. Hurlbut has been a student of politics, philosophy, and science for more than 35 years. He is a graduate of Yale College and has served as a physician-level laboratory administrator in a 250-bed community hospital. He also is a serious student of the Bible, is conversant in its two primary original languages, and has followed the creation-science movement closely since 1993.

Click to comment
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments


Would love your thoughts, please comment.x