After Obama awarded Susan Rice, former US Ambassador to the United Nations, for lying to the American public about the attack on Benghazi being the result of a protest over a YouTube video – appointing her his National Security adviser, he nominated Samantha Power as US Ambassador to the United Nations. Retired Lt. Gen. William G. “Jerry” Boykin, on Wednesday, joined other conservatives opposing Power’s nomination citing her “track record” indicating she would likely concede US sovereignty to that globalist institution.
Speaking at the National Press Club, Boykin said, “Samantha Power’s attitude that we cede our sovereignty to the United Nations is very misguided and very dangerous as far as I’m concerned.”
In a report by CNSnew.com:
Boykin said the U.N. is not concerned with the individual rights and liberties of Americans as enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
“This monolithic body called the United Nations would very much like to usurp the individual liberties of Americans and be a global dominant government,” said Boykin, who is the executive vice president of the family and faith advocacy group, Family Research Council. “We should be proud to be Americans, and if you look at Samantha Power’s track record there is a strong indication that her attitude is just the opposite.”
“That she would like to very much convince us that we should be ashamed of America,” Boykin said, adding that people should investigate what Power has said and written in the past as he has done.
“I think you will conclude, just as I have, is what she would really like to do is to cede our authority to that international body,” Boykin said.
Boykin cited his service to his country, and the freedom it affords from the men and women who protect it, led him to speak out in opposition of Power. Boykin said, “I have the privilege and liberty to stand up and say I oppose her, and I oppose her on the grounds of US sovereignty.”
Frank Gaffney, President and founder of the Center for Security Policy, “held the press conference to announce that 49 groups and individuals signed a letter sent to every member of Congress this week to express their opposition to Power’s nomination.”
The letter to Congress read:
“Now, more than ever, the United States needs to return to the kind of U.N. representation it has enjoyed in the past with prominent figures from both parties, such as Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Jeanne Kirkpatrick and John Bolton. They loved and admired our nation, exulted in its exceptionalism and courageously defended it against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”
“They were under no illusions about the United Nations and routinely challenged efforts to increase its influence and power at America’s expense. Samantha Power’s decades-long track record makes clear that she neither embraces these principles nor is disposed to play this important role in advancing them.”
Gaffney called Power a “very problematic nomination” since she has long been “harshly critical” of the United States. “Her position is easily confused with that of people who are actually enemies of the United States when it comes to the character of this country, its role in the world and the kind of positions it has embraced and stood for and espoused,” said Gaffney.
Lt. Col. Allen West, a Republican from Florida who served in Congress, called Power “an uber-left, militant progressive whose previous statements against America and Israel should cause us concern.”
Continuing the report, CNSnews.com asserts:
Powers wrote in a March 3, 2003 article in The New Republic: “And the American approach must cease its reliance on gratuitous unilateralism. We make rules and create international institutions precisely in order to bind states when their short-term interests would otherwise lead them toward defection. The United States is willing to bind itself to the World Trade Organization, because it knows it benefits more than any other country from free trade, but not to the [International Crime Commission] ICC, because there is no good selfish reason to expose American citizens to external scrutiny.”
If you recall, Samantha Powers was a senior foreign policy adviser to Barack Obama, and is considered to have played an instrumental role in shaping his foreign policy. Ms. Powers was forced to resign during the first campaign because of “disparaging remarks about Hilary Clinton. She returned to work for Obama soon after he took office and has been widely praised for her work, especially on the issue of the Libya intervention.” Her current role is head of the human rights division of the National Security Council. Looking at Obama’s failed foreign policy and US international troubles because of it, Ms. Power should be excluded from any position in government.
It is no surprise that Obama would nominate someone like Samantha Power for the US Ambassador to the United Nations position; after all, it would appear she shares the same views as our current sitting president. He has demonstrated consistently his disdain for the principles upon which our country was founded, nominating individuals who work endlessly to rip our Constitution to shreds. If Power is confirmed to the position by Congress, they will have driven one more nail into the coffin of the United States. With her views and attitudes coupled with Obama’s beliefs, individual sovereignty and US sovereignty will be dragged by the hair, kicking and screaming, into the “global world order;” and, Congress would have put us there by confirming her nomination.
It would be prudent to contact your Senators to encourage them to deny confirmation of Samantha Power to the position of US Ambassador of the United Nations.
Become an insider!
Sign up for the free Freedom Outpost email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.