‘Talibanization’ of Afghanistan and Pakistan

May 13, 2009

By Padmini Arhant

The Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan and the northwestern regions of Pakistan, particularly the swat valley have proven deadlier for the ruling powers in Afghanistan, Pakistan and the United Sates due to the inevitable civilian casualties and displacement arising from the incessant shelling supposedly targeting the Taliban militants.

According to the Pakistani government, the military operation has been effective thus far in the attack against the militants, without any confirmation or denial on the humanitarian catastrophe.

Meanwhile, the Taliban’s pervasive retaliation to the military force is evident from the clashes in other districts, Buner and Dir with the Taliban expected to be within 60 miles of the Capital city, Islamabad. Incidentally, the Taliban’s eyes are set on Karachi, the commercial capital and an epicenter for various terror networks readily available to forge alliance with the ideological militant group.

The North -Western Frontier Province appears to be under siege. The heavy bombing has elevated the humanitarian crisis with the internal refugees toll reaching a phenomenal 1.3 million and still rising including the earlier 550,000 from the tribal warfare.

It’s intriguing for those familiar with the Taliban’s rise and fall and their sudden emergence with well-equipped weaponry to challenge the U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, and the Pakistani artillery predominantly supplied by the United States and China.   Most recently, the Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari reportedly blamed the United States i.e. CIA for creating the Taliban and implied that such creation consequently led to the present quagmire.

Origin of Taliban as ‘Mujahideens’ (The Arabic meaning “strugglers” )

As per Wikipedia – The Free Encyclopedia – Thanks

“The best-known mujahideen, various loosely-aligned Afghan opposition groups, initially fought against the incumbent pro-Soviet Afghan government during the late 1970s.

The mujahideen were significantly financed and armed (and are alleged to have been trained) by the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) during the Carter[5] and Reagan administrations and the governments of Saudi Arabia, the People’s Republic of China, several Western European countries, Iran, and Zia-ul-Haq’s military regime in Pakistan.

The Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) was the interagent used in the majority of these activities to disguise the sources of support for the resistance. Under Reagan, U.S. support for the mujahideen evolved into an official U.S. foreign policy, known as the Reagan Doctrine, which included U.S. support for anti-Soviet resistance movements in Afghanistan, Angola, Nicaragua, and elsewhere.”

Reality Check:

Although, the facts support the origin of Taliban (historically the orphans of the former Soviet oppression) as the ‘Mujahideens’ previously funded and trained by the nations vigorously involved in the lucrative arms race up until now,

The contemporary rise of Taliban and their empowerment attributed to the covert support by the Pakistani military and prominently the ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence) implicated in various terrorist activities around the world notably the September 11, 2001 and notwithstanding the Mumbai terror attack in November 2008.

The dynamic duo also presumably associated with other national and international conspiracies…

Fostering acrimony between India and Pakistan on the Kashmir dispute,

Coordinating with China and Israel in the arms supply to the island nation Sri Lanka in the ethnic cleansing of the Tamils,

Assassination attempts on the Afghan President Hamid Karzai,

The Indian embassy bombing in Kabul, and

Last but not the least, the possible link in the assassination of the former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto are few of the many contentious issues related to both institutions.

The above information might be controversial and inflammatory however, in Pakistan’s political reality democracy never allowed to blossom by the all-powerful Pakistani military force and the Intelligence Services apparently controlling the nuclear site. The successful coups in the past right down to the former Military Commander and President Pervez Musharraf are testimony to the fact that democracy proven oxy-moron by the ISI and the Pakistan armed forces.

Ironically, the waging of war against Taliban by the Zardari-Gilani administration succeeding a Military regime with a puppet figurehead after having given refuge and diplomatic immunity to the ousted Taliban forces post 9/11 is analogous to a raging forest fire set by the rangers entrusted with safeguarding the habitat’s interest.

It’s noteworthy that the former President Musharraf’s government was the only nation and the Islamic power to extend an open invitation to the Talibans following the U.S. troops led war against Afghanistan in 2001, while simultaneously posing as an important ally to the former U.S. administration under President George W. Bush.

Talibans are the by-product of the historic multinational blunder and botched up conventional stockpiles sale by the military industrial complex in Afghanistan under the guise of prototype for democracy in the lawless region of the world.

How does the scenario play out in Pakistan’s neck of the woods and for the rest of the world?

Taliban and Al-Qaida are formidable in their ideology to destabilize the democratic (more appropriately ‘dynasty’) rule in Pakistan perceived as the “American appointees” with the political cohesion of the Pakistani ISI and the Military hierarchy.

The Congress under Bush administration approved and granted $10 billion U.S. taxpayers aid to the Military power represented by the ex-President Musharraf for FATA (Federally Administered Tribal Areas) in an effort to fight the global war on terror. In return, the Pakistani Military misappropriated the funds(?) and diverted all attention towards the long time rival India in anticipation of a major confrontation on Kashmir by instigating the local militant groups alongside the Kashmiri border.

Evidently, failure on FATA combined with the conciliatory actions by the Pakistani ISI and the Military contributed to a myriad of terror networks within Pakistani soil.  Furthermore, the lack of oversight and accountability on the U.S. taxpayers’ aid to the Pakistan Military rather than the people enabled the precipitous decline of law and order.

As a result of the unconditional foreign aid to the institutions with flawed track record, today Waziristan is a safe haven for the Al-Qaida leader Osama Bin Laden and the North-Western Frontier Province now under Taliban control, thereby comprising a strategic victory for the terror and militant groups.

Interestingly, the Pakistan military has incorporated the incumbent U.S. President Obama’s “Change” philosophy in their traditional political agenda, i.e. toppling the government elected through a muddled electoral process in Pakistan. The difference being the conspicuous departure from the overt military coup launched against the prior democratic governments in the state.

Nothing more potent in fomenting anti-government and anti-American sentiments than a political turmoil from the homegrown insurgency forcing the ruling government to stage air and ground assaults yielding immense civilian casualties and ultimately the refugee status for a sizeable population in the homeland, again the humanitarian disaster unfolding with the blessings of the United States behind the scenes.

The anger and disappointment is visibly widespread among the victims and the families, they are demanding that the international community hold the United States and Zardari government accountable for the greatest human tragedy.

In this particular instance, the Pakistani ISI and the Military score the highest points for being the smooth operators.

Not surprisingly, the moderate, peaceful and pro-democracy population in Karachi and different parts of Pakistan is terrified of the Taliban rule and the Sharia law. The domestic and the international news agencies along with the human rights organizations have released several reports with graphic visuals on the civilian deaths and the exodus of at least 1,000,000 refugees and probably more are fleeing the main town, Mingora in Swat Valley and other war zones.

Accordingly, the Pakistani Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani seeking international aid to relieve the millions and the President Zardari’s visit to the U.S. requesting Congress for at least $83 billion U.S aid to rescue his nation from tyranny might be justified.

Howsoever, the United States taxpayers and other nations should not fall into the booby trap of funneling funds to the state, since the ordinary citizens in Pakistan and Afghanistan never ever receive a dime and invariably the funds are channeled to the nefarious sources lacking in ethics and defiant of national or international law. Please refer to the alternative recommendations detailed in the ‘remedy’ section of the article.

With respect to Afghanistan, the United States Special Forces’ recent aggression against the Talibans and other terror networks producing the huge civilian casualties is unacceptable. The medical reports from the international aid organizations suggest the use of White Phosphorous bombs in the raid, claiming to be legal in the international wars despite the use of such chemical arsenal considered a humanitarian crime on all accounts.

These are the reasons why war is a terrible choice as there is no winner except for the deaths and destruction of innocent civilians apart from the truth being the other casualty. An independent, international committee should conduct any investigation and not the parties accused of the crime to reflect seriousness and credibility in the matter.

International Crisis Remedy

Civil unrest and internal violence anywhere is a matter of concern. Nevertheless, the situation in Pakistan is precarious not just for the ‘nuclear’ factor and the potential ramifications in the Indian sub-continent, but also the imminent danger of radical elements in control of a highly volatile nation complex in demographic, political and socio-economic structure. In addition, Taliban and Al-Qaida together constitute a tremendous threat to the international security.

Effective immediately, any financial assistance from the United States and other nations must be conditional with a requirement for complete overhauling of the Pakistani ISI and the top Military officials to assure the international community the legitimacy of democratic power in the state.

