Truth Verification and Implication on Whistle Blowers

September 18, 2010

By Padmini Arhant

In the bizarre political environment – certain talking heads for the political class or the establishment in Washington condemn truth in the name of free speech while forbidding others of the same constitutional right confirming hypocrisy in the so-called democracy.

Propaganda through subversion of facts is the typical characteristics in the denial and dismissal of truth, despite evidences in the relevant matter.

Truth and first amendment rights are the primary targets in successfully evading debates concerning human tragedies from health, economic to incessant warfare.

Attempts to discredit those raising legitimate questions on national issues and humanity at large bear uncanny semblance to the political systems depriving citizens of the democratic right to express views and opinions.

Ordinary citizens are expected to accept responsibility for their actions; meanwhile the extraordinary held above the law regardless of the issues.

The buffer created to protect the authorities from any investigation constitutes the distinctive hierarchy that in itself is undemocratic expanding the opportunities for history to repeat itself in recent times.

As for the various speculations on the possible intentions behind the humanitarian issues facts finding – there is no materialistic, political aspirations or celebrity quest involved in the spiritually guided humanitarian mission selflessly carried out to protect the planet and the inhabitants from further degradation in preparation for the new peaceful era.

The declaration in April 2010 is not a personal affirmation to any political status but a revelation in the contemporary sense on the spiritual being’s arrival and presence as the humanity’s protector to complete the cosmic realization in correlation with time and space.

Any skepticism or criticism in this regard would be an individual prerogative and the perspective is respected.

Nonetheless, if there are any from the expected quarters, then it would be a ‘selective and convenient,’ position given their precise instructions to get the political candidates elected in the midterm elections and follow the order.

Innuendoes suggest political approach as ‘calculating,’ and not “Saintly” – disregarding the notion that when defending the oppressed, persecuted and exploited population – the victims in the contentious politics with excess greed for power, fame and fortune,

The defender’s position to the powerful and the critics would always appear anything but reasonable.

Besides, from earlier experience it’s clear that when dealing with political and social issues, politeness is mistaken for weakness and silence misconstrued as an ‘apology,’ among some elite and presumptuous in the social-political circle. The populace grievances are neglected with no real or long lasting solutions to the problems.

Immigrants cited as ‘foreigners’ continue to be marginalized by the visibly clamorous ‘minority’ in the television and news media representing the oligarchy.

Fairness and equality is a misnomer with high level of suspicions against individual’s genuine sacrifices for humanitarian good reflecting xenophobia.

However, the horrendous crises resulting in loss of life or serious health problems requiring attention are not a priority and considered unimportant at the least inconvenient.

The lack of empathy for the poor and the ignored majority is an accepted norm in the contemporary society. Upon request to alleviate suffering, the action is misinterpreted as an unnecessary intrusion with ulterior motives.

Unless there is unanimous recognition for honest commitment to deliver in common interest, the gap between the rich and poor will widen with the continuous burden on the wealthy to provide for the rest.

Human conditions could vastly improve with the ability to survive and maintain an affordable economic and healthy habitat. It is made possible by strong political will dedicated to serving the people electing them to office.

Moral and ethical failure is contributed by the abuse of power with no accountability and transparency in political and corporate dealings. Above all, the concerted effort to discourage the pursuit is quite disturbing.

Hence dissent against war and disappointment in other national issues are easily suppressed under these conditions.

Therefore, whistle blowers are forced to submerge and portrayed as potential threats to the status quo through certain volunteers in the news media across the spectrum contrary to them being the voice for democracy.

Democracy is cosmetic rather than realistic in a society without equal rights.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

Written by Padmini Arhant · Filed Under Ethics | Leave a Comment 

Supreme Court Nominee – Solicitor General Elena Kagan

July 1, 2010

By Padmini Arhant

The Senate Judiciary Committee hearing to confirm the Supreme Court Nominee – Solicitor General Elena Kagan is in process.

Solicitor General Elena Kagan upon confirmation would succeed the retired Supreme Court Justice, John Paul Stevens to the United States Supreme Court.

Notably, the appointment would strengthen the female representation to one-third on the current bench.

While it still remains a minority. it’s a significant social progress made in recent years to the highest court on land.

President Barack Obama’s commitment in this respect is praiseworthy.

Since the hearing commencement, the Solicitor General Elena Kagan has responded patiently and diligently to most if not all of the issues raised by the distinguished panel.

The Solicitor General’s disposition conforms to the previous appointees for similar position.

Therefore, it’s not unprecedented in the Senate confirmation hearing.

Although, departure from such tradition would benefit public confidence in the potential lifetime appointee entrusted with judicial duty on life and death matter.

The Senate members posed many important issues to ascertain the nominee’s position. Some were politically motivated and the majority relevant to the cause.

Solicitor General Elena Kagan’s background and credentials has been under scrutiny from the early introduction to until now.

The Supreme Court nominee is profiled for better understanding and in some instances caricatured to place the aspirant in spotlight depending on the critics’ “ethical” standard.

Solicitor General Elena Kagan stellar academic and career achievements have rightfully earned the recognition leading up to the Supreme Court nomination.

The buzz about the nominee from the beginning was her lack of experience in the capacity as a ‘Judge,’ despite the precedence set by the Supreme Court predecessors, the latest being the former Justice William Rehnquist nominated by the Republican President Ronald Reagan.

During the Senate hearing, the nominee, Elena Kagan had to address diverse issues ranging from:

The executive power, Congressional deference, corporate influence, political activism – a common attribute towards the democratic nominee by the opposition, past incidents linked to,

The military recruitment on college campus including clarification on personal statements and memos to determine adaptability to the existing judicial view.

Solicitor General Elena Kagan maintained throughout the session that she would strictly adhere to the Constitutional law and not attempt to interpret it differently for political or any other reason.

Further, the Solicitor General elaborated on personal humility and pledged to respect the precedential settings on historic hearings notwithstanding the Supreme Court recent ruling safeguarding the second amendment.

In addition, some Senate members sought assurance from the nominee on the denial of Habeas Corpus to detained terror suspects apprehended from civil or combat environment.

The nominee in agreement with “battlefield law, including indefinite detention without a trial, could apply outside of traditional battlefields.”

International law was extensively discussed against the Constitutional law to establish the nominee’s priority pertaining to the academic period as the “Dean at Harvard Law School.”

In other controversial social issues such as abortion, gay military personnel and the “Don’t ask, don’t tell,” policy, the Solicitor General confirmed the published views.

Protecting women’s health and highlighting the drawbacks from depriving the gay members to serve the nation on equal basis.

However, in the related subjects the nominee Elena Kagan reportedly stated the following:

Source: Wikipedia.org – Elena Kagan

“ 1. From 1995 to 1999, Kagan served as President Bill Clinton’s Associate White House Counsel and Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy and Deputy Director of the Domestic Policy Council.

While serving in that position, Kagan co-authored a May 13, 1997 memo to the President urging him to support a ban on late-term abortions stating that, “We recommend that you endorse the Daschle amendment in order to sustain your credibility on HR 1122 and prevent Congress from overriding your veto.”

