I believe the idea is that Obama is a pawn of the secret masters of the UN who want to make sure that the USA permanently surrenders its sovereignty to the secret masters. Otherwise, they run the risk that a future president, one who is not so (ahem) "compliant" would raise a ruckus. And since the conspiracy theorists are trying to raise exactly such a ruckus, it makes sense from their perspective that Obama would want to act in such a way as to nip any possible counteractivism in the bud.
It's not really that crazy -- that situation is approximately what the US has been trying to foment in a number of countries, including Iraq, for some time. While the US has no desire for direct sovereignty over Iraq, it would certainly be nice (from some points of view) if it could get a compliant set of Iraqi statesmen to rewrite the country's political and social rules to make sure that "they" will be long-term compliant and subservient to "us." We did the same thing to Japan in the aftermath of WWII, rewriting their constitution to "Americanize" and "pacify" Japan, even after we officially lifted the military occupation. It worked, too. In less than forty years, Japan went from actively-hostile state to one of our largest trading partners, political ally, and host for US forces on forward deployment.
Why would Shigeru Yoshida (the first post-war prime minister of Japan) want to "cede control of the organization that he was the head of to an organization that he is not the head of?" That's actually not a bad description from an outsider's point of view of the Yoshida doctrine. When you understand why Yoshida wanted to suck up to Truman, you might understand why a hypothetical president of the USA would want to suck up to the UN.