Under no circumstances, cash payments made directly to the government agents in both countries i.e. Afghanistan and Pakistan in the light of embezzlement and bribery scandals involving the political figures. The economic aid to the people delivered by the credible non-profit humanitarian organizations is appropriate to realize the real gains and progress in the nations affected by corrupt bureaucracy.

Investments in cash and kind must be subject to accountability by an oversight committee of the respective nations.

Given the magnitude of the humanitarian plight in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the United States and NATO should engage more in the relief effort by providing logistic support to the people of these two nations desperately in need of efficient services from evacuation to settlement in peaceful manner.

Henceforth, the United States and allies must shift gear from the offensive military operation towards the relentless Peace Corps projects and rebuild civilizations in Afghanistan, Pakistan and war zones around the world. Such unprecedented action called for image reparation and trust revival lost in the imperialistic desire to invade and occupy nations vulnerable to new age weapons experiment.

The escalating violence and tension in these two countries has generated a severe loss of confidence in the local and foreign governments by the victims caught in the crossfire between the tribal warlords in cahoots with the fundamentalist forces and, the military might of the economic powers in the world.

Therefore, it’s essential for Afghanistan, Pakistan, United States and NATO to prioritize civilian protection and welfare before, during and after the combat period. It would greatly improve relationship with the local civilian population important to prevail in the indomitable task of defeating terror around the world.

In the twentieth and twenty first century, the rich and affluent nations imposing economic sanctions against the economically weak offenders has been the common and popular course of action, regardless of the real victims being the people and not the government authorities in power.

Now is the time to abandon the military action, economic sanctions and concepts that are obsolete, redundant and counterproductive.  Instead, useful and meaningful methods guided by moral principles are the best replacement to deal with any and all crises.

International consensus and action is paramount in the permanent arms embargo to relieve poor/ impoverished nations and developing/developed nations alike from the persisting outbreak of civil wars constantly witnessed in Africa, Latin, Central and South America, and relevantly in Sri Lanka with Pakistan and Afghanistan leading the world trend.

The existing conditions in Afghanistan and Pakistan are not a regional issue but a global calamity.  Similarly, it’s no longer the United States’ unilateral battle and the cooperation from the world over at all levels viz. troops involvement, financial assistance and logistic provision instrumental in maintaining international peace and order.

Finally, the game is over for the military industrial complex raking profits at the expense of innocent blood in the worldwide promotion of senseless carnage and chaos among humanity.

For the world at large, it’s worth remembering that,

“Peace within you helps spreading peace around you.”

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

International Politics – India’s General Elections

May 7, 2009

The world’s largest democracy goes to the polls to elect a Parliamentary government that would govern the nation regarded as the other emerging economic power in Asia.  India being the multilingual, multi-ethnic and diverse society is complex in political nature because of the multi-political factions representing a wide range of social, economic, political and environmental issues.

Further, such complexity diminishes the prospects for any major party to form a government.  In the absence of absolute majority, the winning party often forced to forge alliance with their enemy’s enemy and earn the title Coalition government resembling the democratic outcome in Israel, Germany and Australia to name a few around the world.

Indian election like any other electoral process is not devoid of controversies and the highly decorated stage performances by political figures.  In addition, the involvement of celebrities as surrogates is all too familiar for political enthusiasts.  The interesting feature of the Indian election is the massive participation of the rural and the impoverished segment of the population prominently left behind in the rising economic prosperity prevalent among the society’s middle class.  Obviously, the widening gap between the haves and the have-nots is the topic for many contenders to deal with during any political debates and public appearances.

Do the electorate buy what the political candidates and the representatives offer while seeking their votes?

Even though, the literacy rate among the rural and the poor electorate may not meet the international standard, one should never underestimate the political knowledge of the struggling class in the society.  Unfortunately, the plight of this populace also exploited for political reasons by many aspiring rookie and experienced political rivals alike, in concurrence with the regular politics found anywhere.

India has come a long way and dealt with great many challenges since independence.  In the past decade, the tremendous economic and social progress is transparent in the lower income and middle class population. The achievements in science and technology has been instrumental in the impressive economic growth despite the politics related to outsourcing and the growing , well educated youth population form a valuable asset in strengthening the present and future economic security.

The country is experiencing revolutionary demographic shifts among the rural and urban population creating opportunities for continuous productivity.  Nevertheless, prosperity accompanied by problems is a common phenomenon for developing nations in a competitive global economy.   With the steady economic growth, the inflationary rate requires constant monitoring in correlation with the free market demand and supply factor.  Besides, the sustainable population growth strategy would ease the burden on urban development, industrial expansion and ultimately the environmental goals.

The rural population has been disadvantaged in the globalization trend directly affecting the farming community and served a platform for the ruling party to win the previous election.  Most states prioritized commercial sector over agriculture and abandoned the farmers forcing many to commit suicide, while others moved to industrial towns and urban areas in search of jobs.

Meanwhile, the aggressive promotion of chemical fertilizers and pesticides by the multinational corporations proved harmful to the crops apart from being an environmental hazard.  Organic food producers are in strife due to produce grown with chemical fertilizers arriving from the Chinese border and sold in the Indian fruit and vegetable markets at an unbeatable price.  Above that, the global warming has taken toll with extreme weather conditions varying from severe drought to flooding caused by monsoon rain damaging the crops and vegetation.

Social and economic disparities are visibly widespread among the poorest in both rural and urban parts of the country.  It is important for the new government to address abject poverty, disease, lack of education, medical facilities and provide better living conditions starting with the supply of pure drinking water and decent dwellings.

There is an urgent requirement for investments in infrastructure and environmental friendly energy programs that would minimize oil dependency while promoting efficient transportation. It would be beneficial to the overall economy.

In the geopolitical sphere, India is grappling with tensions all around the borders particularly with the nuclear neighbor Pakistan and the rising instability within that nation from Taliban insurgency and other terror networks.  The Indian side of Kashmir is relatively calm and reflected in the recent democratic state election.

On the northern side, the political turmoil in Nepal is a matter of concern due to the successful influence of China on the existing power, The Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist). Moreover, China’s illegal invasion and occupation of Tibet has led to the fleeing of Tibetan refugees to India.   India has responded well to the humanitarian call in accepting and providing asylum to the Tibetan population.

Across the Indian Ocean, the escalating ethnic cleansing by Sri Lankan government is a contentious issue for the people in TamilNadu, South India.

Amidst the election excitement, the political candidates capitalized on the Mumbai terror attack and were extravagant in the divisive politics with some of them exclusively targeting the Muslim population in the society, regardless of India being the second largest Muslim nation in the world.

If the fundamentalists in BJP and other political parties indulge in polarization, it would be detrimental for national security upon their election.  Likewise, the incumbent Congress Party must refrain from aiding Sri Lankan government in their hostility and persecution of the ethnic Tamil population to settle past political scores.  Such action could similarly lead to the disintegration of the society with a significant representation of Tamils in the southern Indian state of Tamilnadu.

Indian politics deserve a breath of fresh air with young intellectuals in leadership role to guide the nation utilizing modern and innovative concepts in all aspects.  Perhaps, it’s time for the Indian society to renounce dynasty, nepotism and seniority based politics.

India sought freedom on the premise of non-violence and relentless peace process initiated by the founding father and leader Mahatma Gandhi. Any effort by the political factions to dismantle the unity and peace foundation would be disastrous for the country with enormous potential.  India is a secular nation and remains so now and in the future.

Every vote counts and matter in a democracy.  The citizens of democratic nations privileged with the power to elect a government of the people, for the people and by the people should never discard the exclusive right.

On that note, I wish the world’s largest democracy everlasting peace, progress and prosperity.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

Response to DCCC

April 16, 2009

Hon. Speaker of the House

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee

430 South Capitol Street, SE

Washington DC 20003

April 4, 2009

Dear Madam Speaker,

It is an honor to receive your invitation to continue volunteering for the various issues highlighted in your letter.

Since I’m currently engaged in reviving my career, and attending to family interests placed on hold the entire past year due to my extensive involvement in the Presidential campaign 2008, there is an urgency to fulfill personal and financial commitments towards my young dependent family.

However, I will continue to serve humanity to the extent possible for the people at home and around the world.

