Radio Show Update

January 24, 2009

Schedule Update:

January 24, 2009, Air time – 8.00 – 10.00 P.M(PST)

Category: Current Events

Topic: Wall Street Bailout

Discussion:

What should financial institutions do with taxpayers’ bailout?

Why haven’t the financial institutions invested funds to stimulate economy?

What is public demand from them and the legislators?

——————————————————————————————————————-

January 25, 2009,  Air Time 2.00 – 4.00P.M (PST) – (5.00 – 7.00P.M EST)

Topic: Free Palestine

Discussion:

1. How can we help to expedite independent state for Palestinians free of Israeli blockade, occupation and aggression?

2. What should the new administration do to be a trustworthy partner and unbiased peace broker in the Middle East conflict?

3. How can we help Israeli population elect a moderate government in early February favoring peace and diplomacy over military action for their national security and sovereignty?

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

January 30, 2009, 120 minutes 2.00P.M – 4.00P.M – Cancelled due to restrictions on segments at frequent intervals.

Category: Current Events

Topic: Economy and Health Care – Please refer to blog post on www.padminiarhant.com for details and I invite you to post comments.

What should the new administration do for you and the economy?

How do we fix the Health Care system?

———————————————————————————-

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

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

I invite you all to participate in the public forum and share your concerns, ideas and knowledge.

Your comments and thoughts are welcome in the political discourse.

Let us keep democracy alive and help our new President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden in rebuilding our nation.

Your participation is a huge encouragement and always appreciated – Thank you again.

Look forward to the session.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

Radio Show Schedule

January 22, 2009

I will be doing a live radio show for 120 minutes from 2.00P.M to 4.00P.M. (PST) on the following days:

January 23, 2009 Friday from 2.00 – 4.00 P.M (PST) to accommodate listeners from all time zones.

Category: Current Events

Topic: Corporate Bailout

Discussion:

What should financial institutions do with the taxpayers’ bailout?

Why have they not utilized those funds to stimulate economy?

What is public demand from them and the legislators?

———————————————————————

January 30, 2009, 120 minutes 2.00P.M – 4.00P.M

Category: Current Events

Topic: Economy and Health Care

What should the new administration do for you and the economy?

How do we fix the Health Care system?

———————————————————————————-

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

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

I invite you all to participate in the public forum and share your concerns, ideas and knowledge.

Your comments and thoughts are welcome in the political discourse.

Let us keep democracy alive and help our new President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden in rebuilding our nation.

Look forward to the session.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

P.S. My apologies for not being able to schedule a convenient time on January 21, 2009. I am aiming to provide as much time as possible through whatever avenues available in getting us back on our feet.

Your participation is a huge encouragement and always appreciated – Thank you again.

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

Renew America Together

January 19, 2009

Today is an important day as we commemorate the outstanding contribution of the civil rights leader and icon of peace DR. Martin Luther King Jr.

Dr. King remembered as a trailblazer with his dream to transcend race that has long been an impediment for social, economic and political progress. This year is particularly significant, due to the long awaited promise of America scheduled for delivery upon swearing in of the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama to the office of Presidency on January 20, 2009.

Dr. King’s legacy span across the spectrum and focused on unity, equal rights and opportunities for all. Seldom, nations have sons like Dr. King to lay their life in pledge of support for humanity. It is truly an honor to be part of the nation with a hero like Dr. King paving the path for those human beings deprived of civil liberties and daring them to rise to the occasion.

If Dr. King were to be present today though he lives among us in spirit, the remarkable speech about his dream for a United America turning into reality with a bright and promising new President Barack Obama will serve as living testimony that change does not occur unless brought upon collectively.

As a nation, we ought to be proud of the great achievement with the election of the new President Barack Obama. Although, a milestone reached after several decades, there are still enormous tasks ahead in resolving racial prejudice, economic prosperity and social justice for those struggling at the bottom of the demographic data.

