Samantha Power Takes A Vacation

Flanders

ARCHCONSERVATIVE
Sep 23, 2010
7,628
748
205
Now if only she would stay on vacation until January 20, 2017.

Click on the link and watch the brief video. Tucker Carlson has it right while uber-liberal Kirsten Powers calls Samantha Power a great humanitarian. Powers with an s is onto something so long as humanitarianism is practiced with somebody else’s blood:



Somehow, in their definition of humanitarian liberals never include saving the people Communists slaughter. And why is it that Americans dying for Syrians is more humanitarian than is Americans dying for Coptic Christians in Egypt? Here’s a wild suggestion; let’s just mind our own business until UN-loving traitors provide a satisfactory answer to the question.

You gotta love Barack Taqiyya’s media mouths blaming Russia and China for blocking military intervention in Syria. I have no trouble turning it around to mean Russia and China are inadvertently saving American lives.

Liberals wailing about Syria and elsewhere looks like criticism of the United Nations on the face of it. Not so. UN-loving douche bags in the media, and in the Administration, are doing everything they can do to stampede the American people into putting every civil war in the world in the UN’s hands. More to the point they are after military coalitions that gives the UN veto power over the US military.

Listen to Power spout intervention treason at her confirmation hearing:



Notice that UN-lovers never give a guesstimate of how many American lives it will cost to intervene. On top of everything else misguided do-gooders gave us the Arab Spring. That has not worked out too well, but failure never stopped Democrats in the past. There is no reason to think they will change their wicked ways anytime soon.

NOTE: Desert Storm is the kind of coalition Samantha Power yearns for wherever she accuses the UN of not doing enough. You Have to wonder what the Middle East would look like today had the American military acting unilaterally in Desert Storm by going all the way to Baghdad? I don’t know how it would have played out, but I can say this with absolute certainty: There would have been no war in Iraq 11 years later.

Parenthetically, nobody with a public voice ever points out that the world is in the mess it’s in because of the United Nations coupled with dirty little bloodthirsty moralists like Samantha Power who believe they have an infallible moral imperative to send Americans off to die in foreign lands.

Happily, a UN coalition invading Syria is not in the cards. Sadly, there is talk about a NATO coalition à la Clinton’s Balkan Adventure. Clinton got away with killing Christians because no ground troops were involved. I doubt if bombing alone is going to work in Syria. US ground troops must engage the enemy as soon as Samantha Power figures out who the enemy is. In any event the touchy-feely crowd is determined to send Americans to die in Muslim lands so others might live.

NOTE: The talk about imposing democracy on Syria is not nearly as loud as it was for Egypt. Once burned twice shy. “Humanitarian” is the battle cry —— democracy is still the goal.

Finally, one good thing might come out of America’s long running global government foreign policy. Muslim countries might wise up to the UN’s true purpose and walkout en masse.
 
Last edited:
Kerry, speaking to reporters at the State Department, said last week's attack was a "moral obscenity" that "should shock the conscience" of the world.

"The indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, the killing of women and children and innocent bystanders by chemical weapons is a moral obscenity. By any standard, it is inexcusable and — despite the excuses and equivocations that some have manufactured — it is undeniable," said Kerry, the highest-ranking U.S. official to confirm the attack in the Damascus suburbs that activists say killed hundreds of people.

Everybody in Barack Taqiyya’s administration is a moral obscenity. Right now they are deciding how many Muslims they are going to kill. I have no objections to killing Muslims in self-defense, but I object to killing anyone for political reasons only. John Kerry is the biggest moral obscenity of them all. His treason after he returned from Vietnam caused far more American deaths than Bashar Assad killed in a civil war.

"This international norm cannot be violated without consequences," he said.

Kerry: Chemical weapons use in Syria a 'moral obscenity,' accuses Assad of destroying evidence
Article by: JULIE PACE , Associated Press
Updated: August 26, 2013 - 3:10 PM

Kerry: Chemical weapons use in Syria a 'moral obscenity,' accuses Assad of destroying evidence | Star Tribune

And what the hell is the International norm? Is it the same as non-existent International law? As near as I can tell International law is United Nations law is Socialist law. I’m working on a definition for International norm.