I take this opportunity to wish you the best in your endeavors.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Padmini Arhant

Keeping Democracy Alive

March 8, 2009

The new administration is still in the process of filling positions and since the beginning, there has been problems with some major cabinet appointments as the nominees had withdrawn from considerations to avoid political challenges during the hearing process.

Lately, it appears to be the nominee CNN medical correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta.

It is evidenced in the following article;

Gupta won’t be next surgeon general

Neurosurgeon and TV Correspondent withdraws from Consideration

By Richard Alonso-Zaldivar, Associated Press – Thank you.

CNN medical correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta won’t be the next surgeon general, the Obama administration confirmed Thursday.

Gupta 39, a neurosurgeon with star appeal, was seen as President Barack Obama’s first pick for the job. He would have brought instant recognition to the office of surgeon general, a post that has lacked visibility since the days of C. Everett Koop during Ronald Reagan’s presidency.

An administration official said that Gupta had been under “serious consideration” but took himself out of the running because he wants to focus on his medical career and spend more time with his family.

“We know he will continue to serve and educate the public through his work with media and in the medical arena,” said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of nominations.

The official said there were no problems that would have disqualified Gupta, and it was his decision to withdraw.

The surgeon general is the nation’s doctor, and while the job doesn’t involve much policymaking responsibility, it’s a bully pulpit for promoting public health. Gupta could have helped Obama pitch his health care reform plan.

Initial reports in early January that Obama had approached Gupta about the job created a stir. The new president had not yet taken office. The chairman of the American Medical Association’s board said at the time it would be a boon to the government if Gupta accepted.

But Gupta would have had to give up a lucrative career. He hosts “House Call” on CNN, contributes reports to CBS News and writes a column for Time magazine. He also practices surgery at Atlanta’s Grady Memorial Hospital, which sees more than its share of trauma cases.

Political opposition had started to form.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., called Gupta inexperienced and circulated a letter urging Obama not to appoint him. Conyers is a leading supporter of health care reform that would create a government system similar to Canada’s and is particularly influential among liberals.

Gupta does have some Washington experience. During the Clinton administration, he served as a White House fellow and a special adviser to then-first lady Hillary Clinton.”

———————————————————————————————————————

Washington Hypocrisy:

Strangely enough, with recent appointees for high profile cabinet positions involving decision-making on International crisis affecting billions of lives around the globe “experience” didn’t seem to matter to the members of the hearing committee.

Some were sworn in with a mere formality hearing and they were aptly called by the media a shoe-in appointment.

Also, there was swift approval of nominees considered “controversial” with tax issues, conflict of interest notwithstanding the nation’s critical cabinet post supposedly being “unconstitutional.”

However, an administrative post with none or minimal policymaking responsibility as cited in the above article, aroused skepticism in the minds of certain members prompting them to an all out campaign against the adequately qualified and nationally as well as internationally prominent candidate with White House experience, reveals the true colors of Washington Politics.

Last fall, history was made for a reason. People of the human race overwhelmingly came together  to convey a loud and clear message…

It is no longer the “red states” or the “blue states”, but it is the United States of America.

Apparently, like everything else it is being regarded a catchy campaign slogan rather than embracing and most importantly practicing to keep democracy alive.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

Conflict of Interest

January 28, 2009

Secretary of State

By Padmini Arhant

Secretary of State position has been filled and the appointee, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has assumed office.

Did the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the full Senate pay any attention to the substantial facts and evidences provided by citizens and news editorials on this matter as well as other cabinet post appointments?

Apparently not and that appears to be the interesting focus for concerned electorate.

—————————————————————————————————-

Bill Clinton made millions from foreign sources

By MATTHEW LEE, Associated Press Writer Matthew Lee, Associated Press Writer – 35 mins ago 01/27/09

WASHINGTON – Former President Bill Clinton earned nearly $6 million in speaking fees last year, almost all of it from foreign companies, according to financial documents filed by his wife, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton .

The documents obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press show that $4.6 million of the former president’s reported $5.7 million in 2008 honoraria came from foreign sources, including Kuwait’s national bank , other firms and groups in Canada, Germany, India, Malaysia , Mexico and Portugal and a Hong Kong-based company that spent $100,000 on federal lobbying last year.

Executives at many of the firms that paid honoraria to Bill Clinton have also donated large amounts of money to the Clinton Foundation , according to documents it released last year as part of an agreement with Congress on Hillary Clinton’s nomination as secretary of state.

That agreement was aimed at preventing the appearance of any conflict of interest between the ex-president’s charitable organization and his wife’s new job as the United States’ top diplomat.

In addition to Bill Clinton’s income from speaking fees, Hillary Clinton reported joint holdings of between $6.1 million and $30.3 million in a blind trust as well as cash, insurance and retirement accounts worth between $1 million and $5.2 million.
Hillary Clinton made between $50,000 and $100,000 in royalties from her 2003 memoir "Living History."

Bill Clinton earned between $100,000 and $1 million in royalties for his 2004 autobiography "My Life," the documents show. The Clintons reported no liabilities.

All senior officials in the Obama administration are required to complete a detailed disclosure of their personal finances, including spouse and children, which is updated yearly.

The two men selected to serve as Hillary Clinton’s deputy secretaries of state, Jacob Lew and James Steinberg , also filed financial disclosure forms.

Lew, a former Clinton administration official who recently headed Citigroup’s Alternative Investments unit, reported 2008 salary income of just over $1 million along with numerous investments, including between $50,000 and $100,000 in State of Israel bonds .
Steinberg, another former Clinton administration official who recently was a professor at the University of Texas, reported receiving $35,000 in 2008 for foreign speaking engagements, including three before Japanese media firms and one before the Confederation of Indian Industries in New Delhi.

The most Bill Clinton got from a foreign source was $1.25 million for appearing at five events sponsored by the Toronto-based Power Within Inc., a company that puts on motivational and training programs around North America , according to Hillary Clinton’s submission.

For one Power Within speech alone, delivered in Edmonton in June 2008, Clinton was paid $525,000, the most for any single event that year. For one event, he got $200,000 and for three others he received $175,000 each, the documents show.

The Hong Kong firm, Hybrid Kinetic Automotive Holdings, paid Clinton a $300,000 honorarium on Dec. 4, 2008. Twenty five days later, on Dec. 29, a man listed as the company’s chief financial officer, Jack Xi Deng, made a $25,000 cash donation to the Virginia gubernatorial campaign of Clinton confidant Terry McAuliffe , according to the Virginia Public Access Project.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the Hong Kong firm paid at least $100,000 in 2008 to lobbyists on immigration issues.

The other foreign honoraria Bill Clinton received in 2008 are:
$450,000 from AWD Holding AG , a German-based international financial services company.

$350,000 from the state-owned National Bank of Kuwait . The Kuwaiti government donated between $1 million and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation , according to the foundation’s disclosure.

$300,000 from Value Grupo Financiero SA de CV, a Mexico -based financial holding company , whose chief executive officer , Carlos Bremer Gutierrez, is one of the Clinton Foundation’s leading donors. Gutierrez donated between $250,001 to $500,000 to the foundation, according to foundation’s documents.

$250,000 from Germany’s Media Control Gmbh, which bills itself as the world’s leading provider of entertainment data and was founded by Karlheinz Koegel, who contributed $100,001 to $250,000 to the Clinton foundation.

$200,000 from Malaysia’s Petra Equities Management on behalf of the Sekhar Foundation run by Malaysian multimillionaire Vinod Sekhar who donated between $25,001 and $50,000 to the Clinton Foundation, according to its documents.

In addition to the foreign earnings,

Bill Clinton made just over $1 million from domestic speaking engagements, including $250,000 from MSG Entertainment , $225,000 from the National Association of Home Care and Hospice, $200,000 from the United Nations Association , $175,000 from the ING North America Insurance Corp., $125,000 from the Rodman and Renshaw Capital Group and $100,000 from the Hollywood Radio and Television Society.

————————————————————————————————————-

Voice of Concern:  By Padmini Arhant

I suppose,  now it must be clear to America why despite the impressive combined earnings by the then Senator and now newly appointed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s request for personal donation was not met .

The impression might be what could possibly a small, diminutive, frail and fragile individual’s support or the lack thereof do to powerful nominations and subsequent confirmation.

It was already proven during the election when several requests and demands were placed for endorsement of the Presidential candidates.

