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.
 |
| 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.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
READ MORE: THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.”