I know that Kerry never mentioned an International norm when the Communists he defended in Vietnam were slaughtering hundreds of thousands without consequences. Nor was there an International norm when Democrats like Kerry opposed a war of self-defense in Iraq (after voting for it).

I also know that Kerry and Samantha Power will use Syria to turn America’s military over to the United Nations if they can get away with it. Neither one has ever made a secret of their loyalty to the UNIC (United Nations/International Community).

NOTE: I use the upper case I for International. Kerry’s United Nations succeeded the League of Nations in 1945 and surely qualifies as a noun today:


International (noun)

Any of several socialist organizations of international scope formed during the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
 
She’s back:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=-wAZiC9tIm4]Samantha Power : UN Security Council Must Act on Syria - YouTube[/ame]​

If you listened to the video this is the first question you should be asking: Why is the United States Ambassador to the United Nations trying to empower that anti-America organization?

. . . the Security Council the world needs to deal with this crisis is not the Security Council we have.

The answer to the question is obvious. The administration had that objective in mind right from the start.

I would be remiss if I did not cover the children Power and her kind always invoke when they want something:


It has not protected peace and security for the hundreds of Syrian children who were gassed to death on August 21.

If Power is so goddamned concerned she would spend some time trying to stop the deaths of unwanted children left to die of starvation and disease in government-run institutions in China. Of course, Power dare not mention that moral obscenity lest she offend a Communist regime. Instead, she focuses on Putin who is eating her, Kerry, and Barack Taqiyya for lunch. All he has to do is stand pat and he beats them:

And even in the wake of the flagrant shattering of the international norm against chemical weapons use, Russia continues to hold the Council hostage and shirk its international responsibilities, including as a party to the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Let me be clear on this. If it’s a choice between crapping on the United Nations, or saving an American president from looking like a fool, I’ll take a dump on the UN every time.

Incidentally, in spite of Samantha Power’s worldview, Putin is doing Americans a favor whenever he shows the United Nations for what it is; a worthless conglomeration of charity hustlers and crooks chasing after taxing authority over the world.

Finally, the United Nations means the bureaucrats and the 60,000 or so employees worldwide who are paid by the UN. That is the United Nations the administration is trying to empower. When the rubber meets the road the “United Nations” does not mean all of the member states. Put it this way. Should the UN get the authority it seeks the member states will have less power than our federal government allows our states to exercise. That is what ruling classes are after. And remember this: The American people started out as free people. So what chance will the disfranchised in Third World countries have when the UN is in charge. Answer: None —— less than none when John Kerry and his supporters put population controls in motion.
 
She's perpetrating the fraud that this is about WMDs. How can anyone ever take any the WMD concern seriously when it is repeatedly used to cover military and economic motives of countries seeking to control people ? It's nearly as heinous as WMDs themselves.
 
The filthy bum didn’t waste much time demonstrating what she thinks of this country:

New U.S. ambassador to the UN Samantha Power didn't waste her diplomatic skills on Vietnam veterans at a New York speech, praising actress Jane Fonda for "being outspoken on behalf" of her convictions.

Don’t be fooled by Fonda being outspoken on behalf of her convictions. Her treasonous actions were always excused because of her “outspoken” Communist convictions. Fonda should still be in prison for what she did in North Vietnam while our guys were being killed fighting against Communist expansion in SE Asia.

Incidentally, I’m pretty sure that an America-hating shit-bum like Samantha Power knows that speaking up for Jane Fonda is the same as speaking up for Communism:


Jane Fonda

I, a Socialist, think we should strive toward a Socialist society, all the way to Communism.

"If you understood what Communism was, you would hope, you would pray on your knees that one day we would become Communist." (speaking to students at the University of Michigan in 1970)


Most Americans know what Fonda is, but how many know what a piece of garbage represents this country in the United Nations?

The biggest joke is all of those Irish ‘patriots’ who make a big deal out of Saint Patrick’s day every year. They are probably to stewed to know that one of their own is speaking for them:


Power, who was born in Ireland and was a toddler when Fonda made her infamous remarks, may not have been aware she was hitting a raw nerve. But Vietnam vets who spoke to FoxNews.com said anyone representing the U.S. to the world ought to know about Fonda's foreign policy history.