Otherwise, would any ordinary citizen be sought after relentlessly by the candidates for endorsement in a high profile and vigorously contested political battle?

Further, Supreme force representative’s subservient manner should not be translated as an inferior or a weak personality in any shape due to intimacy with natural phenomenon.

Regardless, the stark contrast between the powerful on earth and those representing the power of the universe is,

The latter are courageous in speaking the truth and standing up for justice and peace wherever and whenever it applies.

History is testimony that Prophets and messengers were subject to incredible endurance tests including death for some as in the case of Lord Jesus Christ.

In the ancient era, Prophets and Messiahs had to prove their identity and worthiness by performing wonders or miracles.

It ranged from bearing the cross and resurrection to life and possessing witnesses for the ability to walk on water.

Now, in the new millennium the expectation of the virtuous could still be to exhibit magic moments by spitting fire, moving mountains and relevantly excavation of economy from deep recession heading towards Great Depression.

Such expectations by those considering themselves extraordinary are not surprising.

In fact, up until recently the utterance of God and any discussions related to the highest grace was argued as undemocratic by calling for elimination of such discourse in public square.

Anyone challenging the might of the mortals is frequently dismissed as a questionable character and their concerns for humanity invalidated through defiance per recent demonstration of Cabinet posts confirmation.

All those bound by ethics and compliance of common law in a democracy rejecting the plea with presentation of facts and evidences against Hillary Clinton’s confirmation as well as other appointees are in denial of the highest authority.

Hence, the comment during the Radio talk show  on “Free Palestine” about public displays of prayers and worships as meaningless because of selective embracing of God by political figures.

Thus, forcing one to arrive at a conclusion that even “Almighty God” is a fair game in politics.

It goes to prove that Cabinet posts in any administration could be picked and chosen by the privileged members of a political party and some outsiders through virtue of their association with previous administrations leaving no opportunities for the deserving aspirants outside the circle in the so-called democracy.

Then why bother wasting  taxpayers’ dollars with senate hearing and confirmation process if the purpose is meant to be a mere formality?

With foreign governments and sources donating to Clinton foundation and honorarium for his speeches, should American electorate consider such generosity by these entities an act of pure benevolence for humanity and not have Clintons reciprocate in return?

Alternatively, are these donors so magnanimous that they are involved in a great humanitarian effort whilst ignoring the plight of the population in their own backyard?
Washington was to be changed and shaken up to give way to new political system.

Is shuffling the cabinet posts among the group consisting of those demanding party favors a fair selection process?

Does democracy really have a chance when Power is still the dominant force crushing the will of the republic?

The lawmakers awestruck by candidates despite controversial background  moved forward to fill positions in fulfillment of their obligations and responsibilities with no regard for due process.

New administration was sworn in with the pledge to America to change Washington corroded with corruption, cronyism and power politics into new era guided by the constitution and democratic values.

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Promising "a new era of openness in our country," President Obama signed executive orders Wednesday relating to ethics guidelines for staff members of his administration.

"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency," Obama said.

Has there been a breach of constitutional law in the Cabinet post appointments?

It is worth examining, as it appears to be the case according to some concerned citizens who are also legal experts in the constitutional law.

————————————————————————————————————-

Source: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/11/25/is-hillary-clinton-unconstitutional/ –

Thank you.

Is Hillary Clinton Unconstitutional?

Posted by Ilya Shapiro,  Previous: There’s No Change Here
It appears that there may be genuine constitutional problems with her expected nomination.  To wit, Article I, section 6, clause 2 reads:

Via http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_6_2.html

Article 1, Section 6, Clause 2

No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.

That is, under this “Emoluments Clause,” members of Congress are expressly forbidden to take any appointed position within the government which was created or whose pay has been increased during their current term in office.

Now, a January 2008 executive order, promulgated in accordance with a statute from the 1990s that addressed cost of living adjustments for certain federal officials, raised the Secretary of State’s salary, thus constitutionally prohibiting any then-serving senator who remains in office from taking charge of Foggy Bottom. (Sen. Clinton’s current term began in January 2007 and expires in January 2013.)

—————————————————————————————————————————————

Source: http://volokh.com/posts/1227548910.shtml

Hillary Clinton and the Emoluments Clause:

There’s been talk about whether Sen. Hillary Clinton is disqualified from a position as Secretary of State by the Emoluments Clause:

Adam Bonin’s Daily Kos blog has a bit more on this, but the short version is that a Jan. 2008 executive order, promulgated pursuant to a 1990s cost of living adjustment statute, raised the salary of the Secretary of State, so the Emoluments Clause question is in play.

I very recently read an article by John O’Connor on the subject, The Emoluments Clause: An Anti-Federalist Intruder in a Federalist Constitution, 24 Hofstra L. Rev. 89 (1995), so I asked him what he thought.
Here’s his answer (some paragraph breaks added); please note that I have some comments at the end of this post that express a somewhat different view:

It seems to me that there are two questions regarding whether the Emoluments Clause to the U.S. Constitution (Art. I, § 6, cl. 2) renders Senator Hillary Clinton constitutionally ineligible for appointment as Secretary of State:

(1) whether Senator Clinton is now ineligible for appointment; and

(2) if Senator Clinton is ineligible for appointment, whether that ineligibility may be cured by the so-called “Saxbe Fix,” whereby the Secretary of State’s salary is reduced to the salary in effect before Senator Clinton’s current Senate term began.

I think it is beyond dispute that Senator Clinton is currently ineligible for appointment as secretary of State. I also believe that the better construction of the Emoluments Clause is that the “Saxbe Fix” does not remove this ineligibility.

The Saxbe Fix got its name because the Nixon administration sought to eliminate Senator William Saxbe’s ineligibility for appointment as Attorney General by reducing the salary of that office to the level that existed before Senator Saxbe’s appointment.

The Emoluments Clause provides that “[n]o Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time.”

As I understand it, 5 U.S.C. § 5303 provides for an automatic annual increase in certain federal salaries, including the salary of the Secretary of State, unless the President certifies that an increase in salaries is inappropriate.

The salary of the Secretary of State has increased during Senator Clinton’s current Senate term, which does not end until 2012.

Therefore, under a straightforward application of the Emoluments Clause, Senator Clinton is ineligible for appointment as Secretary of State because the emoluments of that office “have been encreased” during Senator Clinton’s current Senate term, and this disability continues until the end of “the time for which [she] was elected, or until January 2013.

I do not believe it affects the analysis that the salary increase occurred as a result of an Executive Order or that the statute creating these quasi-automatic salary increases was enacted prior to Senator Clinton’s current term.

By its plain language, the Emoluments Clause applies when the office’s salary “shall have been encreased,” without regard to exactly how it was increased.

Indeed, an early proposed draft of the clause included language limiting it to an increase of emoluments “by the legislature of the U[nited] States,” and was later revised to encompass any increase in emoluments.

It is worth noting that several Framers thought, without much explication, that the clause was too lax as initially drafted. The clause also does not require that a Senator or Representative have voted for the increase.

This focus [on] a past act of increasing emoluments, rather than on the emoluments existing at the time of appointment suggests to me that the clause’s best reading is that an act of increasing emoluments renders members of Congress ineligible for appointment [to] the office until their respective congressional terms end.

In addition, one of the central theses of my law review article on the subject is that the purpose of the Emoluments Clause is disserved by the Saxbe Fix.

The records of the federal constitutional convention indicate two purposes underlying the Emoluments Clause:

(1) general anti-corruption, whereby Congress might conspire with the President to create offices, or to give existing offices exorbitant salaries, with the understanding that a Member of Congress would be appointed to the office; and

(2) limiting the size, importance, and reach of the federal bureaucracy.

————————————————————————————————————————————–

Republic Action:  By Padmini Arhant

It is important for the people of the Republic to awaken and ensure that elected representatives honor commitments towards their constituents and the nation  by respecting the constitutional law and abide by the common rules and regulations meant for all regardless of societal hierarchy.

Indeed, it is a huge disappointment that electorate is relevant only during the electoral process.

Once the ballots are cast and power entrusted to the lawmakers as the people representatives, the abuse of power is a reflex action with a tendency to discount and dismiss the will of democracy particularly during federal appointments and other legislative matters.