Dr. King is the beacon of light to courageously expel darkness in human minds that segregated one another, polarized the society and marginalized selective members of the human race. It is evident from history that freedom and equality for all comes with sacrifices by few and serve as the cornerstone for further developments in the future.

It is imperative now to get involved in activities for the common goal granting identical rights and privileges for all. We all have certain responsibilities as citizens and acknowledging them as the primary objective guaranteed to bear fruits for a better future.

Dr. King eloquently stated,

“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.”

As much as there are unprecedented challenges and crisis ahead, we have brilliant prospects with the new Presidency of Barack Obama and Vice President Jo e Biden.

Deep in our heart, we believe that we shall overcome the trials and tribulations as a unified force of the human race representing the great United States.

Thank you.

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

Banks Bailout – Accountability

January 11, 2009

It’s been a quarter since the banks bailout. The purpose of the bailout was to stimulate the economy by relieving the financial markets from liquidity crisis.

At least, that was the explanation offered by the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve at the time of request.

They demanded that Congress approve the bailout to a tune of $700 billion as an emergency measure to avert the collapse of the financial market.

There were few stipulations to the approval of the bailout. The general expectation was to revive the housing market with a moratorium on foreclosures and overhauling of the existing loan programs to assist homeowners with affordable payments and ease the decline of the housing prices nationwide.

The other alternative to the housing market crisis was to utilize the bailout drawdown towards restructuring of the mortgage backed securities by allowing default homeowners dealing with foreclosures to refinance at the existing lowest market rate for a fixed period of two years, substituting the amount in the new economic stimulus package by President-elect Obama.

Despite financial bailout by taxpayers, the economic situation is deteriorating with the current unemployment soaring to 7.2 percent exceeding the Depression era. The criticism entirely directed towards government intervention in the revival process.

However, it is worth remembering that lack of oversight and accountability led the financial institutions to a dire state in the free market economy. The corporate executives as the beneficiaries have been responsible for the dysfunctional financial system even though none of them held accountable thus far.

The current administration assured taxpayers that financial bailout targets liquidity in the credit market, housing market decline particularly foreclosures, buy-back mortgage securities held as major liabilities on the banks’ financial reports and ease their burden to facilitate lending to homeowners and small businesses.

If the strategy followed through, it could have reduced the heat on the economy and set the pace for recovery.

In the absence of commitment by the banks, it would be appropriate for taxpayers to demand that the financial institutions release the funds towards lending and contribute to the economic stimulation as agreed to by them.

Failure to adhere to the agreement will result in the blockade of the remaining $350 billion that would be appropriated towards economic stimulus proposal by President-elect Obama.

In addition, the taxpayers’ also reserve the right to demand that the beneficiaries of the bailout return the earlier withdrawal currently hoarded for their undisclosed agenda with interest higher than the market rate.

It is time for checks and balances on the drawdown of $350 billion to various financial institutions.

Checks and Balances:

Have the objectives been achieved?

Is there an oversight committee on the financial bailout as agreed to the taxpayers?

Did the banks provide details of the secured amount to the taxpayers or the oversight committee?

Please be sure to read the articles presented below as they confirm the reality.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

————————————————————————————————————

First and foremost, the beneficiaries of the bailout are:

As per http://moneynews.newsmax.com/streettalk/bailout_half_gone/2008/11/12/150364.html

Street Talk – Thank you.

Who Got Bailout Money So Far?

Wednesday, November 12, 2008 9:09 AM

"The Treasury Department’s $700 billion bailout plan, also known as the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), is one of the main U.S. tools to address the financial crisis.

The Treasury Department on October 14 set aside $250 billion of the program to buy senior preferred shares and warrants in banks, thrifts and other financial institutions.

Half that money was allocated to nine big banks, the Treasury Department has said.

Another $38 billion has since been earmarked for regional or small banks, according to statements from individual banks.

On Monday, the department announced its single-biggest TARP investment — $40 billion in American International Group — which the government said would not come from the $250 billion bank capital program.

