Samantha Power, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, encouraged Americans to stay committed to America’s increasingly interventionist foreign policy and to avoid wearying of the role the country must play in protecting the world from a variety of threats to its national security.
During remarks last Wednesday at the Defense One Summit — a confab of who’s who of war profiteers — Power warned against withdrawing from the global battles against disease and extremism. According to Defense One’s report of the event:
“I think there is too much of, ‘Oh, look, this is what intervention has wrought’ … one has to be careful about overdrawing lessons,” Power said Wednesday during the Defense One Summit. At the same time, she said, “we are asking an awful lot right now of our forces.”
“The risk of using military force is so significant … there should be a lot of layers and a lot of checks and balances. But at the same time there are really profound risks to our national security that exist today.”
Trotting out the typical trope of the globalist war hawks, Power pointed to the rise of extremism and the critical need for the United States military to quell it. Defense One reports:
“The moderate opposition in recent months has lost ground, no question,” she said. U.S. military strikes in Syria have been limited in their effectiveness at degrading the Islamic State, and according to some reports, have benefitted Syrian President Bashir al-Assad. But Power emphasized that there remain Syrian rebels who “still espouse the vision for Syria that drove the revolution in the first place.”
Speaking of the latest bugaboo — ISIS — Powers claimed that it is “the kind of terrorism juggernaut that the American people understood we couldn’t tolerate.”
Flogging the necessity of American interventionism is nothing new to Power. For years she has preached the doctrine of America as the world’s military messiah.
A central tenet of this doctrine is the surrender of U.S. sovereignty to a greater government with authority in every square inch of the globe.
Now that she is in the driver’s seat of the American delegation to the UN, Power seems set on accelerating toward an unprecedented drive for one-world government and a subordination of U.S. sovereignty to the unelected, unaccountable whims of that world body.
With regard to the panoply of policies she will promote from her global bully pulpit, Samantha Power’s record speaks for itself.
Ambassador Power rose to prominence in government circles as part of her campaign to promote a doctrine known as the Responsibility to Protect. This doctrine, advanced by the United Nations, 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.
Should all others measures fail, then military intervention is required. Command and control of that force should be centered in the UN, according to Power and her colleagues.
For over 50 years, The John Birch Society has warned of the dangers of interventionism and a gradual surrender of sovereignty to a global government, particularly the United Nations.
The New American, an affiliate of The John Birch Society, published a wide-ranging, well documented aritcle by Senior Editor William F. Jasper entitled “The United Nations: On the Brink of Becoming a World Government” that laid out the globalists’ plans. Addressing the establishment media’s effort to downplay the UN threat, Jasper wrote:
However, very influential Americans, as well as foreign leaders, in politics, media, and academe, have been advocating — blatantly and openly, as well as indirectly — for transforming the United Nations system into a full-blown world government. What’s more, they have begun actual implementation. It is no longer hypothetical that the UN and its affiliated institutions will usurp legislative, executive, and judicial powers, including taxing, policing, and military powers. It has already begun; it is already happening. And it is happening with the acquiescence, approval, encouragement, and funding of globalists in our own government, both Republicans and Democrats.
Later, regarding the UN’s drive to consolidate control over the entire planet, Jasper warned:
The UN grabs for power cited above are far from a complete list. The UN’s Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) aims to give the UN authority over the planet’s oceans, coastal waters, fisheries, seabed oil and mineral wealth, and maritime traffic. The UN’s World Health Organization and Food & Agriculture Organization are in charge of the Codex Alimentarius, the UN effort to regulate and take control over raw food, processed food, and semi-processed food, including vitamin and mineral supplements, herbs, and other nutritional products. UNESCO has insinuated itself into American schools and families through “partnerships” with our federal and state Education Departments that include curriculum design and invasive, psychologically manipulative “emotional wellness” evaluations. The UN Population Fund (UNFPA) not only supports forced abortion in China, but works assiduously with Planned Parenthood to overturn national abortion laws and make abortion legal and commonplace worldwide.
With Samantha Power sitting in the U.S. chair at the UN and Barack Obama sitting in the president’s chair at the White House, it seems that now more than ever the U.S. government is being purposefully mismanaged to invite either a revocation of U.S. sovereignty under the Responsibility to Protect doctrine or a domestic demonstration of what Samantha Power describes as a “meaningful military presence,” which she believes is appropriate when a nation’s sovereignty must be redistributed to those who share her worldview.
Without a change in U.S. policy, how long will it be until the principles that justify the type of intervention being promoted to settle the situation in Syria are also invoked to invite a military takeover of the United States?
Or, if the day comes when the states or the people decide to finally derail the “long train of abuses” that have been imposed on them, would internationalists such as Samantha Power point to this derailment as a threat to national security and cite it as justification for forcibly revoking the rights of the states or the people?
There is one sure way to make sure Americans never face either of these specters: Get the U.S. out of the UN and the UN out of the U.S.!
Photo of U.S. Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power: AP Images
Joe A. Wolverton, II, J.D. is a correspondent for The New American and travels nationwide speaking on nullification, the Second Amendment, the surveillance state, and other constitutional issues. Follow him on Twitter @TNAJoeWolverton and he can be reached at [email protected].