Any functional democracy requires that apart from transparency and accountability, the office of Presidency and Congress act with entire integrity in recruitments by not violating the trust of the people and the constitution governing the nation.

Additionally,  rather than personal choices for various cabinet posts contributing to ethical issues, the real change in Washington would be depicted if the cabinet posts were advertised for direct public appointments reflecting the acknowledgement of talent and caliber among the eligible electorate.

Is it too late to review the appointments that have already taken place?

Action is anytime better than inaction to confirm the power of democracy.

Shouldn’t we all know now from the past eight years’ legacy?

The voice of America is the only legitimate force that can bring about any Positive Change in every citizen’s life.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

P.S. Please review the insightful presentation “Secretary of State Nomination” on www.padminiarhant.com  for complete comprehension.

Conflict of Interest

January 28, 2009

Secretary of State

By Padmini Arhant

Secretary of State position has been filled and the appointee, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has assumed office.

Did the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the full Senate pay any attention to the substantial facts and evidences provided by citizens and news editorials on this matter as well as other cabinet post appointments?

Apparently not and that appears to be the interesting focus for concerned electorate.

——————————————————–

Bill Clinton made millions from foreign sources

By MATTHEW LEE, Associated Press Writer Matthew Lee, Associated Press Writer – 35 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Former President Bill Clinton earned nearly $6 million in speaking fees last year, almost all of it from foreign companies, according to financial documents filed by his wife, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton .

The documents obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press show that $4.6 million of the former president’s reported $5.7 million in 2008 honoraria came from foreign sources, including Kuwait’s national bank , other firms and groups in Canada, Germany, India, Malaysia , Mexico and Portugal and a Hong Kong-based company that spent $100,000 on federal lobbying last year.

Executives at many of the firms that paid honoraria to Bill Clinton have also donated large amounts of money to the Clinton Foundation , according to documents it released last year as part of an agreement with Congress on Hillary Clinton’s nomination as secretary of state.

That agreement was aimed at preventing the appearance of any conflict of interest between the ex-president’s charitable organization and his wife’s new job as the United States’ top diplomat.

In addition to Bill Clinton’s income from speaking fees, Hillary Clinton reported joint holdings of between $6.1 million and $30.3 million in a blind trust as well as cash, insurance and retirement accounts worth between $1 million and $5.2 million.
Hillary Clinton made between $50,000 and $100,000 in royalties from her 2003 memoir "Living History."

Bill Clinton earned between $100,000 and $1 million in royalties for his 2004 autobiography "My Life," the documents show. The Clintons reported no liabilities.

All senior officials in the Obama administration are required to complete a detailed disclosure of their personal finances, including spouse and children, which is updated yearly.

The two men selected to serve as Hillary Clinton’s deputy secretaries of state, Jacob Lew and James Steinberg , also filed financial disclosure forms.

Lew, a former Clinton administration official who recently headed Citigroup’s Alternative Investments unit, reported 2008 salary income of just over $1 million along with numerous investments, including between $50,000 and $100,000 in State of Israel bonds .
Steinberg, another former Clinton administration official who recently was a professor at the University of Texas, reported receiving $35,000 in 2008 for foreign speaking engagements, including three before Japanese media firms and one before the Confederation of Indian Industries in New Delhi.

The most Bill Clinton got from a foreign source was $1.25 million for appearing at five events sponsored by the Toronto-based Power Within Inc., a company that puts on motivational and training programs around North America , according to Hillary Clinton’s submission.

For one Power Within speech alone, delivered in Edmonton in June 2008, Clinton was paid $525,000, the most for any single event that year. For one event, he got $200,000 and for three others he received $175,000 each, the documents show.

The Hong Kong firm, Hybrid Kinetic Automotive Holdings, paid Clinton a $300,000 honorarium on Dec. 4, 2008. Twenty five days later, on Dec. 29, a man listed as the company’s chief financial officer, Jack Xi Deng, made a $25,000 cash donation to the Virginia gubernatorial campaign of Clinton confidant Terry McAuliffe , according to the Virginia Public Access Project.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the Hong Kong firm paid at least $100,000 in 2008 to lobbyists on immigration issues.

The other foreign honoraria Bill Clinton received in 2008 are:
$450,000 from AWD Holding AG , a German-based international financial services company.

$350,000 from the state-owned National Bank of Kuwait . The Kuwaiti government donated between $1 million and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation , according to the foundation’s disclosure.

$300,000 from Value Grupo Financiero SA de CV, a Mexico -based financial holding company , whose chief executive officer , Carlos Bremer Gutierrez, is one of the Clinton Foundation’s leading donors. Gutierrez donated between $250,001 to $500,000 to the foundation, according to foundation’s documents.

$250,000 from Germany’s Media Control Gmbh, which bills itself as the world’s leading provider of entertainment data and was founded by Karlheinz Koegel, who contributed $100,001 to $250,000 to the Clinton foundation.

$200,000 from Malaysia’s Petra Equities Management on behalf of the Sekhar Foundation run by Malaysian multimillionaire Vinod Sekhar who donated between $25,001 and $50,000 to the Clinton Foundation, according to its documents.

In addition to the foreign earnings,

Bill Clinton made just over $1 million from domestic speaking engagements, including $250,000 from MSG Entertainment , $225,000 from the National Association of Home Care and Hospice, $200,000 from the United Nations Association , $175,000 from the ING North America Insurance Corp., $125,000 from the Rodman and Renshaw Capital Group and $100,000 from the Hollywood Radio and Television Society.

———————————————————————————————————————

Voice of Concern: By Padmini Arhant

I suppose, now it must be clear to America why despite the impressive combined earnings by the then Senator and now newly appointed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s request for personal donation was not met .

The impression might be what could possibly a small, diminutive, frail and fragile individual’s support or the lack thereof do to powerful nominations and subsequent confirmation.

It was already proven during the election when several requests and demands were placed for endorsement of the Presidential candidates.

Otherwise, would any ordinary citizen be sought after relentlessly for endorsement in a high profile and vigorously contested political battle by the contestants?

Further, Supreme force representative’s subservient manner should not be translated as an inferior or a weak personality in any shape due to intimacy with natural phenomenon.

Regardless, the stark contrast between the powerful on earth and those representing the power of the universe is,

The latter are courageous in speaking the truth and standing up for justice and peace wherever and whenever it applies.

History is testimony that Prophets and messengers were subject to incredible endurance tests including death for some as in the case of Lord Jesus Christ.

In the ancient era, Prophets and Messiahs had to prove their identity and worthiness by performing wonders or miracles.

It ranged from bearing the cross and resurrection to life and possessing witnesses for the ability to walk on water.

Now, in the new millennium the expectation of the virtuous could still be to exhibit magic moments by spitting fire, moving mountains and relevantly excavation of economy from deep recession heading towards Great Depression.

Such expectations by those considering themselves extraordinary are not surprising.

In fact, up until recently the utterance of God and any discussions related to the highest grace was argued as undemocratic by calling for elimination of such discourse in public square.

Anyone challenging the might of the mortals is frequently dismissed as a questionable character and their concerns for humanity invalidated through defiance per recent demonstration of Cabinet posts confirmation.

All those bound by ethics and compliance of common law in a democracy rejecting the plea with presentation of facts and evidences against Hillary Clinton’s confirmation as well as other appointees are in denial of the highest authority.

Hence, the comment during the Radio talk show on “Free Palestine” about public displays of prayers and worships as meaningless because of selective embracing of God by political figures.

Thus, forcing one to arrive at a conclusion that even “Almighty God” is a fair game in politics.

It goes to prove that Cabinet posts in any administration could be picked and chosen by the privileged members of a political party and some outsiders through virtue of their association with previous administrations leaving no opportunities for the deserving aspirants outside the circle in the so-called democracy.

Then why bother wasting taxpayers’ dollars with senate hearing and confirmation process if the purpose is meant to be a mere formality?

With foreign governments and sources donating to Clinton foundation and honorarium for his speeches, should American electorate consider such generosity by these entities an act of pure benevolence for humanity and not have Clintons reciprocate in return?

Alternatively, are these donors so magnanimous that they are involved in a great humanitarian effort whilst ignoring the plight of the population in their own backyard?

Washington was to be changed and shaken up to give way to new political system.

Is shuffling the cabinet posts among the group consisting of those demanding party favors a fair selection process?

Does democracy really have a chance when Power is still the dominant force crushing the will of the republic?