———————————————-
The TARP has so far committed the following funding:

AIG $40 billion

JPMorgan $25 billion

Citigroup $25 billion

Wells Fargo $25 billion

Bank of America $15 billion

Merrill Lynch $10 billion

Goldman Sachs $10 billion

Morgan Stanley $10 billion

PNC Financial Services $7.7 billion

Bank of New York Mellon $3 billion

State Street Corp $2 billion

Capital One Financial $3.55 billion

Fifth Third Bancorp $3.45 billion

Regions Financial $3.5 billion

SunTrust Banks $3.5 billion

BB&T Corp $3.1 billion

KeyCorp $2.5 billion

Comerica $2.25 billion

Marshall & Ilsley Corp $1.7 billion

Northern Trust Corp $1.5 billion

Huntington Bancshares $1.4 billion

Zions Bancorp $1.4 billion

First Horizon National $866 million

City National Corp $395 million

Valley National Bancorp $330 million

UCBH Holdings Inc $298 million

Umpqua Holdings Corp $214 million

Washington Federal $200 million

First Niagara Financial $186 million

HF Financial Corp $25 million

Bank of Commerce $17 million

TOTAL: $203.08 billion

—————————————-
INSURANCE COMPANIES

In addition to the TARP program’s $40 billion capital injection into AIG, the Federal Reserve is providing the company with up to $112.5 billion in separate loans and funds for asset purchases.
Aid to the huge insurance company came after counterparties and rating downgrades forced AIG to post large amounts of collateral for its credit derivatives positions.
Some other insurers are interested in cash infusions, but must own a thrift or bank in order to qualify under the terms of Treasury’s current capital injection program.

—————————————————————————–
BANKS, LENDERS

The TARP program set a November 14 deadline for smaller banks to apply for capital injection funds remaining in the pool of $250 billion. The deadline will be extended for non-publicly traded banks.

The government’s preferred shares will pay dividends of 5 percent annually for the first five years and 9 percent after that until the institution repurchases them. Participating banks must comply with Treasury restrictions on executive compensation, which limit tax deductibility of senior executive pay to $500,000.

They require bonuses to be "clawed back" if earnings statements or gains are later proven to be materially inaccurate and prohibit "golden parachute" payments to senior executives.”

—————————————————————–

The following article has the response for all of the above issues:

December 23, 2008.

Economy in Crisis: By Matt Apuzzo, Associated Press, Washington – Thank you

Banks mum on bailout spending – They Refuse to provide Accounting

Elizabeth Warren, the congressional watchdog, appointed by Democrats—

“It takes a lot of nerve for banks not to give answers, she says.”

Think you could borrow money from a bank without saying what you were going to do with it?

Well, apparently when banks borrow from you they don’t feel the same need to say how the money is spent.

After receiving billions in aid from U.S. taxpayers, the nation’s largest banks say they can’t track exactly how they’re spending it. Some won’t even talk about it.

“We’re choosing not to disclose that,” said Kevin Heine, spokesman for Bank of New York Melon, which received about $3 billion.

Thomas Kelly, a spokesman for JPMORGAN Chase, which received $25 billion in emergency bailout money, said that while some of the money was lent, some was not, and the bank has not given any accounting of exactly how the money is being used.

“We have not disclosed that to the public. We’re declining to,” Kelly said.

The Associated Press contacted 21 banks that received at least $1billion in government money and asked four questions:

How much has been spent?

What was it spent on?

How much is being held in savings? And,

What ‘s the plan for the rest?

None of the banks provided specific answers.

“We ‘re not providing dollar-in, dollar-out tracking,” said Barry Koling, a spokesman for Atlanta, Ga.-based SunTrust Banks, which got $3.5billion in taxpayer dollars.

Some banks said they simply didn’t know where the money was going.

“We manage our capital in its aggregate,” said Regions Financial spokesman Tim Deighton, who said the Birmingham, Ala.- based company is not tracking how it is spending the $3.5billion it received as part of the financial bailout.

The answers highlight the secrecy surrounding the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which earmarked $700 billion – about the size of the Netherlands’ economy – to help rescue the financial industry.

