Search This Blog

Friday, July 19, 2013

If Samantha Power Is Confirmed As Ambassador To The UN, Prepare For The Loss Of US Sovereignty

Samantha Power would be one of the most dangerous nominees as Ambassador of the United Nations.  That is, if you are concerned about the United States Constitution and it sovereignty. 

You have to know by now, the Obama administration is trying to complete his 'fundamental transformation' of our country.  He has a history of surrounding himself with the MOST radical anti-American's to assist him in the facilitation of the destruction of our founding documents and sovereignty.
Samantha Powers controversial comments | Samantha Power UN Ambassador confirmation hearing
WASHINGTON, DC – JUNE 05: U.S. President Barack Obama (2nd L), former aide Samantha Power (R), U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice (2nd R) and incumbent National Security Adviser Tom Donilon (L) return to the Oval Office after a personnel announcement at the Rose Garden of the White House June 5, 2013 in Washington, DC. President Obama has nominated Rice to succeed Donilon to become the next National Security Adviser. Obama has also nominated Power to succeed Rice for her position to UN. Credit: Getty Images

UN Ambassador Nominee Samantha Power Wants Sovereignty Redistribution

At a Rose Garden ceremony on Wednesday, June 5, President Obama announced his nomination of Samantha Power (shown) to replace Susan Rice as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. At the same event, the president tapped Rice to be his new national security advisor.

Within hours of the announcement, opposition to Power’s nomination began to surface.
Constitutionally consistent Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) released the following statement on his Senate website:

The nomination of Samantha Power is deeply troubling. No nation has spilled more blood or sacrificed more for the freedom of others than ours, and yet Ms. Power has publicly embraced the need for America to continue apologizing to the world for perceived transgressions, going so far as to explicitly urge "instituting a doctrine of the mea culpa." She is yet another Obama nominee who has been sharply critical of our nation's strong support of Israel. She's an aggressive interventionist, supporting sending our men and women into harm's way for "humanitarian" causes. And she has strongly supported the expansion of international institutions and international law — including the International Criminal Court, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and the Kyoto Protocol — at the expense of U.S. sovereignty. Indeed, Ms. Power has publicly stated, "We have to believe in international law and binding ourselves to international standards in the interest of getting others bound to those standards." America needs a UN Ambassador to be an advocate for our own interests at the UN — not an advocate of elevating UN interests over U.S. sovereignty and the rights of the American people.

While Cruz makes several good points in his criticism of Power’s unconstitutional policy positions, the senator misses the mark with regard to the need for an advocate for the United States at the United Nations.

As The New American and The John Birch Society have chronicled for decades, the only way to protect U.S. sovereignty from the globalist government-in-waiting and to advance America’s best interests is to get the U.S. out of the UN and the UN out of the U.S.

Given Power’s professed preference for using the U.S. military as the UN’s armed force in global conflicts, it is little wonder that the Senate’s chief warmonger, Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.), has come out in support of her nomination. McCain wrote, “I support President Obama’s nomination of Samantha Power to become the next U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. I believe she is well-qualified for this important position and hope the Senate will move forward on her nomination as soon as possible.”

Some critics see things a little differently. Many members of the Jewish community point to comments made by Power in 2002 as evidence of a desire to use military force to intervene in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The story as told by Fox News:

Critics point to a 2002 interview where Power seemed to suggest the possibility of military intervention in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.  

During the interview with Harry Kreisler, host of Conversations with History, a program produced by the University of California Berkeley Institute of International Studies, Power said America needs “a willingness to actually put something on the line in sort of helping the situation.

“Not of the old, you know, Srebrenica kind or the Rwanda kind, but a meaningful military presence, because it seems to me at this stage — and this is true of actual genocides as well and not just, you know, major human rights abuses, which we're seeing there. But — is that you have to go in as if you're serious, you have to put something on the line,” she said. 

Although Power reportedly later described those comments as “weird,” an examination of her participation in the creation of a UN doctrine calling for military intervention reveals that those comments are consistent with her philosophy — a philosophy that, if her nomination to head the U.S. delegation to the UN is confirmed, she will undeniably bring to the ambassadorial position at UN headquarters.