The lawmakers awestruck by candidates despite controversial background moved forward to fill positions in fulfillment of their obligations and responsibilities with no regard for due process.

New administration was sworn in with the pledge to America to change Washington corroded with corruption, cronyism and power politics into new era guided by the constitution and democratic values.

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Promising "a new era of openness in our country," President Obama signed executive orders Wednesday relating to ethics guidelines for staff members of his administration.

"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency," Obama said.

Has there been a breach of constitutional law in the Cabinet post appointments?

It is worth examining, as it appears to be the case according to some concerned citizens who are also legal experts in the constitutional law.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Source: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/11/25/is-hillary-clinton-unconstitutional/ – Thank you.

Is Hillary Clinton Unconstitutional?

Posted by Ilya Shapiro , Previous: There’s No Change Here

It appears that there may be genuine constitutional problems with her expected nomination.  To wit, Article I, section 6, clause 2 reads:

Via http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_6_2.html

Article 1, Section 6, Clause 2

No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.

That is, under this “Emoluments Clause,” members of Congress are expressly forbidden to take any appointed position within the government which was created or whose pay has been increased during their current term in office.

Now, a January 2008 executive order, promulgated in accordance with a statute from the 1990s that addressed cost of living adjustments for certain federal officials, raised the Secretary of State’s salary, thus constitutionally prohibiting any then-serving senator who remains in office from taking charge of Foggy Bottom. (Sen. Clinton’s current term began in January 2007 and expires in January 2013.)

——————————————————————————————————————————————

Source: http://volokh.com/posts/1227548910.shtml – Thank you.

Hillary Clinton and the Emoluments Clause:

There’s been talk about whether Sen. Hillary Clinton is disqualified from a position as Secretary of State by the Emoluments Clause:

Adam Bonin’s Daily Kos blog has a bit more on this, but the short version is that a Jan. 2008 executive order , promulgated pursuant to a 1990s cost of living adjustment statute, raised the salary of the Secretary of State, so the Emoluments Clause question is in play.

I very recently read an article by John O’Connor on the subject, The Emoluments Clause: An Anti-Federalist Intruder in a Federalist Constitution , 24 Hofstra L. Rev. 89 (1995) , so I asked him what he thought.

Here’s his answer (some paragraph breaks added); please note that I have some comments at the end of this post that express a somewhat different view:

It seems to me that there are two questions regarding whether the Emoluments Clause to the U.S. Constitution (Art. I, § 6, cl. 2) renders Senator Hillary Clinton constitutionally ineligible for appointment as Secretary of State:

(1) whether Senator Clinton is now ineligible for appointment; and

(2) if Senator Clinton is ineligible for appointment, whether that ineligibility may be cured by the so-called “Saxbe Fix,” whereby the Secretary of State’s salary is reduced to the salary in effect before Senator Clinton’s current Senate term began.

I think it is beyond dispute that Senator Clinton is currently ineligible for appointment as secretary of State. I also believe that the better construction of the Emoluments Clause is that the “Saxbe Fix” does not remove this ineligibility.

The Saxbe Fix got its name because the Nixon administration sought to eliminate Senator William Saxbe’s ineligibility for appointment as Attorney General by reducing the salary of that office to the level that existed before Senator Saxbe’s appointment.

The Emoluments Clause provides that “[n]o Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time.”

As I understand it, 5 U.S.C. § 5303 provides for an automatic annual increase in certain federal salaries, including the salary of the Secretary of State, unless the President certifies that an increase in salaries is inappropriate.

The salary of the Secretary of State has increased during Senator Clinton’s current Senate term, which does not end until 2012.

Therefore, under a straightforward application of the Emoluments Clause, Senator Clinton is ineligible for appointment as Secretary of State because the emoluments of that office “have been encreased” during Senator Clinton’s current Senate term, and this disability continues until the end of “the time for which [she] was elected, or until January 2013.

I do not believe it affects the analysis that the salary increase occurred as a result of an Executive Order or that the statute creating these quasi-automatic salary increases was enacted prior to Senator Clinton’s current term.

By its plain language, the Emoluments Clause applies when the office’s salary “shall have been encreased,” without regard to exactly how it was increased.

Indeed, an early proposed draft of the clause included language limiting it to an increase of emoluments “by the legislature of the U[nited] States,” and was later revised to encompass any increase in emoluments.

It is worth noting that several Framers thought, without much explication, that the clause was too lax as initially drafted. The clause also does not require that a Senator or Representative have voted for the increase.

This focus [on] a past act of increasing emoluments, rather than on the emoluments existing at the time of appointment suggests to me that the clause’s best reading is that an act of increasing emoluments renders members of Congress ineligible for appointment [to] the office until their respective congressional terms end.

In addition, one of the central theses of my law review article on the subject is that the purpose of the Emoluments Clause is disserved by the Saxbe Fix.

The records of the federal constitutional convention indicate two purposes underlying the Emoluments Clause:

(1) general anti-corruption, whereby Congress might conspire with the President to create offices, or to give existing offices exorbitant salaries, with the understanding that a Member of Congress would be appointed to the office; and

(2) limiting the size, importance, and reach of the federal bureaucracy.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Republic Action: By Padmini Arhant

It is important for the people of the Republic to awaken and ensure that elected representatives honor commitments towards their constituents and the nation by respecting the constitutional law and abide by the common rules and regulations meant for all regardless of societal hierarchy.

Indeed, it is a huge disappointment that electorate is relevant only during the electoral process.

Once the ballots are cast and power entrusted to the lawmakers as the people representatives, the abuse of power is a reflex action with a tendency to discount and dismiss the will of democracy particularly during federal appointments and other legislative matters.

Any functional democracy requires that apart from transparency and accountability, the office of Presidency and Congress act with entire integrity in recruitments by not violating the trust of the people and the constitution governing the nation.

Additionally, rather than personal choices for various cabinet posts contributing to ethical issues, the real change in Washington would be depicted if the cabinet posts were advertised for direct public appointments reflecting the acknowledgement of talent and caliber among the eligible electorate.

Is it too late to review the appointments that have already taken place?

Action is anytime better than inaction to confirm the power of democracy.

Shouldn’t we all know now from the past eight years’ legacy?

The voice of America is the only legitimate force that can bring about any Positive Change in every citizen’s life.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

P.S. Please review the insightful presentation “Secretary of State Nomination” on www.padminiarhant.com for complete comprehension.

Radio Show

January 20, 2009

I will be doing a live radio show for 60 minutes from 9.00P.M to 10.00P.M. (PST) TODAY JANUARY 20, 2009

Podcast live : http://www.blogtalkradio.com/Padmini-A

Guest Call-in-number: (646) 727 -3778

Topic: Presidential Inauguration of the 44th President of the United States.

Your comments and thoughts are welcome in the political discourse.

Look forward to the session.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

P.S. A convenient time will be scheduled to accommodate listeners from the other time zones particularly EST starting tomorrow January 21, 2009.

Presidential Inaugural Invitation

January 20, 2009

To: President-elect Barack Obama

Vice President-elect Joe Biden

With great humility and honor, I accept and acknowledge your personal invitation as well as the formal invitation from the Presidential Inaugural Committee to attend the historic 56th Presidential Inauguration currently held in the nation’s capitol, Washington D.C.

I apologize for not being able to participate in the historic event even though I had every desire to be present with millions of citizens excited to share their overwhelming joy and happiness on this important day.

Please trust me; I am with you right from the moment of swearing in to the last event of the day.

I take this opportunity and convey my heartfelt congratulations on your extraordinary feat as the 44th President of the United States on this day January 20, 2009.

Wishing you phenomenal success in all your endeavors.

Best Wishes

Padmini Arhant

Secretary of State Nomination

January 15, 2009

By Padmini Arhant

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for a job interview as the nominee for one of the most important Cabinet positions in the White House Administration.

The hearing as such did not appear to be a formal environment for the hiring and approval of the crucial Cabinet post representing the U.S. Foreign policy requiring reparation and image restoration.

Ironically, Senate committee with members on both sides of the aisle euphoric with the designate, conducted the session in a manner of formality rather than a serious protocol in assessing the eligibility, experience or the lack thereof and particularly the conflict of interest arising from the nominee’s personal and political background.

