A member of the president’s National Security Council who shares Noam Chomsky’s foreign-policy goals? An influential presidential adviser whom 1960s revolutionary Tom Hayden treats as a fellow radical? A White House official who wrote a book aiming to turn an anti-American, anti-Israel, Marxist-inspired, world-government-loving United Nations bureaucrat into a popular hero? Samantha Power, senior director of multilateral affairs for the National Security Council and perhaps the principal architect of our current intervention in Libya, is all of these things…

So begins a fine April 5th article by National Review’s Stanley Kurtz on Samantha Power, a top international relations advisor to President Obama.

And it gets better – Kurtz calls Power “a patriot’s nightmare — a woman determined to subordinate America’s national sovereignty” to her own vision of how the world ought to work and what global role the US ought to play.

If you want to know why the lives of Americans pilots have been put at risk to carry out missions for Libyan rebels with mysterious motives and unclear objectives, and who has likely been pushing this idea inside the Obama Administration while singing about "humanitarianism," read the article.

Kurtz’s article is a fairly damning indictment of Power as an ideologue who doesn’t care in the least for America’s genuine national interests – and who therefore does not belong anywhere near the National Security Council or any other White House advisory role.

Reading Kurtz’s article, one can’t help but think about another oddball White House appointment – I refer to John Holdren, President Obama’s science advisor, who has his own history of supporting various far-out, utopian ideas such as compulsory birth control. (The Capital Research Center has published an in-depth look at Holdren and his views, which you can read here.)

Samantha Power could be seen as the equivalent of Holdren when it comes to foreign affairs - two utopian-minded peas in a pod.

Well-researched as it is, one article in National Review isn’t going to be enough to sink Samantha Power or drive her out of the National Security Council.

What’s needed next? How about follow-up hearings by members of Congress to determine what sort of advice Power is giving the President and to weigh whether that advice is consistent with US national interests? Samantha Power should, of course, be given a chance to defend herself and her utopian vision of the world.

After the hearings, President Obama can decide if she might be better off in a lower-profile role - say, US Ambassador to the Bahamas, or the Maldives.

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Chair of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, are you listening?

It seems like Rep. Ros-Lehtinen is wise to Samantha Power’s real agenda.

In a March 31, 2011 speech, Rep. Ros-Lehtinen noted the following regarding Power’s role in the Libya intervention:

Whether we agree or disagree with the decision to intervene in Libya, concerns have now been raised across both sides of the aisle about implied future obligations under the “Responsibility to Protect,” a vague concept first articulated in a UN General Assembly Resolution more than a year ago, which the UN has endorsed but failed to define.

Compounding those concerns are reports that Senior Director of Multilateral Affairs on the National Security Council Staff, Samantha Power, reportedly helped lead the charge to intervene in Libya based upon this principle and over the objection of military planners.

I can’t wait for Samantha Power’s appearance before the Committee.