2. In 1996, she wrote an article in the University of Chicago Law Review entitled, “Private Speech, Public Purpose:

The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine.” Kagan argued that government has the right, even considering the First Amendment, to restrict free speech, when the government believes the speech is “harmful”, as long as the restriction is done with good intentions.

3. During her solicitor general confirmation hearing, she said that “there is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.”

Also during her solicitor general confirmation, Kagan was asked about the Defense of Marriage Act, under which states don’t have to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. She said she would defend the act.”

In due fairness to the nominee’s statements, the approach to defend the constitution is a primary judicial responsibility.

At the same time, if exercising empathy in the decision-making is characterized as ‘social activism,’ then similar considerations to the authorities in the executive and legislative branches not barring the corporations exceed the judicial power granted within the confines of the law.

Unfortunately, it’s a growing trend hindering justice particularly on ethical misconduct in the democratic system.

Again, the Solicitor General perceptions on the basic human rights – women’s health, freedom of expression superseding the second amendment in the Bill of Rights, and gay rights is lacking in candor consequentially the clarity on the fundamental law that –

“All are created equal and hence qualify for the equal application of law.”

Social injustice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, gender discrimination, economic status…are explicitly prevalent given the human progress in other tangible fields.

The political, economic and religious institutions intrusion in justice has the ‘average’ human life hanging in balance with the hope that justice is served by taking into account,

Obedience to the law as well as the facts and evidences authenticated by the conscionable action to be impartial.

Solicitor General Elena Kagan is regarded for her intellect, consensus building, hard work and thoughtfulness, the valuable assets that would not only contribute to the enriched Supreme Court representation, but also empower the nation’s highest court with additional perspective.

If confirmed, Solicitor General Elena Kagan would have the opportunity to be a superb Supreme Court Justice.

Best Wishes to the Solicitor General Elena Kagan in all her endeavors.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

Written by Padmini Arhant · Filed Under Ethics, Featured, United States | Leave a Comment 

Justice Denied – Foul Play Victim – Personal Setback

June 20, 2010

By Padmini Arhant

I bear the ‘Almighty God,’ witness to the topic presentation.

Recently, there was a personal setback with a small claims complaint filed by a former tenant, who falsely stated not having received the rental security deposit on the rental property for the period May 2008 through July 2009.

The tenant and his spouse – Timothy Brook and Lucy Brook, had newly arrived from the United Kingdom with no credit history in the United States and leased the referenced property in the claim along with a commitment to purchase their own home at the end of the twelve-month period. Accordingly, it was unanimously agreed at that time to assess the individual status on both sides in a year.

During that period, all requests for any repairs were attended with new replacements under their supervision and utmost satisfaction, including the regular light bulbs changed six months after them settling in the house.

Further, a written consensus was reached to resolve any disputes by an arbitrator rather than lawsuits through attorneys or small claims court system and aim for amicable settlement avoiding litigation costs for both parties.

Unfortunately, this agreement was breached by the tenants who hired an attorney after their voluntary decision to vacate the property, despite my email request on June 3, 2009 about lease renewal for which there was no response.

The attorney sent an inflammatory letter stating that,

“Comply with my clients’ demands on any issues. If not, do so at your peril.”

All records are maintained up until now.

Subsequently, the tenants moved out of the property and the refund check for the rental security deposit was sent promptly. The tenants cashed it in the same month, i.e. July 2009, having acknowledged the adjustments and the payment. Receipts for regular cleaning costs and minor repairs were shared with the tenant. It was all accepted with no objection and the matter was settled in July 2009.

Approximately five months after vacating the house and cashing the refund deposit evidenced by a bank transaction showing check details and the encashment date by the party, a small claims judgment was mailed to my address indicating the amount to be paid against the complaint.

Following that, I filed a motion to vacate the judgment. It went drastically wrong due to the manner the hearing was held by the Commissioner Steven Yep, Santa Clara County, Small Claims Division, and the presiding authority on this case.

The Plaintiff arrived without the witness quoted as a “close friend,” – Simon Eldridge, to confirm the alleged ‘Proof of Service.’

When I raised the question about the witness’ absence with the Plaintiff before the hearing, he paid no attention and walked away.

Instead, the plaintiff delivered a letter that was not shared with me during the documents exchange prior to the hearing and the details were not disclosed.

The Commissioner mentioned that the letter was a note from the witness stating – “the witness could not be at the hearing because of an office meeting.”

Further, the Commissioner said that “he was satisfied with the witness statement by proxy,” alleging the service date and time.

NB: The witness statement was not an affidavit but an ordinary note, a copy that was later obtained.

Most importantly, the witness was not a third party i.e. a Professional Process Server or Sheriff hired to serve the summons with a genuine concern for legal consequences.

Even though, it’s permissible by law to have a person 18 years or above for this purpose, the conflict of interest and the convenience having a close friend to cooperate is easily available in this respect.

The Commissioner then looked at me and asked the specific questions, which he did not consider it necessary to pose to the Plaintiff at the beginning of the hearing:

Do you realize that you are under oath?

To that, I said – Yes, your honor.

Did you take the oath?

I replied. Yes, your honor.

Then he turned to the clerk and verified with her:

Did she really take the oath?

For, he did not believe me in spite of my repeated assurance.

The clerk responded – Yes, she did.

Essentially, the substantive evidence that I provided was set aside against the witness and the plaintiff’s verbal statements that was not only contradictory to their earlier versions, but also failed to support their fraudulent claim.

The inconsistency in the Plaintiff and his witness positions throughout the process were ignored by the judicial authorities, even though it inconclusively proved the fact that the witness or the server never visited the property and the documents were not delivered or served by him for the hearing.

A perjury was committed by the witness and the plaintiff in the wrongful judgment enabling the Plaintiff to game the system with the inherent flaws in the judgment award.

This is just a preview of the hearings that took place with a conspicuous bias whereby the presiding Commissioner Steven Yep became the attorney to the other party, instead of being objective and diligently applying the law on equal and fair basis to both parties.

In the appeal, the Judge Gregory H. Ward at the Superior Court, Santa Clara County chose to disregard the law entirely, in lieu of the witness or the server admission during the appeal on 06/04/10 on the failure to “specify the contents thereof,” required per Code of Civil Procedure 415.20(a) and (b).

Likewise, The SC-104, “Proof of Service,” filed by the Plaintiff’s witness confirms that the copies of documents allegedly served on 09/29/09 were not mailed per Code of Civil Procedure 415.20(a) and (b), apart from other Civil Code requirements being not met by the server representing the Plaintiff.

Besides, the small claims complaint filed under false premise by the Plaintiff whereby,

The Plaintiff denied receiving the rental security deposit, when the refund check was cashed by the Plaintiff on 07/27/09 – evidence was enclosed for court reference.

Similarly, the Plaintiff’s erroneous and unsubstantiated claim comprise moving expenses without any receipts for the itemized charges that does not even add up to the total amount presented in the declaration under penalty of perjury.