In the absence of any hard hitting, nail biting moments given the present highly volatile world environment, the hearing as described by the media a love fest … delivered an overwhelming majority of 16-1 vote in favor of the nomination.

Often, when a democratic process subsidized with lack of objectivity poses an imminent threat to the credibility of such hearings. Notwithstanding, the irrelevance of the job criteria involving national and international interests revealed in similar hasty decisions.

Senate performance of this nature legitimately leads to frustration and disappointment of the voters expecting rigorous interrogation of the candidates vying for major representation in matters like foreign policy.

HTTP://WWW.DEMOCRATANDCHRONICLE.COM/ARTICLE/20090115/OPINION04/901150346/1041/OPINION

JANUARY 15, 2009

U.S. SENATE SHOULD BE TOUGHER DURING CABINET CONFIRMATION PROCESS

“Senators must ask hard questions of these nominees and demand that they create an environment of scrupulousness and openness in their departments.

As for Clinton, it’s legitimate to worry that foreign governments will try to use support for former president Bill Clinton’s foundations to curry favor with her.

There are safeguards in place. But are they sufficient? Is accountability what it should be for all the Cabinet posts? The Senate must be tough overseers during these important hearings.”
——————————————————————————————————————————————————-

It is important to examine the genuine concerns across the globe, as Secretary of State is the initial representative and emissary of U.S. foreign policy currently under siege in the devastating crime against humanity with Israel’s determination to wipe Gaza of the map.

Contradictory to Senate Committee view of Senator Clinton’s entitlement to the high profile yet delicate ambassadorial position, the world has a different perspective of Senator Clinton’s nomination that deserves attention.

Prior to proceeding with the thoughts and presentations by various groups both nationally and internationally, it is vital to define the Secretary of State position.

UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF STATE

FROM WIKIPEDIA, THE FREE ENCYCLOPEDIA – THANK YOU.

The United States Secretary of State is the head of the United States Department of State, concerned with foreign affairs.

The Secretary is a member of the President’s Cabinet and the highest-ranking cabinet secretary both in line of succession and order of precedence.

HISTORY –

Particularly in the early years of the republic, the post was regarded as a natural stepping-stone to the Presidency.

Secretaries of State who later occupied the White House included Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, Martin Van Buren and James Buchanan.

FUNCTIONS

The Secretary also serves as a principal adviser to the President in the determination of U.S. foreign policy and,

In recent decades, has become responsible for overall direction, coordination, and supervision of interdepartmental activities of the U.S. Government overseas, excepting certain military activities.

As the highest-ranking member of the cabinet,

The Secretary of State is fourth in line to succeed the Presidency.

Federal law (3 U.S.C. § 20) provides that a presidential resignation must be accomplished by written communication from the President to the Secretary of State. This has occurred once, when President Richard Nixon resigned in August 1974 via a letter to Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.

——————————————————————————————————————————————-
National and International Radar Image of Senator Hillary Clinton:

Conflict of Interest:

1. “Clinton urged to reveal more on husband’s donors

By SHARON THEIMER, Associated Press Writer Sharon Theimer, Associated Press Writer – 47 mins ago – January 13, 2009 – Thank you.

Extract of the article:

WASHINGTON – Hillary Rodham Clinton, President-elect Barack Obama’s choice for secretary of state, rejected calls Tuesday for more details about donors to her husband’s foundation, saying she has revealed enough to avoid even the hint of conflicts.

An Associated Press review found that Clinton stepped in at least a half-dozen times on issues involving businesses and others who later gave to the charity.

The AP reported Tuesday that Hillary Clinton intervened at least six times in government issues directly affecting companies and others that later contributed to her husband’s foundation. The AP obtained three pieces of the correspondence under the Freedom of Information Act.

The letters and donations involve pharmaceutical companies and telecommunications and energy interests; all said their donations to the Clinton foundation had nothing to do with Hillary Clinton’s previous work on their issues.

Hillary Clinton wrote to the Federal Communications Commission in February 2004 expressing concern that changes to competitive local exchange carrier access rates could hurt carriers such as New York-based PAETEC Communications.

PAETEC’s chief executive is Arunas Chesonis, whose family and charity later contributed to the Clinton foundation.

Sarah Wood, executive director of the Chesonis Family Foundation, was invited by a part of the Clinton Foundation — the Clinton Global Initiative — to join the initiative after it was established in 2005, Wood said Monday.

The Chesonis family personally paid $15,000 for Wood’s membership in CGI in September 2007, and when membership fees rose to $20,000 in 2008, the Chesonis foundation paid them in March, Wood said.

PAETEC spokesman Christopher Muller said PAETEC had no involvement in the Chesonis donations.

PAETEC asked Clinton to intervene with the FCC, he said.”

——————————————————————————————————————————————————
2. Source: Washington Post Editorials

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/18/AR2008111802791.html

Wednesday, November 19, 2008; Page A20

If Mr. Obama chooses Ms. Clinton, he’ll get Mr. Clinton — two for the price of one, you might say.

And this is where critics of the Clintons, and even their supporters, have legitimate concerns.

Some of these are backward-looking, regarding the hundreds of millions of dollars that Mr. Clinton has raised for his presidential library and foundation, including from foreign governments, foreign individuals and others with an interest in foreign affairs.

We have long argued that presidents, sitting or retired, should not be permitted to collect this sort of secret cash for their libraries.

The imperative for disclosure is even greater in the case of the Clintons because of Ms. Clinton’s continuing involvement in public life.

Among those reported to have given $1 million or more are Kuwait, Qatar, Brunei, Taiwan and the United Arab Emirates; the Saudi royal family gave $10 million.

If Ms. Clinton is to serve as the nation’s chief diplomat, the nation is entitled to know what foreign interests have donated generously to help her husband.

Even more complicated is how the Clintons could pursue their parallel careers if she were to become secretary of state.

Mr. Clinton would have to give up his lucrative foreign speechmaking and deal-brokering.

It is difficult to see how Mr. Clinton’s work with a nongovernmental organization could continue alongside Ms. Clinton’s work for the U.S. government.

When Mr. Clinton exhorted a foreign government to provide funding or cooperation, would he be carrying the implicit support of the U.S. government?

Consider Mr. Clinton’s September 2005 trip to Kazakhstan with Canadian mining tycoon Frank Giustra, who has given $130 million to the Clinton foundation.

The two men attended a banquet with Kazakh strongman Nursultan Nazarbayev; within a few days, Mr. Giustra had obtained preliminary agreements for his company to buy into uranium projects controlled by the state-owned uranium agency.

Neither President Obama nor, if it comes to that, Secretary of State Clinton needs headaches like these.

——————————————————————————————————————————————————-
Defiance In Complying With National Interests:

SENATE PANEL BACKS CLINTON AS SECRETARY OF STATE

By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer Anne Flaherty, Associated Press Writer – Thu Jan 15, 12:37 pm ET

“Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, the Foreign Relations Committee’s top Republican, has proposed that Bill Clinton’s foundation reject any overseas contributions and take other steps to improve transparency.

Clinton rejected Lugar’s ideas, contending that her agreement to publish an annual list of the foundation’s donors and alert ethics officials to potential conflicts of interest already goes above and beyond any ethics regulations.

Bill Clinton’s charity, which financed his presidential library in Little Rock, Ark., and efforts in dozens of countries to reduce poverty and treat AIDS, has relied on sizable donations from foreign governments, including Saudi Arabia.”
——————————————————————————–

OBJECTIVITY:

REASONS WHY HILLARY CLINTON SHOULD NOT BE BARACK OBAMA’S SECRETARY OF STATE

POSTED BY: TOBY HARNDEN, US EDITOR ,TELEGRAPH, CO. U.K.

Posted in: Foreign Correspondents

Here’s why:

1. A central appeal of Obama’s candidacy was that his election would mark the end of the Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush years. Hillary Clinton in such a senior position, along with all the other Clinton retreads, blows that out of the water.

2. Bill Clinton would move, once again, to centre stage. Do you think Obama could control him?

3. Specifically, Bill Clinton’s past and future business dealings abroad and donors to his Foundation could be a huge problem and potential source of scandal.

4. Hillary Clinton proved herself a poor manager during her campaign.

Managing the huge foreign policy bureaucracy is a much bigger task.

5. Would she be a team player? She campaigned extensively for Obama and cannot be criticised for not doing her duty in the general election. But it was her duty as a Democrat and it was in her own interests to do so.