The Treasury Department has been using the money to buy stock in U.S. banks, hoping that the sudden inflow of cash will get banks to start lending money.

There has been no accounting of how banks spend that money.

Lawmakers summoned bank executives to Capitol Hill last month i.e. November 2008, and implored them to lend the money – not to hoard it or spend it on corporate bonuses or junkets or to buy other banks.

But there is no process in place to make sure that’s happening, and there are no consequences for banks that don’t comply.

“It is entirely appropriate for the American people to know how their taxpayer dollars are being spent in private industry,” said Elizabeth Warren, the top congressional watchdog overseeing the financial bailout.

But, at least for now, there’s no way for taxpayers to find that out.

Pressured by the Bush administration to approve the money quickly, Congress attached nearly no strings to the $700 billion bailout in October, 2008.

And the Treasury Department, which doles out the money, never asked banks how it would be spent.

“Those are legitimate questions that should have been asked on Day One,” said Rep. Scott Garrett, R-N.J., a House Financial Services Committee member who opposed the bailout as it was rushed through Congress.

“Where is the money going to go to?

How is it going to be spent?

When are we going to get a record on it?”

Nearly every bank the AP questioned – including Citibank and Bank of America, two of the largest recipients of bailout money —– responded with generic public relations statements explaining that the money was being used to strengthen balance sheets and continue making loans to ease the credit crisis.

A few banks described company-specific programs, such as JPMorgan Chase’s plan to lend $5 billion to nonprofit and health care companies next year.

Richard Becker, senior vice president of Wisconsin-based Marshall & Ilsley, said the $1.75 billion in bailout money allowed the bank to temporarily stop foreclosing on homes.

But no bank provided even the most basic accounting for the federal money.

Some said the money couldn’t be tracked.

Bob Denham, a spokesman for North Carolina-based BB&T, said the bailout money “doesn’t have its own bucket.”

But he said taxpayer money wasn’t used in the bank’s recent purchase of a Florida insurance company.

Asked how he could be sure, since the money wasn’t being tracked, Denham said the bank would have made that deal regardless.

Others, such as Morgan Stanley spokeswoman Carissa Ramirez, offered to discuss the matter with reporters on condition of anonymity.

When the AP refused, Ramirez sent an e-mail saying:

“We are going to decline to comment on your story.”

Most banks wouldn’t say why they were keeping the details secret.

“We’re not sharing any other details. We’re just not at this time,” said Wendy Walker, a spokeswoman for Dallas-based Comerica, which received $2.25 billion from the government.

Lawmakers say they want to tighten restrictions on the remaining, yet-to-be-released $350 billion block of bailout money before more cash is handed out.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said the department is trying to step up its monitoring of bank spending.

Warren, the congressional watchdog, appointed by Democrats, said her oversight panel will try to force the banks to say where they’ve spent the money.

“It would take a lot of nerve not to give answers,” she said.

But Warren said she’s surprised she even has to ask.

“If the appropriate restrictions were put on the money to begin with, if the appropriate transparency was in place, then we wouldn’t be in a position where you’re trying to call every recipient and get the basic information that should already be in public documents,” she said.
——————————————————————————————

Armageddon – Israel Attack against Gaza

January 8, 2009

By Padmini Arhant

The on-going conflict between Israel and Palestine is not necessarily the news of the day for some mainstream media preoccupied with the discussion of mundane topics to fill the airtime.

Why should it be important?

Even, if the casualties from the bloodbath in Gaza happened to be children.

Ironically, sensitivity to atrocities is limited and varies among individuals.

Some react only when tragedy hits home, while others choose to remain silent and oblivious regardless of the horrific nature of events particularly the political figures with authority.

One has to wonder about the reason behind such conduct.

Does politics impact individuals to be complacent to violence?

Or, is it characteristic of individuals running for public office?

Often, moderate voices suppressed by the amplified endorsements of war producing death and destruction are the general trend in the Western democracies.