“Per Plaintiff’s declaration signed under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Moving expenses – $754.78

Van rental – $73.92

Petrol – $25.00 ( It’s noteworthy that the plaintiff charging the weekly gas amount for shifting within the neighborhood, i.e. less than half a mile.)

Moving boxes – $34.86

Cleaning – $276.00 – (The property owner is being charged for cleaning up the tenants’ mess during their rental period).”

The itemized expense adds up to $409.78 with no receipts and the remaining $345.00 has no explanation or receipts for it.

Again, the amount fraudulently claimed for vacating the property on their volition, regardless of the email request about lease renewal (supported by evidence).

None of these crucial facts and evidences was taken into consideration, thereby awarding the Plaintiff for the felony.

The Judges involved in the case are judged and evaluated by the public for dereliction of duty reflected in their shortsighted decisions affecting and ruining thousands of lives.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

—————————————————————————————–

Source: http://www.courthouseforum.com/forums/evaluationtrial.php

Commissioner Steven Yep

All comments are the opinions of the survey respondents.

“Commissioner Yep is a terrible judge.

I have witnessed his conduct in the courtroom on more than one instance. He treats pro se defendants in probably the worst manner for infractions and misdemeanors that are brought before him.

I had a case, which I fought as a pro se, and was tossed out on my behind. It was so bad that I asked a pro temp to hear my case, and won my case.

The fact that I won really doesn’t matter… it’s that the pro temp LISTENED to the argument and heard both sides fully before rendering a decision.

I never had that chance in Commissioner Yep’s court.

I urge anyone who has this guy for a judge to get a preemptory challenge and write to both Judge Danner and the state Commission for judicial independence to get rid of this guy. 2007-02-07

Negative/Critical – View Survey – Grade – D(0.81)

Part I. ABA Guidelines ABA Guideline 5-1. Legal Ability.

a. Having legal reasoning ability. D (1.00)

b. Having knowledge of substantive law. F (0.00)

c. Having knowledge of rules of procedure and evidence. D (1.00)

d. Keeping current on developments in law, procedure, and evidence. C (2.00)

ABA Guideline 5-2. Integrity and Impartiality.

a. Avoiding impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. F (0.00)

b. Treating all people with dignity and respect. C (2.00)

c. Having an absence of favor or disfavor toward anyone, including but not limited to favor or disfavor based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status. F (0.00)

d. Acting fairly by giving people individual consideration. F (0.00)

e. Considering both sides of an argument before rendering a decision. F (0.00)

f. Basing decisions on the law and the facts without regard to the identity of the parties or counsel, and with an open mind in considering all issues. F (0.00)

g. Having ability to make difficult or unpopular decisions. F (0.00) ”
————————————————————————————————–

2. Survey Results for Judge Gregory H. Ward 1

All grades/scores and comments are the opinions of the survey respondent.

Click Here to see Individual Surveys

Overall: 2
D(0.78) out of 11 surveys
Comments (9)

Respondents Approve Monthly View Daily View

Do you approve of this judge’s overall performance? Yes: 0 No: 11

Part I. ABA Guidelines

ABA Guideline 5-1. Legal Ability.

a. Having legal reasoning ability. C- (1.57)

b. Having knowledge of substantive law. C- (1.57)

c. Having knowledge of rules of procedure and evidence. C (2.17)

d. Keeping current on developments in law, procedure, and evidence. D+ (1.25)

ABA Guideline 5-2. Integrity and Impartiality.

a. Avoiding impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. F (0.00)

b. Treating all people with dignity and respect – D (0.75)

c. Having an absence of favor or disfavor toward anyone, including but not limited to favor or disfavor based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status – F (0.12)

d. Acting fairly by giving people individual consideration – F (0.25)

e. Considering both sides of an argument before rendering a decision – D (0.57)

f. Basing decisions on the law and the facts without regard to the identity of the parties or counsel, and with an open mind in considering all issues – F (0.12)

g. Having ability to make difficult or unpopular decisions – F (0.00)

Judge Gregory H. Ward

All comments are the opinions of the survey respondents.

1. Biased Judge Remarkably goes against jury verdicts Case Study–Pfizer (IP)Trade Secrets–astonishing reversal of jury’s unanimous verdict 2010-01-27
View Survey – Negative/Critical – D(0.71)

2. Discounts Jury in jury trials–a complete disrespect for the JURY SYSTEM Very, very favorable to Big Business Should not be on the bench Has other agendas 2010-01-27
View Survey Negative/Critical – D(1.00)

3. Very emotional, unpredictable. Favors defendants to a fault. Believes that he is the law. You don’t need a jury with this judge–he ignores jury decisions. 2009-12-29
View Survey – Negative/Critical – D-(0.52)

4. Most biased judge in California. Strongly favors business. Very emotional. 2009-12-29
View Survey – Negative/Critical – D(0.74)

5. Should be removed from the bench. 2009-12-29
View Survey – Not Classified – (F-1.00)\

6. Very Biased. No respect for decisions by jury. 2009-12-29
View Survey – Negative/Critical – (F-1.00)

7. He totally disregarded the jury verdict. 2009-12-29
View Survey – Not Classified – D(0.78)

8. This judge is totally out of control, egocentric, & emotional.

He has complete disrespect for jury decisions.

He is clearly very emotional and biased toward big business.

Look at his ratings.

In fact, look at his record when serving in DOJ–he effectively was fired because of emotional instability.

Most recent cases: Apple (2008). Pfizer(2008) — he overturned a unanimous jury verdict, and ignored Pfizer’s management prevarications which came to light in the $2.38 billion Pharmacia settlement. 2009-12-29
View Survey Negative/Critical – D(1.00)

9. Example of his reasoning; petitioner had good reason to file as there were changes in circumstances, dad exercised only 12% timeshare, not the 20% of record, dad’s income rose from 285k to 800k.

BUT child support met the kid’s needs and retroactive support would only be a windfall to mother.

The law mandates an increase in support when the timeshare lowers as support must be commensurate with timeshare, so even if dad had no increase in income, lowering dad’s timeshare mandated an increase in support of some amount.

Christ, I didn’t even go to law school and I can reason that one out. More reasoning; ignored argument for hearing on equitable grounds, said FC 2122 does not apply to setting aside a dismissal but CCP 473 does, ignoring the fact that blackmail and duress (not good cause under CCP 473) had been used both to get a settlement and to force a dismissal, ie duress used to deny access to the courts by one party.

Sanctions: awarded 285k in sanctions against unemployed mother to be paid to multimillionaire dad who had used the blackmail and threats to keep mother out of court. 2009-11-27
View Survey – Negative/Critical – D(1.00).”

Written by Padmini Arhant · Filed Under Ethics, Featured | Leave a Comment 

Industrial and Environmental Disaster Victims Compensation

June 17, 2010

By Padmini Arhant

There appears to be a light at the end of the tunnel for the victims of the worst industrial and environmental disaster.

The energy company, BP’s agreement to compensate monetarily with $20 billion over three-year period for the Gulf Coast oil spill impact is a fair beginning.

