Samantha power, 1 of 3 women helping to defeat obama

Discussion in 'Politics' started by shock, Oct 5, 2012.

  1. shock

    shock BANNED

    Apr 9, 2009
    Thanks Received:
    Trophy Points:

    Monday, 30 April 2012 12:54

    Chief of Obama's Atrocities Board Believes in Redistribution of Sovereignty
    Written by Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.

    "*** President Obama has created a new government agency tasked with identifying and combatting war crimes, crimes against humanity, and other such atrocities.

    The goal of the APB is to first formally recognize that genocide and other mass atrocities committed by foreign powers are a “core national security interest and core moral responsibility.”
    The APB, will be comprised of senior government officials across nearly a dozen government agencies, and will conduct regular meetings in the White House to identify and combat these atrocities occurring overseas that pose a significant threat to America’s national security.
    According to a statement issued by the White House, the APB will also be charged with coordinating the actions of other agencies and departments with similar mandates so as to prevent ineffective and untimely responses to the various actions it highlights as threats. ***
    Apart from the unconstitutionality of this use of the executive order, there is something sinister in the selection of Samantha Power to spearhead the search for atrocities.
    Samantha Power rose to prominence in government circles as part of her campaign to promote a doctrine known as the Responsibility to Protect. ***
    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.
    There are 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. Military intervention is considered the last resort.


    Samantha Power was born in Ireland, emigrated to the US at an early age and was educated at Yale. She is one of a group of women who have done much to shape American foreign policy, especially that which has resulted in America's involvement in wars fought upon behalf of other nations.

    Power has done much to make R2P (Responsibility to Protect) a part of American policy.

    All that is required for R2P to enable a country such as the US to invade another country,
    such as was Libya,
    is to create, or to help to create, militant forces in another country that then create atrocities, or to provoke actions within another country that can be called atrocities ,
    then call for peace,
    and then, when something occurs that can be called an atrocity,
    militarily invade such other country and overthrow its leader(s).

    America, as most know, has now decided it may now take such action without as much as calling upon its congress to declare war.

    Samantha Power is alleged to have been responsible for the employment of R2P to promote the use of US and EU military force to overthrow Libya's Gaddafi.

    And there seems to be an ongoing effort upon the part of Obama and Power and Obama's Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, and Obama's UN Representative, Susan Rice,
    to employ R2P as a means of justifying the overthrow of Assad of Syria in order to provide a "safe route" for the shipment of Quatar and other GCC sources of natural gas., northward toward Turkey, and thence west to the EU.

    Assume, whether improbably or otherwise,
    there is justification for America's attempted creation of such a "safe route" for such gas to travel along such route to the EU.
    What then can the United States expect to receive in exchange for its military intervention in Syrian affairs except such blame and loss of lives, fortune and reputation as it is suffering
    for the action it is taking against Assad?

    Your take?

    Moderator: Correct me. Guide me. I'm trying to comply, so please don't bar me.

Share This Page