Fortunately, sanity and reasoning power still exists in the world as exhibited in the articles by various caring, compassionate and knowledgeable authors, who are aptly qualified to be the heads of the government or counsel on foreign relations in challenging the tradition.
————————————————————————————————–

Courtesy: http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_4192.shtml – Thank you.

Israel and the Palestinian Territories

By Howard Lisnoff

Online Journal Contributing Writer

Jan 5, 2009, 00:32 Email this article

As a Jew, I am shocked by Israel’s attack against the Gaza Strip! As of this writing over 430 Palestinians have died in the massive military operation, while four Israelis perished as a result of rocket fire by Hamas.

Well over 90 percent of Palestinians killed have been civilians, a number in keeping with the death toll of contemporary warfare and its lethal effects on innocent civilian populations. Among the over 430 Palestinians killed by Israeli bombs were five sisters in one bombing and two sisters in another.

It can be assumed that the unleashing of this massive military power was accomplished with a wink and a nod from the Bush administration that has sought to remake the Middle East in its own image.

The incoming Obama administration, on vacation, was conveniently absent and issuing platitudes about Hamas, as did the national media.

This is how Gideon Levy of the Israeli newspaper Haaretz related the attacks and counterattacks on Democracy Now (December 29): “Yes, I think that Israel had this legitimacy to protect its citizens in the southern part of Israel, and it had legitimacy to do something, as the Israelis all expect the government to do, but this doing something does not mean this brutal and violent operation.

The diplomatic efforts were just in the beginning, and I believe we could have got to a new truce without this bloodshed.”

Israel’s attack against a militarily weak Gaza Strip violated the Geneva Conventions, the Nuremberg Principles, the Charter of the United Nations, and the moral imperative against attacks on civilian populations, or what were called the rules of war in a saner time. Its actions prior to this past weekend’s attack violated international law that bans collective retribution against a civilian population (specifically article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention).

The hostilities of this past week ended the truce between Hamas and Israel that had been in effect for several months, and was marked by the firing of rockets into southern Israel by Hamas and the economic blockade of Israel against Gaza. At the onset of current hostilities, huge bunker-buster bombs supplied by the U.S. were used on the Gaza Strip, and the Islamic University was among the targets of the Israeli Defense Forces.

So, where is the indignation? The Talmud, the quintessential commentary on the Old Testament states unequivocally: “What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. This is the law: all the rest is commentary.” (Shabbat 31a).

“What is hateful to you” has been universally ignored when planning military actions against others by the sole superpower and its proxies across the globe.

War against civilian populations has been turned into the norm. The world cannot remake or take back the horrors such as the Holocaust and past conduct in military matters.

But, what can be done is adherence to the rule of international law in dealing with violent conflicts and the use of diplomacy that seeks to redress the horrors that have been foisted on civilian populations.

Religious fundamentalists support all of Israel’s incursions against Palestinians.

They believe thatArmageddon will begin in the Middle East and lead to their (fundamentalists’) collective salvation. They have ‘enjoyed” nearly 30 years of support from successive administrations in Washington, D.C.

Howard Lisnoff is a freelance writer.

——————————————————————————————————————–
Another massacre in the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict

By Rodrigue Tremblay

Online Journal Guest Writer

Jan 1, 2009, 01:18 Email this article

“The liberty we prize is not America’s gift to the world, it is God’s gift to humanity.” –George W. Bush, State of the Union speech, January 28, 2003 (N.B.: Bush’s primary speechwriter at the time was a theologian: Michael Gerson.)

“When it comes to the Israeli-Arab conflict, the terms of debate are so influenced by organized Jewish groups like AIPAC that to be critical of Israel is to deny oneself the ability to succeed in American politics.” –Henry Siegman, former head of the American Jewish Congress

“I don’t think there is such a thing as an independent Israel doing anything, because I think no matter what they do it’s our [American] money, it’s our weapons, and they’re not going to do it without us approving it and if they get into trouble we’re going to bail them out, so there is no separation between the two.” –Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX), Dec. 28, 2008

“The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.” –Albert Einstein (1879-1955) Physicist and Professor, Nobel Prize 1921

The year 2008 was not a very good year by any account, either financially or politically. Chaos and immorality have prevailed.