It’s been set up without a cap and to be monitored by an independent administrator previously appointed to oversee the 9/11 families’ relief fund.

In fact, the urgency lies with the company’s daunting task to stop the gushing oil completely, otherwise ‘plug the hole.’

President Barack Obama’s initiative deserves credit for it enabled BP’s decision.

Now, it’s imperative not to proceed in the direction that has inherent risks with unsustainable loss of life and income to the communities along the coastal regions.

Abandoning offshore drilling in deep and shallow water is the ideal solution to prevent economic and environmental costs.

Some permanent damages to wild and marine life are incomparable for they exceed any likely benefits from oil exploration to attain energy independence, especially when there are absolute clean energy options available through solar, wind, hydropower, bio-fuel etc.

Similarly, the Bhopal victims’ plea for justice in the historic industrial negligence causing several thousand casualties and wreaking havoc in the surroundings with terminal illnesses, birth defects… making life impossible for the impoverished survivors exposed the long buried truth suspected in the failure to implicate the parent company, Union Carbide USA and its then CEO Mr. Warren Anderson.

As stated in the earlier blog post titled “Worst Industrial Catastrophe – Union Carbide / Dow Chemicals and Bhopal Victims of India,” published on June 12, 2010,

The deal between the parent company Union Carbide USA and the Indian government at the federal and state representation confirms the immunity granted to Union Carbide USA including the assurance to the then CEO’s safe departure prior to his arrival in India.

According to the latest reports, the US Envoy to India in 1984, Mr. Gordon Streeb, has come forward and disclosed the details in the agreement between the parent company Union Carbide USA and the Indian government at that time.

The international and Indian journalists, the primary witnesses at the site, corroborated the events leading to the unresolved dispute.

Further, the ex-CEO Mr. Warren Anderson concurred with the key elements in the Bhopal accident settlement during his recent interview.

Per the emerging reports, “the previous Indian government in a sweeping effort to westernize the status quo and transform the ‘socialist,’ economy to ‘capitalism,’ adopted appeasement strategies to lure foreign investments.

In that context, the Bhopal tragedy was an impediment to the measures due to the multinational corporation’s conspicuous mismanagement of the chemical plant.

Subsequently, the transaction materialized at the highest political and corporate level in the backdrop of the greatest industrial calamity.

Again, obstruction of justice through politics and prejudice is not territorial.

It’s an epidemic that has evolved into an unpleasant fact for the innocent deprived of free and fair judicial process.

Nevertheless, the incumbent Indian administration led by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh seemingly responding with the following appropriate actions:

A new institution called the “EGom,” – Empowered Group of Ministers have been designated with the responsibilities to address the Bhopal victims’ humanitarian needs by imposing a deadline i.e. June 24, 2010 to expedite the much awaited disaster aid.

Source: Indian News Media and the Indian Government Official Data.

Bhopal EGom”s Tall Order:

Work out enhanced compensation package for the survivors of the Bhopal gas explosion.

Provide relief and rehabilitation to the victims.

Determine ways to decontaminate the site not precluding soil and ground water testing to ensure safe living conditions.

Rigorous regulations on industrial mishaps with liabilities directly transferred to the corporations in violation.

Last but not the least, the Government contemplating Mr. Warren Anderson’s extradition request.

The diligence demonstrated by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and the Congress Party Leader Sonia Gandhi is praiseworthy.

However, the challenge remains in implementing the executive order with none or minimal bureaucracy that often delays the anticipated results.

The victims have endured enormous suffering and any procrastination would exacerbate their plight.

Notwithstanding the government obligations since they are the fund recipient in the Bhopal dispute.

Regarding Mr. Warren Anderson’s extradition – considering the individual’s frail health and age (90+ years), a televised formal apology to the Bhopal victims would be morally and ethically sound, rather than subjecting the elderly defendant to legal proceedings.

Although, the affected citizens’ pain and agony over these years has been excruciating, their forgiveness of those incarcerated in the horrific incident could heal the ordeal experienced by them.

For human spirit is enriched through compassion.

It’s a long journey for the disaster victims in the east and the west, but there is hope with the leaderships on both sides striving hard to end the misery.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

Written by Padmini Arhant · Filed Under Environment, Ethics, Featured | Leave a Comment 

Health Care Scandal – Apocalyptic Forecast

April 28, 2010

By Padmini Arhant

Despite the candid presentation with facts and figures on the scandalous ‘Health Care reform,’ the issue is evaded with nonsensical representations by sources benefiting from the monumental fraud.

Perhaps, the notion among the authorities is the public have to be content with the policy that is unequivocally detrimental to the citizens interest, regardless of this being a life and death matter and,

Ignore the apocalyptic event arising from it – particularly with respect to,

The cost/value determination showing a significant rise in national deficit at $35 trillion for the period 2010-2019, without the much-acclaimed insurance coverage for the 34 million uninsured.

Details made available in the articles:

Health Care Reform – A National Scam – April 25, 2010.

Health Care Reform – Facts and Flaws – April 23, 2010,

Health Care Legislation Amendment – April 22, 2010 and

Thorough analysis of the components reveals the legislation is industry favored with the vulnerable population subject to predatory practices, otherwise the status quo extension granting exclusive rights to the private sector with an utter disregard for the public health and national debt.

Rejecting the legislation amendment call is a dangerous precedence in a democracy not to mention the constitutional breach, the latest trend in the abuse of power.

There is more chilling evidence that beckons unanimous action on the national debt.

According to the Washington Post article – April 27, 2010

Panel to meet on skyrocketing U.S. debt

If no action is taken, forecasters see fiscal crisis by decade’s end

By Lori Montgomery, Washington Post – Thank you.

Washington – A presidential commission will convene today at the White House to address what leaders of both parties agree is one of the greatest threats to the country’s economic future:

“The rising national debt.”

Official forecasts suggest that without sharp changes in federal spending or tax collections, the United States could enter into a downward spiral of indebtedness that by the end of this decade would erode the country’s ability to educate its children, care for the elderly or mount a robust national defense.

Republicans and Democrats alike say the fiscal challenges have been too long ignored.

But with the two parties feuding over health care reform, Wall Street regulation and a host of other issues – and the economy still uncertain after a deep recession – there is considerable doubt that they could join hands to fend off a still distant potential crisis.

“It would take a miracle,” agreed Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin, D-Ill.

But “I believe in miracles.”

Durbin is the highest-ranking lawmaker among a dozen members of Congress on the commission, which also includes six presidential appointees.

The panel has until Dec. 1 to devise a plan to stop a federal borrowing binge that exploded during the recent recession and will only get worse as retiring baby boomers tap into federal retirement programs.

The gulf between the two parties is vast.

No budget commission has managed to spur action since 1983.

And a host of interest groups is lining up to rally the public against any solution that involves higher taxes or cuts to favored programs – particularly Social Security, which members of both parties consider the ripest target for compromise.

Even supporters of the commission are not optimistic:

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md, a vocal advocate, said the most he expects is,

“A good message with regard to the magnitude of the problem.”