America's top UN diplomat has high praise for 'Hanoi Jane'
Published November 07, 2013

America's top UN diplomat has high praise for 'Hanoi Jane' | Fox News
 
The filthy bum didn’t waste much time demonstrating what she thinks of this country:

New U.S. ambassador to the UN Samantha Power didn't waste her diplomatic skills on Vietnam veterans at a New York speech, praising actress Jane Fonda for "being outspoken on behalf" of her convictions.

Don’t be fooled by Fonda being outspoken on behalf of her convictions. Her treasonous actions were always excused because of her “outspoken” Communist convictions. Fonda should still be in prison for what she did in North Vietnam while our guys were being killed fighting against Communist expansion in SE Asia.

Incidentally, I’m pretty sure that an America-hating shit-bum like Samantha Power knows that speaking up for Jane Fonda is the same as speaking up for Communism:


Jane Fonda

I, a Socialist, think we should strive toward a Socialist society, all the way to Communism.

"If you understood what Communism was, you would hope, you would pray on your knees that one day we would become Communist." (speaking to students at the University of Michigan in 1970)


Most Americans know what Fonda is, but how many know what a piece of garbage represents this country in the United Nations?

The biggest joke is all of those Irish ‘patriots’ who make a big deal out of Saint Patrick’s day every year. They are probably to stewed to know that one of their own is speaking for them:


Power, who was born in Ireland and was a toddler when Fonda made her infamous remarks, may not have been aware she was hitting a raw nerve. But Vietnam vets who spoke to FoxNews.com said anyone representing the U.S. to the world ought to know about Fonda's foreign policy history.

America's top UN diplomat has high praise for 'Hanoi Jane'
Published November 07, 2013

America's top UN diplomat has high praise for 'Hanoi Jane' | Fox News

Some Americans hate the fact we were massacring innocent civilians in the millions, instead of choosing to hate Jane Fonda over Vietnam.

Haters of people like you will be Haters.
 
She's perpetrating the fraud that this is about WMDs. How can anyone ever take any the WMD concern seriously when it is repeatedly used to cover military and economic motives of countries seeking to control people ? It's nearly as heinous as WMDs themselves.

Yeah really. How could anyone take it seriously....

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003


Fucking idiot.
 
The filthy bum didn’t waste much time demonstrating what she thinks of this country:

New U.S. ambassador to the UN Samantha Power didn't waste her diplomatic skills on Vietnam veterans at a New York speech, praising actress Jane Fonda for "being outspoken on behalf" of her convictions.

Don’t be fooled by Fonda being outspoken on behalf of her convictions. Her treasonous actions were always excused because of her “outspoken” Communist convictions. Fonda should still be in prison for what she did in North Vietnam while our guys were being killed fighting against Communist expansion in SE Asia.

Incidentally, I’m pretty sure that an America-hating shit-bum like Samantha Power knows that speaking up for Jane Fonda is the same as speaking up for Communism:




Most Americans know what Fonda is, but how many know what a piece of garbage represents this country in the United Nations?

The biggest joke is all of those Irish ‘patriots’ who make a big deal out of Saint Patrick’s day every year. They are probably to stewed to know that one of their own is speaking for them:


Power, who was born in Ireland and was a toddler when Fonda made her infamous remarks, may not have been aware she was hitting a raw nerve. But Vietnam vets who spoke to FoxNews.com said anyone representing the U.S. to the world ought to know about Fonda's foreign policy history.

America's top UN diplomat has high praise for 'Hanoi Jane'
Published November 07, 2013

America's top UN diplomat has high praise for 'Hanoi Jane' | Fox News

Some Americans hate the fact we were massacring innocent civilians in the millions, instead of choosing to hate Jane Fonda over Vietnam.

Haters of people like you will be Haters.

Someone please ask Frau Sherri to substantiate her claim that we are massacring millions of innocent civilians? Where and how are we doing this?
 

Forum List

Back
Top