Outsourced foreign policy and national security issues to Samantha Power.

The Power of Samantha Power

March 23, 2011
By Ed Lasky

Barack Obama seems to have outsourced foreign policy and national security issues to Samantha Power.

John Podhoretz noted her influence with the President when she played a key role in his decision to bomb Libya-pursuant to a trendy concept among foreign policy elites called Responsibility to Protect (R2P for Blackberry texters):

The Tuesday-evening meeting at the White House at which the president decided to move on Libya was "extremely contentious," according to a report in Josh Rogin's excellent blog, The Cable.

Power and a few others took the position that the United States couldn't stay on the sidelines as Moammar Khadafy murdered his own people and snuffed out the people-power revolt in the Middle East in its infancy.

They were opposed by Power's own boss, National Security Adviser Tom Donilon and by Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

Samantha Power's opinions eclipsed the views of her nominal boss, National Security Adviser Tom Donilon and those of Obama's Defense Secretary (who, at least, had to pass confirmation by the Senate, unlike Power).

Her influence is long-lasting and deep. She also probably played a role in nominating Mary Robinson to be awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, despite a checkered record involving international efforts towards our ally, Israel

People should not be surprised at her outsized influence. Barack Obama has made a mockery of the concept of organizational charts and traditional power arrangements in the executive branch (Czars and Czarinas, "advisers" such as Elizabeth Warren who, along with a bevy of recess appointments, escape Senate scrutiny.

Stanley Kurtz sees more moves afoot as the Soros-linked Samantha Power continues to work with Barack Obama to weaken the concept of American sovereignty and empower the international community at the expense of American independence. He also notes that Obama has always been clever about hiding his motives behind a façade of pragmatism.  Read More

A Foolish and Unconstitutional War

This is not the world's war. This is Obama's war.

March 23, 2011
By Patrick J. Buchanan

“The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”

So said constitutional scholar and Senator Barack Obama in December 2007 – the same man who, this weekend, ordered U.S. air and missile strikes on Libya without any authorization from Congress.

Obama did win the support of Gabon in the Security Council, but failed with Germany. With a phone call to acquitted rapist Jacob Zuma, he got South Africa to sign on, but not Brazil, Russia, India or China. All four abstained.

This is not the world’s war. This is Obama’s war.

The U.S. Navy fired almost all the cruise missiles that hit Libya as the U.S. Air Force attacked with B-2 bombers, F-15s and F-16s.

“To be clear, this is a U.S.-led operation,” said Vice Adm. William Gortney.

“In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies,” said Winston Churchill. Obama is a quick study.  Read More

Supreme Court: Fed Must Disclose Bailout Details

"What is certain is that the central bank is coming under increasing fire from all sides of the political spectrum. Calls to, as Rep. Paul puts it, “End the Fed,” are growing louder every day. States across America are considering legislation to restore constitutional money. And the attacks on the Fed will likely continue intensifying as the dollar decline accelerates and the people learn more about what their monetary masters have been doing behind closed doors for almost 100 years."

March 23, 2011

By Alex Newman
3/22/2011

After the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of lower-court rulings, the Federal Reserve must release information within five days about its “emergency” bailouts of large banks and financial institutions undertaken in 2008 under the guise of saving the financial system.

The central bank attracted intense scrutiny during the economic crisis when it lent trillions of dollars to various institutions, including foreign banks, in an unprecedented transfer of wealth. And as concern intensified, several media organizations including Fox and Bloomberg sought disclosure of the bailout records using Freedom of Information Act requests.

But the Federal Reserve and a coalition of some of the biggest banks in the world fought back against disclosure for years. So after refusing to release the records, Bloomberg took the Fed to court.

The central bank argued, among other points, that the New York Fed is a private corporation with private shareholders, not a government agency subject to FOIA rules. The defendants also claimed that releasing the information would hurt the reputations of bailed-out institutions.

The Fed lost its initial case in court. It appealed and lost yet again. Finally, the central bank received a stay on the order until the case could be taken to the Supreme Court. But on March 21, the high court denied the appeal without comment, meaning the federal appeals court decision stands.  Read More

Patrick Henry’s Speech: A Post-Modern Version

"Can more be said? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!"

March 23, 2011

Don Stevens
3/21/2011

No man thinks more highly than I do of peace. But different men see the same subject in different lights. Therefore, it is not disrespectful to peace-loving gentlemen to express an opinion opposite to them. The time for mincing words has passed. The pandering of those in Congress to moderates and liberals is shameful when seen in the light of how our precious Constitution and its promise of freedom to all has been disregarded; the prosperity of subsequent generations legislated away! This is no longer a question of politics. These atrocities are nothing less than a bold move against individual freedom and a frontal assault made by an enemy intent on enslaving us! The proportion to the magnitude of the problem ought to determine the volume and heat of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth and fulfill the great responsibility that we hold dear to God and country. Should I hold back my fierce opposition because I fear giving offense? To do so makes me guilty of treason and disloyal to the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly authority and common courtesy!

Mr. de facto President, Supreme Court Justices, and Congress, it is natural for man to shut his eyes against painful truths. Yet, should this be the path of patriots when engaged in a struggle to preserve liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who have eyes and see not; have ears, yet hear not? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it costs me, I MUST seek the whole truth, and finding it, make provision for it.
Read More