But panel members from both parties say the experience of Greece, deeply in debt and begging other countries to help pay its bills, provides a vivid incentive to set aside ideological differences and work together.

“After stopping a terrorist with a weapon of mass destruction, this is the single most important issue we confront as a nation,”

Said Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., a commission member.

That crisis seemed distant until the recession hit, causing tax collections to tank and federal spending to increase as policymakers scrambled to avert an economic collapse.

The public debt is forecast to rise from less than 40 percent of the economy to more than 60 percent by the end of this year, its highest level since 1952.

The debt will hit 90 percent by 2020 under President Obama’s budget, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, a level last seen in the aftermath of World War II.”
————————————————————————————————–

Grim Reality – By Padmini Arhant

It’s clear from the above WP article and the health care legislation costing $35 trillion for the decade 2010 -2019 under the private for profit health care with 34 million uninsured until 2020,

The United States fiscal crisis is a looming national and global financial disaster.

Failure to amend the health care legislation is a kamikaze action on behalf of those in power unwilling to acknowledge the inevitable catastrophe under the guise of health care reform.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce not surprisingly, considers the public option or the Universal Medicare disruptive in their televised forum on April 26, 2010.

Not long ago, their key representative proudly claimed to have influenced the Supreme Court decision in the ‘Citizens united vs. Federal Election Commission.’

With the cosmetic measures in the health care bill, the legislation is essentially a jackpot for the insurance industry due to the mandatory insurance purchase through federal aid and the regulation lapse extending beyond the decade.

Legislations espousing special interests’ agenda is not a revelation.

However, the ‘Hope and Change,’ campaign pledge was meant to transcend the culture in Washington through transparency and accountability, a misnomer at the political helm.

Continuation on this path projects the dismal economic conditions for the United States, similar to Greece forced to rely on external rescue for solvency.

There is an exception to the United States situation.

Unlike Greece, the United States shares the ‘Too big to fail,’ status and the major creditor China would be susceptible to the precipitous fall,

Notwithstanding the clichéd ramifications on the world financial markets.

CBO’s proclamation on the U.S. debt expected to hit 90 percent by 2020 under the current administration’s budget is not merely a national affair but an international calamity, seeking universal attention.

United States borrowings absorbing 90 percent of the national GDP with revenue on the decline and increase in federal spending is unsustainable.

The economic collapse that was averted in 2009 is effectively created through irresponsible legislations viz. the health care bill designed to escalate the national deficit.

National health care legislation was absolutely necessary to save lives starting immediately.

But not to promote the prospects for the flourishing insurance and the health care industry.

Medicare for all citizens with 24/7 access alongside the private insurance for the high end market as elaborated in the article Universal Medicare – Single Payer System, April 8, 2010, on this website is the ideal and the only viable solution to national health care apart from containing the national debt.

Since Medicare is already established, the cost control and the Medicare expansion to all citizens is no longer a request but a requirement.

Why would the authority in Power lead the nation to the ‘Death Valley’ and refuse to provide valid explanation on this bizarre decision that has been made into law?

Citizens’ disapproval and peaceful (non-violent) protest against the industry favored, private for profit health care is the only hope for democracy to survive.

As for those defending the health care bill and defying the burgeoning national debt from it are in denial.

Remaining complacent to the private for profit health care law at $35 trillion dollars in the absence of universal coverage is a huge burden on the baby boomers and the future taxpayers.

Perhaps, the self-realization that their tax dollars are transformed into the industry’s extravagant bonuses in the ‘business as usual’ environment could change their position and prompt them to be part of the solution rather than the problem.

National debt and valuable health care are inter-related and the health care law exacerbates both issues through preference for profit and politics over people.

The citizens action demanding ‘Universal Medicare’ with 24/7 access by health care bill amendment is imperative to protect life and the democratic system.

It’s incumbent upon the administration to do the needful for the nation or step down graciously.

Democracy is alive when the government of the people stands by the people and delivers for the people.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

Written by Padmini Arhant · Filed Under Ethics | 1 Comment 

Facts vs. Fiction

April 20, 2010

By Padmini Arhant

My work in the past two years is mischaracterized and spun around to suit the individuals’ theory.

Yet, the bizarre and false allegations have not been substantiated with evidence in public.

Negative emotions hurt the one’s harboring more than the one’s it’s aimed at.

It reflects fear and insecurity.

Contrary to the assertions, I never received any payment or benefits from anyone who directly and indirectly availed the sincere and honest service thus far.

Pay cut is possible when one is being paid for the job and not in the absence of it.

The criticism is that ‘money’ and not charity or volunteer operation considered in the matter.

I have worked in the past two years having placed my life and family on hold for which I was appreciated by many and ridiculed by those with reservations.

I convey my gratitude for the support and respect the positions of those who disagree.

I’m vilified for presenting the reality that I need to generate an income for survival.

Never mind the fact that I have the same commitments as any other ‘average human beings’ dealing with their family’s financial expenses and future.

Neither the banks have exempted me from the mortgage nor have the utility and essential service providers agreed to free supply.

Mandatory service without pay does not qualify as ‘volunteering.’

The irony is those who expect me and my family to survive on merely air and water, although that is not freely available either, refuse to set an example of their own demand.

While being secure with extraordinary remunerations and reaping financial rewards at every opportunity, depriving others of basic needs to exist is oxymoron if not narcissism.

It is imperative for those seeking such requirements to lead by demonstration prior to imposing their ‘double standard’ values on others.

Unfortunately, the victims are marginalized in the distinction between common rights and privilege.

Volunteering for humanitarian service is noble.

Nevertheless, yielding to undemocratic principles and discriminatory practices is cowardice.

Another matter that is attention worthy and deeply troubling in a democracy,

The constant harassment, death threats, invasion of privacy and propaganda to subvert facts represents an attack against the individual’s civil and constitutional rights, besides confirming the inherent paranoia or xenophobia.

In conclusion, humanity thrives with empathy, respect, love and peace for one another.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

Written by Padmini Arhant · Filed Under Ethics | Leave a Comment 

Judgment Deliverance

April 12, 2010

By Padmini Arhant

Judgment delivered against the 44th President of the United States:

President Barack Obama you have failed the people of the United States.

You have violated the people’s trust in the national health care legislation.

You have committed an act of treason against the nation you were elected to serve.

The office of Presidency has been ill-served under your guidance.

I seek your resignation and offer you the opportunity to step down from the office of Presidency gracefully effective immediately.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

Written by Padmini Arhant · Filed Under Ethics | Leave a Comment 

Credibility Issue – President Barack Obama

April 12, 2010

By Padmini Arhant

A forewarning was issued since April 2008, regarding the candidacy of Senator Barack Obama that was disregarded.

Monday, May 5, 2008 @ http://padminiarhant.blogspot.com/2008/05/electability-factor.html

Electability Factor – By Padmini Arhant

Senator Barack Obama during his speech delivered on March 18th, 2008 in Philadelphia, following the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s rhetoric, ascribed to the relationship with his former pastor as;

Source – “WORLD NET DAILY” (Thank you).

“And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children.

Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect.

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother.

For some, nagging questions remain.

Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course.

Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes.”

Source – NPR.org, April 29, 2008 – (Thankyou).

• The following is a transcript of Illinois Sen. Barack Obama’s remarks about his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. This speech was delivered in Hickory, N.C., on Tuesday, April 29, one day after Wright appeared at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., to address accusations that he had made inflammatory remarks about the United States. The transcript was provided by the Federal News Service.

“Yesterday, we saw a very different vision of America. I am outraged by the comments that were made and saddened over the spectacle that we saw yesterday.

You know, I have been a member of Trinity United Church of Christ since 1992.

I have known Rev. Wright for almost 20 years.

The person I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago.

His comments were not only divisive and destructive, but I believe that they end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate, and I believe that they do not portray accurately the perspective of the black church.

Now, I’ve already denounced the comments that had appeared in these previous sermons.

As I said, I had not heard them before.”

The contradictory statements from the Illinois Senator Barack Obama during his speeches on two different occasions concerning Rev. Wright unarguably provides legitimate reasons for critics and discerning electorate to question the judgment, loyalty and Patriotism factor from the candidate seeking the office of the “Presidency of United States.”

The inconsistency in the statements by the Senator foments the argument for the electorate that despite knowing his former pastor intimately for twenty years as described by the Senator himself,

He has been unable to change or influence the “mindset” of the controversial Rev. Wright about the nation that has embraced human race across the globe and provided unlimited opportunities for all like a mother towards her children with unconditional love.

The question arises about Senator Barack Obama’s leadership ability to transform “Washington Politics”, the other premise of his campaign, considering the above fact with “Rev. Wright.”

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

Written by Padmini Arhant · Filed Under Ethics | Leave a Comment 

The Powerful Truth

April 12, 2010

By Padmini Arhant

Ever since the health care legislation bill was analyzed and presented on this website, democracy has been suppressed by powerful forces represented in the highest office through false propaganda by media and press corps including the nation’s so-called liberal magazine against Truth.

The obituary for Truth published in the newspapers through innuendo against the evidence of its existence is oxymoron, if not unscrupulous.

Again, for the record – Truth is well, alive, and more determined than ever to prove the purity and sanctity of its element.

When one has nothing to hide and is honest, open and completely transparent – the vehemently opposed ethical practice in contemporary politics, the deadly carcinogens polluting the minds beyond salvation consider Truth as a major threat to their diabolical means.

Often those who judge others on the premise of disparaging information provided by those in  Power against truthful dissent ought to turn inward and question their own morality prior to voluntarily reaching the lowest ebb in journalism and/or theatrical performance via skits and movies on the specific overseas vile television network.

Is news being reported to inform public or entertain them by transforming their magazine or program to a cheap tabloid and a desperate source of concocted lies to appease those in power with nuclear arsenal?

If it’s the latter, then it’s doomed to fail on  complicity with authority’s flagrance allegation of debauchery against Truth.

Any honorable individual would confront the facts and take responsibility for their wrong doings rather than indulging in character assassination of Truth.

As for the alleged cover up in the health care scandal – any incident political and otherwise propagated in the selective nation’s so-called liberal magazine and the public funded network in the name of  Free Speech,

The Bible – King James Version: John 1:47

“Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!”

I present the unequivocal facts about my involvement going back to the political campaign of the candidate –

Senator Barack Hussein Obama and his spouse Michelle Obama.

a. 1608, William Shakespeare, King Lear, II, II, 102.
“I know, sir, I am no flatterer: he that beguiled you, in a plain accent.”

Beginning with my personal life, I was nurtured with the value to earn respect and not demand it.

My Principle – Rise to glory through your noble deeds that you can share with all.

Regarding the unsubstantiated allegation of debauchery –  I wish to state that chastity and morality is revealed in the human conduct.

When the guilty accuses the truth finder of debauchery for exposing the factual Presidential scandal it’s a confirmation of the accuser’s personal experience.

My personal life is no longer personal and subject to the triviality of –

‘She is anyone’s guess and a fair game indeed.’

Accordingly, the self promoted moral guardians of the society consider their prerogative to target the woman who is a mother, sister, daughter…in family relations.

More importantly, a human being committed to the sanctity of spiritual call by accepting God’s will. 

I bear none other than the Almighty God witness to this truth.

Never mind about the fact that she too has a family.

The passion, dedication, sacrifices made thus far for humanitarian issues is presumed a sheer exhibition on the world stage, despite enormous benefits to those responsible for the caricature.

Further on chastity and morality issue:

The irony is the purveyors of physical pleasure (the flesh trade) are denigrated by those contributing to the establishment.

What does one call trading human trust for profit and self-interest in today’s politics?

If morality and ethical norm is patented by those holding the power mantel, then it’s incumbent upon them to demonstrate through action.

After all, isn’t action believable than rhetoric?

Reverting to the political involvement that began in January through April 2008 – then September 2008- until March 2010.

I was approached by the candidate Senator Barack Obama via email, subsequent to my first time political donation in life – an amount $25.00.

From then onwards, I had repeat requests from then Senator Barack Obama, his spouse Michelle Obama and other prominent Democratic Party members to volunteer for the campaign and make regular donations.

The endless course literally led me to financial bankruptcy serving the beneficiaries not only in political gains but also material for mockery of my difficult monetary status.

The email requests were periodically published on the website including my responses.

I adopted the policy of transparency and accountability from day one of the Presidential election campaign and advocated vigorously in that regard.

On all issues pertaining to political, economic, social and environment matter, I emphasized on ethical efficacy conspicuously abandoned in the political capital, Washington D.C. where decisions concerning millions of lives across the globe are made.

I routinely submitted the communication with all political entities via World Wide Web for public view and understanding of the issues that are imperative to global community.

All my ideas, suggestions and strategies were presented on the web site and were addressed to the authorities for implementation.

However, they were selectively neglected on both domestic and international issues. The ones that were adopted like the economic stimulus and the job bill assumed the administration’s titles.

I deplored the pork barrel or earmark spending in the stimulus bill through the blogpost upon identifying the items in the news report.

Any communication from the President of the United States and the Democratic Party were strictly related to campaign donations, rallying for the candidates and complaints about the opposition attacks.

The communication was published on the website and available for public review.

I unsubscribed to the email from the President Barack Obama, the administration and the campaign in early October 2009.

The reason being, it had only instructions to energize the public on health care, energy legislation asking constituents to contact their local representatives without providing any details on the bill.

I learned about the components from the news report published in my local newspaper, on-line news publications and television broadcast.

My communication was always relayed through the website, for which there was no response.

I was not privy to the White House and/or the Congress members’ dealings and discussions with any interest groups in Wall Street, Washington and elsewhere.

My information source on legislative matter and the political affairs was solely through local and international news reports available in print and public news media.

As stated earlier, I was never hired by the White House, the Democratic Party, corporations, any groups or agencies intimately or remotely affiliated or associated to political members or authorities in Washington, Wall Street or anywhere in the World.