It doesn’t mean she’s suddenly lost all her doubts about Obama.

6. It would create a significant alterative focus of power within the administration but outside the White House – a dangerous combination.

7. No recent Secretary of State has been a realistic prospect for president.Clinton clearly (and understandably) still harbours presidential ambitions.
Everything she does will be calculated on her part with that possibility in mind.

8. There will be many former Clinton aides in senior positions in the Obama administration.
The danger of dual loyalties is obvious.

9. Clinton herself made the argument – accepted by many primary voters – that Obama was not ready to be commander-in-chief but that she was prepared to answer that 3am phone call.
Is there any evidence she’s changed her mind? If she believes she knows best then the chances of her freelancing as Secretary of State become very real.
———————————————————————————————————————————————————
SOURCE: HTTP://2PARSE.COM/?P=1433

WHY HILLARY CLINTON SHOULD NOT BE SECRETARY OF STATE

Hillary Clinton is not the best candidate for Barack Obama to choose as his Secretary of State.

There are a few obvious obstacles to placing Hillary in this position:

• She made a big issue of her disagreements with Obama on foreign policy during the primary campaign, going so far as to call his policies “naive” and “irresponsible.”

• Now she would be expected to carry out these policies and not undermine them.

• She has her own foreign policy team which she could easily fill the State Department with, starting with Richard Holbrooke;

• It would be a fight for Obama to get a significant number of his own foreign policy team at State;

• In addition, there is bad blood between the Hillary camp and a number of Obama’s advisors – especially those who worked initially for the Clintons – complicating who could be appointed where and possibly the working relationships.

• Given these two above factors, there is a considerable chance that Obama could face a struggle in enacting his foreign policy agenda – and

• Clinton and her team of insiders could plausibly mount a bureacratic struggle undermining Obama’s agenda – much as Dick Cheney and his team were able to undermine Colin Powell.

• She and her husband have always been surrounded by drama – from Arkansas to the White House to her primary campaign – in stark contrast to the No-Drama-Obama team.

• She caused a serious international incident during the primary season causing both our strong allies to criticize her and our enemies to complain to the United Nations;

• everyone makes mistakes, but in this instance she seemed to choose to cause this incident to gain political capital – not the best attitude for a potential rival who would be acting as your Secretary of State.

• Her husband and his Clinton Foundation make for a huge amount of potential conflicts.

• She has often seemed physically uncomfortable with Obama and Obama has often seemed less certain of himself around her.
————————————————————————————————————-

IMPACT ON FOREIGN POLICY:

WHY THE OBAMA/CLINTON PATH TO MIDEAST PEACE WILL FAIL

Michael Lerner, Thursday, January 15, 2009

Rabbi Michael Lerner is editor of Tikkun Magazine: a bimonthly Jewish and Interfaith Journal of Politics, Culture and Society. He is chair of the interfaith Network of Spiritual Progressives ( www.spiritualprogressives.org), author of 11 books and rabbi of Beyt Tikkun synagogue in San Francisco.

There is little chance peace can be brought to the Middle East unless it is imposed on both Israel and Palestine by the international community.

Calling for an international peace conference and an immediate cease-fire ought to be the first foreign policy priority for the Obama administration.

Instead, Secretary of State-designate Hillary Rodham Clinton’s remarks to the Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday committed the Obama administration to a path that is certain to fail as it has throughout the past several decades.

She stressed three elements of her position:

— The United States remains committed in its support of Israel, which guarantees that it cannot play the role of "honest, neutral broker of peace."

— The United States restates that it will not negotiate with Hamas until it recognizes Israel (which Hamas has already said it would not do, though it has been willing to negotiate a cease-fire agreement with Israel and announced that it is prepared to negotiate a new agreement that could last for 20 or 30 years).

— The Obama administration will work to bring the two parties together for peace negotiations.

This position is at odds with the views that Obama articulated when he was seeking the Democratic nomination.

At that point, he made clear that we should negotiate with Iran and Syria, which both pose more serious threats to American interests than Hamas.

The difference, of course, is the Israel lobby to which Obama and Clinton have repeatedly paid obeisance.

That lobby, representing the most hard-line elements in the Jewish world but also tens of millions of Christian Zionists who support the militarist perspective in dealing with Arabs and Palestinians, has insisted as a matter of faith that American politicians promise not to deal with Hamas.

In the 1980s and 1990s, the lobby insisted that the United States not negotiate with the Palestine Liberation Organization.”

————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Perspective Analysis:

By Padmini Arhant

It is evident from the diverse national and international opinion that Senator Hillary Clinton’s nomination hearing for Secretary of State position carried out with little significance on major issues such as –

Conspicuous conflict of interest,

Nominee’s defiance to recognize the fact,

Projecting autonomy on foreign policy matters proven counterproductive while undermining the stated policy of the incoming administration.

Pursuit of militaristic agenda via smart power dominating peace and diplomacy creates opportunity to question motive.

Senator Hillary Clinton successfully evaded controversial issues with a complimentary response to the committee members and failed to provide solutions or strategies for any on-going crisis, thus proving her lack of experience.

The preliminary victory is predominantly due to excessive lobbying within the Senate by members emphasizing more on material than substance per national telecast of the hearing.

United States is dealing with many crises at home generating a leadership void for international conflicts. The American electorate invested energy, hope and trust in the new administration to avert further catastrophes.

The bipartisanship displayed in the hearing is appreciative though it would serve better during legislation of economic stimulus package or health, energy, education and environment issues.

Anything to benefit the people is always welcome and worth the time and effort.

However, in matters concerning millions of lives and their future around the globe the representative of the United States new government must reflect and possess a track record as the champion of peace, an advocate of non-violence and a trustworthy partner for all nations during international crisis.

Failing that, any attempt to restore and recapture the image it once had is a farfetched dream with remote possibilities of that turning into reality.

Senator Hillary Clinton is impressive in other ways in performing her legislative tasks for her constituents in the great state of New York. The Senator’s career as an attorney is praiseworthy.

Nevertheless, in the appointment of the Secretary of State, Senator Clinton’s existing background associated with,

The Clinton foundation and Clinton Global Initiative,

Recent rhetoric yielding her the reputation as a polarizing figure during the unsuccessful Presidential bid in 2008 as well as.

Being an enthusiastic supporter of military action including nuclear weapons raises serious credibility issue and further jeopardizes the prospects for United States to be a major player in resolving complex international crises.

The future of humanity is best under the guidance and leadership of those seeking peaceful solutions against war and terror.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

Communication

January 15, 2009

From: Jill Biden

To: Padmini Arhant

Sent: Friday, January 9, 2009 10:24:25 AM

Subject: Our partner for change

Padmini —

We’re just 11 days away from the start of an important journey that will move our country in a new direction.

But as we all prepare for that journey, we can’t forget our commitment to help Hillary Clinton retire her campaign debt.

I got to know Hillary on the campaign trail, and I saw firsthand what a vital role she played in Barack’s election. And as our soon-to-be Secretary of State, Senator Clinton is working hard now to help Barack implement policies that will help us meet the global challenges we face.

Will you help us honor our promise and support our friend Hillary Clinton by making a donation of $100 or more today?

During the general election, Hillary was a tireless advocate for Barack, traveling across the country and uniting people in our movement for change.

As a wife and a mother, I know the kind of sacrifice she made as a candidate, an advocate for Barack and Joe, and now as a member of the cabinet. She made those sacrifices because she believed in the change that we all worked so hard for.

Now, we need to help Hillary focus on the challenges that she will face as Secretary of State. You can show your support and make sure the hard-working individuals and small businesses who were a part of Hillary’s campaign effort are paid for their hard work.

Make a donation of $100 or more now to help one of our vital partners for change:

http://donate.barackobama.com/hillary

Thank you for everything,

Jill
—————————————————————————————————
From: Padmini Arhant
To: Jill Biden info@barackobama.com
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 3:10:13 AM
Subject: Re: Our partner for change
Dear Jill,

Thank you for your email.

Due to unfortunate circumstances and bad economic situation, it is difficult to make any commitment towards such cause.

Hope you understand the predicament.

Please accept my apologies for the delay in my response and inability to comply with your request.

Best Regards

Padmini

________________________________________

« Previous PageNext Page »

PadminiArhant.com