Samantha Power rose to prominence in government circles as part of her campaign to promote a doctrine known as the Responsibility to Protect. Notably, this philosophy was also espoused by Hanan Ashrawi, a Palestinian lawmaker who has publicly questioned the reality of the Holocaust and who was a dedicated lictor of the late leader of the Palestinian Liberation Organization — Yasser Arafat.

Responsibility to Protect (also known as Responsibility to Act) is a doctrine advanced by the United Nations and is predicated on the proposition that sovereignty is a privilege, not a right, and that if any regime in any nation violates the prevailing precepts of acceptable governance, then the international community is morally obligated to revoke that nation’s sovereignty and assume command and control of the offending country.

The three pillars of the United Nations’-backed Responsibility to Protect are:

*A state has a responsibility to protect its population from mass atrocities.

*The international community has a responsibility to assist the state if it is unable to protect its population on its own.

*If the state fails to protect its citizens from mass atrocities and peaceful measures have failed, the international community has the responsibility to intervene through coercive measures such as economic sanctions.

Read more: The New American


American Sovereignty and Its Enemies

A group of powerful legal scholars are trying to make an end run around the Constitution.

The George Zimmerman saga came to an end last weekend when a jury of six Florida women found the neighborhood-watch captain not guilty in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin. But even before the 15-month legal process had begun last year, the United Nations' top human-rights official had rendered a guilty verdict—against Mr. Zimmerman and the entire U.S. judicial system.

"Justice must be done for the victim," said U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay at an April 2012 press conference. "It's not just this individual case. It calls into question the delivery of justice in all situations like this. . . . I will be awaiting an investigation and prosecution and trial and of course reparations for the victims concerned."

Americans who ran across her statement may have dismissed Ms. Pillay as another U.N. busybody pestering the world's leading democracy. But former Sen. Jon Kyl thinks there is something more pernicious at work: Such comments express the desire, and growing power, of a global progressive elite to pierce the shield of U.S. sovereignty and influence the outcomes of the country's domestic debates.

Proponents call this movement "legal transnationalism," and as Mr. Kyl writes in a recent Foreign Affairs magazine article (co-authored with Douglas Feith and John Fonte of the Hudson Institute), "the idea that a U.N. official can sit in judgment of the U.S." is one of its main innovations.

Transnationalists want to rewrite the laws of war, do away with the death penalty, restrict gun rights and much more—all without having to win popular majorities or heed American constitutional limits. And these advocates are making major strides under an Obama administration that is itself a hotbed of transnational legal thinking.

"Transnationalists are a group of people who are convinced they are right about important issues," Mr. Kyl says as we sit down for a chat at the plush Washington office of the law firm Covington & Burling, where the 71-year-old Arizona Republican has served as an adviser since leaving the Senate in January. "But they are in too much of a hurry to mess with the difficulties of representative government to get their agenda adopted into law—or they know they can't win democratically. So they look for a way around representative government."

Mr. Kyl knows something about representative government. After a four-term stint in the House, he entered the Senate in 1995 and quickly emerged as a serious thinker on defense matters. In 1999, armed with his collegial, unassuming personality and substantive knowledge, he led Senate GOP opposition to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The treaty's ultimate goal, he charged at the time, was "total nuclear disarmament," an effort by U.S. adversaries and global arms-controllers to defang America's nuclear deterrent.

Now he has taken it as his mission to defeat the transnationalist efforts to steer American law. And he finds himself once again contemplating treaties that don't bode well for the U.S. A favorite transnationalist tactic is pushing the U.S. to ratify treaties like the three-decades-old U.N. Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women, or Cedaw, and the more recent Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities. Such treaties, Mr. Kyl says, "have a lot of loose language that in the hands of the wrong people can demand far more than was ever intended by the American people."