I was constantly approached for mandatory service without pay as the political aide by the Obama campaign and then the administration in getting the Democrats elected to Congress and never briefed or detailed on the nature of any developments on the legislations or administration’s policies.

I worked since January 2008 and until now without any payments or benefits.

Now, there are false rumors about me claiming unemployment benefit, which is absurd and completely distorted. I’ve never been on any unemployment benefit.

At the same time floating the fictitious narrative on me as super wealthy to drown any other candidate.

A  Super wealthy  collecting unemployment benefit alongside!  Obviously, they were attributing own practice to feel better.

Then the comedy satire insinuating bipolar disease, acute mental illness and the continuous slander thereafter to show their loyalty to political class is nothing more than own mirror reflection.

Perhaps, the notion is that Brown Foreigners are not supposed to eat. They don’t need a home and maintain a modest existence by being able to pay their utility bills, transportation needs, and provide for their family.

My explicit request to President Barack Obama on my precise role in the administration or the Democratic Party following the influx of donation reminders had no response to that until date.

I regularly clarified my position with President Barack Obama in 2009 and 2010 through the website, that I was unwilling to be a cheerleader of policies against public interest and refused to be an attack dog for the administration at any time.

I had no previous knowledge about the distant period setting and the health bill negotiations between the White House and their special interest allies.

It was also published on the website and obtainable if required.

I was treated as the political campaigner for the Democratic Party and not an administration or Congress member. They sought help with the political election in 2010 to boost public support for President Barack Obama.

There is political smear from the critics, more interested in the investigation of my openness instead of channeling their resources towards the Bilderberg secret meeting attended by Presidential candidates Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John McCain in 2008 that I unveiled on my website for public awareness and fearlessly dissented the authorities’ decisions on many issues including the troops increase in Afghanistan.

If I were to allegedly cover up on the health care or any other issue manufactured by the White House,

Why would I become the victim of violent threats by the authority in power?

Why would they insist that I should quit being inquisitive and even nick named me Snoop Dog in their parlance?

I questioned the then candidate Barack Obama on flip-flopping of issues during the political campaign and after the administration assuming power in the White House.

For switching from Single Payer System to private health care for profit.

Defaulting on campaign finance at the crucial moment of the Presidential election.

Casting his vote on FISA in 2008. Patriot act and the discriminatory policy in 2009.

Torture, detention, overseas rendition, troop withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, altering the 9/11 terrorists federal trial to a military jurisdiction, the continuation of the predecessor, the former President George W. Bush’s policy.

Collecting public donations while claiming that there were no special interests’ contributions to his campaign, when the funds were flowing from Goldman Sachs, AIG, health industry and others – the figures that I published on the website much to the administration’s anger.

The administration and the State Department blocked the EU unilateral declaration under Sweden’s Presidency that embraced my policy on Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It was scheduled in November 2009. The people in both states were prepared and unbeknown the news vanished.

Similarly, in the Honduran crisis, the military coup leader agreed to step down and allow the former President Manuel Zelaya to remain in office until the national election in November 2009. The prospect was extinguished with the administration not inclined to intervene.

The materials with visual content were published on the website to this effect.

Haiti – the recommendation on the exiled leader Jean Bertrand Aristide’s return to his country was ignored.

Challenged on the environmental policies that was contradictory to the pledge made on the campaign trail. I called the COP15 summit a failure in the absence of real achievement.

In the 2008 Pennsylvania Primary election – I expressed my objection earlier on about Senator Obama’s approval to spend an estimated 11 million dollars on the television advertisement against his formidable opponent Senator Hillary Clinton while they declined to pay the foot soldiers $10 an hour for going door-to-door campaign. Most of them were African Americans eager to serve in the contentious primary that he lost to his democratic contender.

Lately, I responded to the Washington Post’s article by Richard Cohen on,

“Obama Policy unappreciated by the right and the left,” where I indicated that showering praise on the inadequate or failed policy would qualify as cronyism and exacerbate the corrupt political system.

I was issued a warning and a remark ‘She does not follow rules and creates her own that does not bode well with the authority.’  i.e. the international incognito clique running the gamut via proxies and puppet governments worldwide.

Because of my strong position on ethics and morality, I was abruptly eliminated from the campaign in March 2008 after ensuring the Democratic Party nomination in the primary election victories.

Perhaps, the critics’ selective memory may not serve them well.

I launched a campaign through my earlier website and endorsed the former Vice President Al Gore for President in May 2008. Furthermore, in an unprecedented gesture, I selected the Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold as the Vice Presidential candidate on the ticket.

It was in protest of the dramatic shift in Senator Obama’s policies visible after clinching the Democratic Party nomination. My rejection of the international Presidential candidate Barack Obama infuriated many of his ardent supporters, who have now become my cynics.

I was called a traitor even though the Senator’s policies did not synchronize with the base.

After the arrival of the Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin, the Republican candidates gained momentum in the general election and so did the communication from the candidate Barack Obama, his spouse Michelle Obama (for whom I was non-existent during the Gala Democratic Party Nomination) and the Obama campaign.

The flurry of emails and snail mail asking me to get back in the campaign was superfluous.

They managed to persuade the Vice President Al Gore to email me and send a letter in that regard, which was also published on the website.

Somehow, the alleged ‘character’ of the woman they have misportrayed now didn’t seem to matter then, when they were aspiring their dreams.

Is it political expediency or cutthroat politics to borrow the term recently used by them?

My communication medium from the start has been the website to keep the public informed on the direct engagement with the power in Washington throughout the election and up until now.

Unlike the then candidate Barack Obama’s surrogate and spouse Michelle Obama, reportedly dictated the The View  show hosts on the permissible questions that debarred the co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck from straying in the contrived conversation.

The press media also confirmed on the restrictions imposed by the Obama campaign that prohibited many reporters and anchors from asking relevant questions with the candidate and the talking heads.

The prevalent censorship on free speech and the Nuclear Policy signed with Russia on April 9, 2010 – especially the overtone against the non signatories of NPT and reservations to use nuclear weapons is extremely disturbing and deserves scrutiny.

There were verbal attacks against me on the delay in rebuking the administration on the health care legislation scandal.

It’s easier to view the situation from one’s own perspective.

According to the news media, certain African American legislators were in the process of creating a preventive measure to grant immunity to Obama Presidency against impeachment following the inauguration.

Besides, it was necessary to be mindful of the repercussions such as the racial discord, two wars and the stock market in the aggressive removal of the President of the United States, found guilty of treason.

Therefore, the systematic procedure was to hold the elected official to the highest office accountable to the people, who have been betrayed in the national legislation that was bound to impact millions of lives.

Hence, soon after I exposed the unethical bargain with the health insurance industry,

I waited for the explanation from the President of the United States and the Congress leaders who shared the recognition as the victorious team of historic health care reform.

I ask the Press Corps and the media,

Why are you not pursuing those members in this matter, who are the signatories to this legislation?

Isn’t Congress leaders and other legislators’ responsibility to review the content prior to casting their vote?

I was never presented with the details of the bill, until the report from the New York Times, which none of the critics, who are attacking me bothered to analyze and bring it to public attention.

