Samantha Power, the new US Ambassador to the United Nations, is no stranger to controversy. Power has made statements throughout her career that have brought attention to her ideas on American foreign policy.
Despite her assertion in 2003 that the United States needed a “historical reckoning” and her idea that perhaps America should institute a doctrine of the mea culpa for what she sees as America’s past grievances on the rest of the world, she was confirmed 87-10 by the Senate to be the next US Permanent Representative to the United Nations.
Senator Ted Cruz, one of the 10 dissenting votes, issued a statement saying, “Samantha Power’s positions on the United Nations suggest she agrees with President Obama in giving the United Nations authority over fundamental rights, such as our right to bear arms, and in allowing US taxpayer dollars to be used at the UN to undermine our ally, Israel.”
Utah Republican Senator Mike Lee and other lawmakers agree that the UN needs“sweeping reform”, however they don’t think Power is the right one for the job. He should go a step further and support the abolition of that useless entity.
In an article published by The New American, Power’s campaign to promote a doctrine known as the Responsibility to Protect is put forth as one of the many reasons to question her new position.
From the New American:
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.
In 2003 Power wrote that “giving up a pinch of sovereignty” to organizations such as the UN is good for the United States and our security.”
Lest we forget, let’s revisit the definition of sovereignty.
Sovereignty is the quality of having independent authority over a geographic area, such as a territory.
Power wants to give a pinch of our sovereignty to the UN?
Cruz also pointed out that if you give the UN an inch, they will take a mile.
I couldn’t agree more. We are teetering on the edge of relinquishing the authority of our sovereignty to an organization whose underlying mission is to create a One World government. Obama has already committed to signing the UN Arms Treaty wherein the UN could usurp the United States constitutional right to bear arms: “The treaty would require countries that ratify it to establish national regulations to control the transfer of conventional arms and components and to regulate arms brokers, but it will not explicitly control the domestic use of weapons in any country.” (Emphasis added.)
Last year Obama tried to sign the Law of the Sea Treaty which says that the United States could not protect our land on our own coastlines. The UN would make the decision as to who would guard our country. Obama seems to have a habit of trying to give our sovereignty away to the United Nations and their utopian One World Government dream. Thankfully, LOST has never been able to garner enough support in the Senate to get ratified.
Sounds like a very slippery slope, doesn’t it? Now let’s revisit Power’s ludicrous assertion that we need to “give up a pinch of sovereignty.”
It’s complicated and simple at the same time.
All you have to do is ask yourself these questions:
Can you be a pinch pregnant? No.
Can you be a pinch perfect? No.
Can you be a pinch terrorist? No.
Perhaps a pinch dead? No.
What about getting back a pinch of a limb that had to be amputated? No.
Tell me this: can we get back a pinch of the brave men and women who have fought and died for our great country’s sovereignty? No.
So how about this, Samantha Power? Perhaps you could get a pinch lost in Siberia.