Take Cedaw. If the Senate ever ratifies this piece of "1970s feminism preserved in diplomatic amber," as one commentator described the treaty, the U.S. would become subject to oversight by a Geneva-based committee that requires signatory states to, among other things, "achieve a balance between men and women holding publicly elected positions"; "ensure that media respect women and promote respect for women"; and "modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women, with a view to achieving the elimination of . . . stereotyped roles for men and women."

Would cooking TV shows hosted by female chefs survive Cedaw? How about Philip Roth novels?

Wiping out undesirable patterns of thought may be an easy proposition for liberal regimes, but not for a constitutional republic. Says Mr. Kyl: "Once you have ceded authority to an external body to make decisions, our theory of government—accountability in officials, consent of the governed—is very difficult to uphold. So you want to give up sovereignty sparingly and only when there is a clear benefit to doing so. I'm not saying the Senate should never ratify a treaty on behalf of the people, but I'm saying it should take the responsibility very seriously."

To be clear, transnationalism isn't a conspiratorial enterprise. In the legal academy, its advocates have openly stated their aims and means. "International law now seeks to influence political outcomes within sovereign States," Anne-Marie Slaughter, then dean of Princeton's public-affairs school, wrote in an influential 2007 essay. International law, she went on, must expand to include "domestic choices previously left to the determination of national political processes" and be able to "alter domestic politics."

The preferred entry point for importing foreign norms into American law is the U.S. court system. The Yale Law School scholar Howard Koh, a transnationalist advocate, has written that "domestic courts must play a key role in coordinating U.S. domestic constitutional rules with rules of foreign and international law." Over the past two decades, activist judges have increasingly cited "evolving" international standards to overturn state laws, and Mr. Koh has suggested that foreign norms can be "downloaded" into American law in this manner.


Some of the Most Controversial Criticisms of America from the Woman Who Could Become Our Next U.N. Ambassador

 As the Senate prepares for confirmation hearings Wednesday to decide whether Samantha Power will be the next U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, there are some controversial criticisms of America from her past that may be called into question.

Power, a former journalist turned political activist, once connected some of the tactics in the U.S. war on terror to French military support for the Hutu militia, which killed 800,000 people in the Rwandan genocide. She also has called Americans “stingy on foreign aid,” declared that the U.S. should apologize for slavery, and even made indirect references comparing U.S. involvement in the world to that of Nazi Germany.

At a 2002 discussion of her book at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, Power questioned the U.S. cooperation with other countries in the war on terror, saying “we’re about to partner with regimes that if they’re not committing genocide they are certainly committing systematic atrocities against their people.”

“Will somebody else write a book about that and say that we abetted the Russian genocide against the Chechens because we were fighting a war on terror and needed Putin on our side? Maybe. But we now because we’re living in the time understand our mindset and why we’re doing it. I don’t think we should excuse it. I think we should change our policy.”

Power has repeatedly called what had been going on in Russia “a near genocide” or a “genocide,” statements which may make difficult the rapprochement that has existed between Moscow and Washington. In the aftermath of the Boston bombing by Chechen-born terrorists, the United States has partnered with Russia on intelligence gathering. Russian cooperation also is needed to advance most issues on the U.N. Security Council.

Power has already come under fire for a New Republic article in which she called for Americans to follow the lead of German leaders post-Holocaust and apologize for  their war crimes:
“U.S. foreign policy has to be rethought. It needs not tweaking but overhauling. We need: a historical reckoning with crimes committed, sponsored, or permitted by the United States. This would entail restoring FOIA to its pre- Bush stature, opening the files, and acknowledging the force of a mantra we have spent the last decade promoting in Guatemala, South Africa, and Yugoslavia: A country has to look back before it can move forward. Instituting a doctrine of the mea culpa would enhance our credibility by showing that American decision-makers do not endorse the sins of their predecessors. When Willie Brandt went down on one knee in the Warsaw ghetto, his gesture was gratifying to World War II survivors, but it was also ennobling and cathartic for Germany.”
She has also gotten into trouble about supporting a multilateral occupation of “Palestine-Israel.”


No comments:

Post a Comment