So much for their investigative journalism in the liberal frontier.

The President then conveniently sent me a letter in the usual manner – glorify privately and vilify publicly.

There was no request from the President to share with the public, I still went ahead and published the content to honor democracy.

Subsequently, there is no remorse or acknowledgment from the President of the United States, elected to the office to protect the republic interest.

Up until such time, I was a mere blogger to indefinitely campaign for elections.

If my word was the rule of law,

Why was my plea prior to the final health care vote, to modify the legislation to universal health care in the letter published on the website to President Barack Obama discarded?

After them being caught in the act of ethical compromise that I detected on my volition, I was bullied with death threats and implicated as an accomplice to turn the tide against me, the public watchdog all along.

Any domestic and global policy submission through the web site was initiated exclusively due to my commitment to the higher calling to serve humanity.

When there is divine intervention the integrity is measured by the solemn oath to serve the people not just in the United States but also across the globe and I’m expected to deliver the humanitarian goals determined by the Supreme cosmic force.

Unlike the tradition in contemporary politics, there is neither carte blanche nor financial gains in humanitarian service. The rules cannot be circumvented for the appointee’s agenda.

Whatever is being organized, it’s in coherence with universal convergence for a new beginning and a bright future.

I hope this would put the derogatory demagoguery to rest. If it doesn’t then it would be to the offenders’ downfall caused by their recalcitrant behavior.

People in glass houses should not cast stones at others.

The content is in reference to the events unfolding at present.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

Written by Padmini Arhant · Filed Under Ethics | 1 Comment 

Redemption and Reorganization for a New Beginning

April 9, 2010

By Padmini Arhant

On March 10, 2010, the former President Bill Clinton delivered an apology statement to the people of Haiti.

President Bill Clinton is appointed the UN Special Envoy to Haiti.

I commend the former President Bill Clinton in coming forward willfully and taking responsibility for the unpopular economic policy that caused immense grievance to the suffering population of Haiti.

The courageous action by the former head of state in acknowledgment of a negative political decision that led to an immeasurable despair for the trusting population in Haiti is praiseworthy.

President Clinton – Your action is honorable and demonstrated the remorse you had experienced from the judgment error in the ‘Free Trade’ agreement imposed upon the people of Haiti against their will.

Your recognition of the mistake is an affirmation that it’s never too late for anyone regardless of stature to admit his or her wrongdoings and contribute to a positive beginning identifiable as repentance, when defining the human character.

Finally, Please review the articles from different sources in this subject matter.

I concur with the article’s author ‘Dave Johnson’ –

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010031329/ – Thank you.

BILL CLINTON APOLOGIZES TO HAITI FOR EFFECTS OF FREE TRADE – March 29, 2010 – 11:15am ET

“This is just one more example of conservative failure.

Decisions based on ideology eventually hit a wall of reality.

Free trade wiped out American manufacturing.

Free market deregulation wiped out our economy.

Low taxes wiped out our infrastructure and competitiveness.

It’s time for progressives to find their voice and vision, stop reacting to conservative nay-saying, and get the country moving in a positive, progressive direction.”

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

————————————————————————————–
1. Source: http://wilderside.wordpress.com/2010/04/02/“– Thank you.

“We Made a Devil’s Bargain”: Fmr. President Clinton Apologizes for Trade Policies that Destroyed Haitian Rice Farming

“President Bill Clinton, now the UN Special Envoy to Haiti, publicly apologized last month for forcing Haiti to drop tariffs on imported, subsidized US rice during his time in office.

The policy wiped out Haitian rice farming and seriously damaged Haiti’s ability to be self-sufficient.

On Wednesday, journalist Kim Ives of Haiti Liberté questioned Clinton about his change of heart and his stance on the return of ousted Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide.”

——————————————————————————————

2. HTTP://WWW.THECOAST.CA/REALITYBITES/ARCHIVES/2010/03/30/ – THANK YOU.

Local activists surprised by Clinton apology to Haiti

Former US president admits trade policy “a mistake”

Posted by Bruce Wark on Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 5:09 PM

Nova Scotia activists are expressing surprise that former US president Bill Clinton has apologized for flooding Haiti with cheap American rice beginning in the mid 1990s.

During testimony before a US Senate committee three weeks ago, Clinton admitted that requiring Haiti to lower its tariffs on rice imports made it impossible for Haitian farmers to compete.

The trade policy forced farmers off the land and undercut Haiti’s ability to feed itself.

“It may have been good for some of my farmers in Arkansas, but it has not worked.

It was a mistake,” Clinton — now a UN special envoy to Haiti — told the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee on March 10. “I had to live everyday with the consequences of the loss of capacity to produce a rice crop in Haiti to feed those people because of what I did; nobody else.”

——————————————————————————————–

3. http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010031329/ – Thank you.

BILL CLINTON APOLOGIZES TO HAITI FOR EFFECTS OF FREE TRADE

By Dave Johnson – March 29, 2010 – 11:15am ET

The “free trade” craze wiping out Haiti’s farmers by flooding the country with cheap American rice.

The same this happened in northern Mexico with cheap (heavily subsidized) American corn.

On March 10 Bill Clinton apologized to Haiti. See With cheap food imports, Haiti can’t feed itself
[W]orld leaders focused on fixing Haiti are admitting for the first time that loosening trade barriers has only exacerbated hunger in Haiti and elsewhere.

They’re led by former U.S. President Bill Clinton – now U.N. special envoy to Haiti – who publicly apologized this month for championing policies that destroyed Haiti’s rice production.

Clinton in the mid-1990s encouraged the impoverished country to dramatically cut tariffs on imported U.S. rice.

“It may have been good for some of my farmers in Arkansas, but it has not worked.

It was a mistake,” Clinton told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on March 10.

“I had to live everyday with the consequences of the loss of capacity to produce a rice crop in Haiti to feed those people because of what I did; nobody else.”

Here is how it happened:

Three decades ago things were different. Haiti imported only 19 percent of its food and produced enough rice to export, thanks in part to protective tariffs of 50 percent set by the father-son dictators, Francois and Jean-Claude Duvalier.

When their reign ended in 1986, free-market advocates in Washington and Europe pushed Haiti to tear those market barriers down. President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, freshly reinstalled to power by Clinton in 1994, cut the rice tariff to 3 percent.

Impoverished farmers unable to compete with the billions of dollars in subsidies paid by the U.S. to its growers abandoned their farms. Others turned to more environmentally destructive crops, such as beans, that are harvested quickly but hasten soil erosion and deadly floods.

This is just one more example of conservative failure. Decisions based on ideology eventually hit a wall of reality.

Free trade wiped out American manufacturing. Free market deregulation wiped out our economy. Low taxes wiped out our infrastructure and competitiveness.

It’s time for progressives to find their voice and vision, stop reacting to conservative nay-saying, and get the country moving in a positive, progressive direction.”

Written by Padmini Arhant · Filed Under Ethics | 1 Comment 

« Previous Page — Next Page »

PadminiArhant.com