People Need to Know Who Samantha Power Really Is

0
Share

Samantha Power is a former presidential adviser who now serves as the Ambassador to the UN. She has been receiving a lot of compliments for her performance in the position but it’s foofoo dust, nothing more. People need to know who she really is. She is no supporter of traditional America.

Power wants to see the USA to sign treaties that require us to give over a “pinch” of our sovereignty to the UN. She is also a firm believer in the UN doctrine of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) which directly opposes U.S. foreign policy as we know it.

The treaties and agreements she would like us to sign surrender more than a “pinch” of sovereignty and include the Arms Trade TreatyTPP Agreement, Agenda 21, the UN CRPD, the ITULOST, UN Rights to Your Childa UN global tax, UN Space Code, the UN International Criminal Court, et al.

Power is mind-blowingly naive which seems to be a condition that runs rampant in this administration.

Take this example, on September 6 of last year, she told her fellow Progressives at the Center for American Progress that she hoped a team of UN investigators could write a report that would convince Iran to give up their support for Assad.

“We worked with the UN to create a group of inspectors and then worked for more than six months to get them access to the country on the logic that perhaps the presence of an investigative team in the country might deter future attacks,” Power said at the Center for American Progress as she made the case for intervening in Syria.

“Or, if not, at a minimum, we thought perhaps a shared evidentiary base could convince Russia or Iran — itself a victim of Saddam Hussein’s monstrous chemical weapons attacks in 1987-1988 — to cast loose a regime that was gassing it’s people,” she said.

It’s almost a depraved level of naiveté.

She thinks Iran could read a report that would convince them to turn away from Assad.

She wanted the USA to strike Syria, not because of endangered US assets which has been our guideline in the past, but because it is part of theUN R2P doctrine which says a nation must give up a ‘pinch’ of sovereignty for international cooperation and security.

Power supports the UN doctrine of Responsibility to Protect (R2P). It states that sovereignty is a responsibility, not a right. If any nation violates their precepts of governance, the international community has the moral obligation to revoke the nation’s sovereignty and assume control over that nation. Violations include mass atrocities, war crimes, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing, and so on.

George W. Bush was accused of war crimes and could have been tried by their International Court under this doctrine. Barack Obama has been accused of the same by some and could also be liable. Our military could conceivably be put on trial.

Under R2P, we would cede constitutional authority to the UN, a UN that appears to have little stomach for controlling mass atrocities and is comprised of many members who commit them on a regular basis.

R2P sees every nation as a member of an international community to be governed by that community if they don’t fit into their norms. If a nation wants to go to war, they can only do so with the permission of the UN Security Council whose members include Cuba, Syria, Iran…well, you get the idea.

Under R2P, an idea formulated by the UN in 2005, every government entity has a role in the collective but it is the UN that will reign supreme.

The  Global Organization for the Responsibility to Protect is backed by the Soros Open Society.

Libya was considered a test case for the doctrine.

Ban Ki Moon said fears about turning over a nation’s sovereignty for this type of protection are unwarranted. Moon said the UN would only intervene when the state is either allowing mass atrocities to occur, or is committing them, in which case the State is no longer upholding its responsibilities as a sovereign nation. If you trust Moon’s word, good for you, but I don’t see much action by the UN.

NATO said they are all for a strike on Syria but won’t take part in one.

Samantha Power believes in “global rebalancing” and an “international redistribution” of power.

Power once said she wanted to invade Israel. She has in the past encouraged shifting support from Israel to Palestine and has repeatedly drawn moral equivalence between the actions of the two nations. She sees US foreign policy prior to President Obama as evil and something we need to apologize for.

In 2003, Power said the US will have to answer for its crimes. However, she has since “dissociated herself from those comments” and said at her confirmation hearing that the US is the “greatest country in the world” and that she would defend Israel.

In a 2003 article for the New Republic, she called US foreign policy an “amoral policy.” Perhaps that is why we no longer have a comprehensible foreign policy – Obama appears to view it the same way.

Power wrote in the article – which she is now dissociated from – that we must apologize for our sins:

“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.”

She pushed for an apology tour like the one President Obama made upon assuming office, though he claims it fell short of that.

She expressed her opposition to the idea of “American exceptionalism” and sees everything as morally relative. You won’t pin her down. She wanted to ignore the protesters in Iran but she wanted to go into Syria.

In 2003, Power said, “Sometimes, human rights may be promoted more smoothly if we remain uninvolved in a democracy struggle, such as in Iran today, where U.S. interference would be unwelcomed by democracy activists.”

The US did remain uninvolved when the students, businessmen, professionals poured onto the streets of Iran and pleaded for US assistance which we ignored.

Iran is moving closer to having “the bomb” which will place the US, Israel, and Iran’s neighbors in grave danger and under continual threat.

The nomination of Power as UN Ambassador was made immediately after Obama’s eloquent speech at the Holocaust Museum. Her appointment is seen by many as a slap in the face of Israel and the US electorate.

Power believes in talking to all enemies without military threats or actual action against them. She does not see the threat of radical Islam as the problem.

The next president, Power said prior to Obama’s election, is going to have to “do a lot of rehabilitation” on this issue. “All we talk about is ‘Islamic terrorism’. If the two words are associated for long enough it’s obviously going to have an effect on how people think about Muslims. But I think Obama’s going to do wonders for closing those chasms. Even just opening up a conversation is going to get us some of the way. And it’s not insignificant that he spent time in a Muslim country, that he is half Kenyan – a lot of barriers have been bust through.”

In 2001, she attended she attended the United Nations’ World Conference Against Racism in Durbin, South Africa. Most US diplomats left when the gathering became an anti-American, anti-Israel, and anti-Semitic tirade. She remained.

samanthapower

Photo of Samantha Power

When she was foreign policy adviser to the Obama campaign in 2008, she objected to focusing on the Israelis and to the “US’s axiomatic support for Israel on security matters.

“So much of it is about: ‘Is he going to be good for the Jews?’”

We need rehabilitation in our support of Israel according to Power.

She is the former Chair of Obama’new Atrocities Prevention Board (a Genocide Panel). She believes that Palestine’s attacks on Israel are equivalent to Israel defending herself.

In 2002 she was interviewed by Harry Kreisler, the director of the Institute for International Studies at Berkeley. Kreisler asked her the following:

Let me give you a thought experiment here, and it is the following: without addressing the Palestine – Israel problem, let’s say you were an advisor to the President of the United States, how would you respond to current events there? Would you advise him to put a structure in place to monitor that situation, at least if one party or another [starts] looking like they might be moving toward genocide?

Power said she wants the US to establish and pay for a mammoth protection force for the Palestine State though she was opposed to doing the same in Iraq.

She refers to the Palestinians as victims of genocide in this video:

Samantha Power is married to Cass Sunstein, former regulatory czar. Sunstein once said that animals should have court-apponted lawyers to protect their rights. He is a big fan of the UN Bill of Rights which would destroy our Bill of Rights. In his Bill of Rights, everything becomes an entitlement. Everyone is entitled to a car, a house, a vacation, and so on, without working for it.

One can imagine that the sanctimonious Power is like-minded.

Obama’s agenda is full steam ahead.

Share