The Israeli attacks that began on Saturday December 27, 2008, are most reminiscent of what the government of Israel did to Lebanon during the summer of 2006. Both are examples of disproportionate retaliation to thoughtless provocations.

Indeed, the use by the government of Israel of sophisticated American-made F-16 jets, AH-64 Apache helicopters and devastating US-supplied GBU-39 smart bombs to target numerous dwellings in Gaza Strip cites — with civilians making up an overwhelming majority of the more than 300 victims — is an immoral act. Bombing a city can only create a humanitarian catastrophe and it should not be allowed in any circumstance.

With these planned-in-advance Christmas-New Year period attacks, when the world’s political attention is the weakest, Israel is punishing the entire population of the Gaza Strip (1.5 million people) for the irresponsible behavior of a small group of Hamas leaders.

But, no matter how this is phrased, nothing justifies collective punishment, an illegal doctrine used by the Israeli government time and again against the Palestinians while the world stands still.

We understand the rationale: Such attacks are designed to coerce the Hamas government, (which seized power in Gaza less than two years ago, replacing the Fatah government of the Palestinian Authority), to stop firing rockets in the direction of Israeli border cities and refrain from launching suicide attacks inside Israel.

Since Hamas doesn’t have one percent of the military capability that Israel has, its attacks on Israeli cities would appear to be most foolish and irresponsible.

Indeed, there is no doubt that bombing Israeli cities is a terrorist act. But sadly, in this action-reaction drama, one has to keep in mind that Hamas’ attacks on Israeli cities came after an Israeli military cross-border raid in Gaza in early November and after years of an illegal blockade of Gaza by Israel. That is the reason why both sides pretend they are attacking the other side in self-defense in this ongoing drama.

Nevertheless, even though the Hamas government seems to be run by defiant leaders who have launched rocket attacks against Israeli cities and targeted Israeli civilians, this does not excuse the Israeli government’s disproportionate reaction in indiscriminately bombing a heavily populated territory with warplanes and attack helicopters.

All this demonstrates how the world is lacking a moral compass and institutions capable of implementing rules of law and justice. Meanwhile, the law of the jungle continues to reign.

The neocon-controlled U.S. government of George W. Bush, contrary to most other governments, has refused to ask for an immediate stop to the Israeli attacks. It is therefore an active accomplice in the carnage and it cannot escape its responsibility and involvement.

As a matter of fact, anybody who remains silent while these barbarian acts are being committed becomes ipso facto an accomplice. This applies to most everyone at different degrees, the most responsible being those in authority.

Rodrigue Tremblay lives in Montreal and can be reached at rodrigue.tremblay@yahoo.com. He is the author of the book “‘The New American Empire.” His new book, “The Code for Global Ethics,” will be published in 2008. Visit his blog site at thenewamericanempire.com/blog.

———————————————————————–

The American puppet state

By Paul Craig Roberts

Online Journal Contributing Writer

Jan 6, 2009, 00:26 Email this article

President George W. Bush was in his stand-up comedian role when he declared that he wanted to be remembered as a fighter for human rights.

Seldom has a fighter for human rights amassed Bush’s death toll. According to Information Clearing House,

Bush’s invasion and occupation of Iraq has resulted in 1,297,997 dead Iraqis. Millions more have been wounded, and millions are displaced. Bush’s legions have taken out weddings, funerals, kids’ soccer games, hospitals, and mosques.

And that’s before we come to Afghanistan.

In Afghanistan “we don’t do body counts,“ declared a commander of Bush’s imperial legions.

But the thousands of dead civilians and schoolchildren have rallied Afghans to the Taliban, whose lightly armed fighters have retaken most of the country from the Unipower.

Bush’s January 2, 2009, radio address is one grand lie that would win the World’s Biggest Liar contest in Cumbria. Israel is turning Gaza into Auschwitz, and the idiot puppet in the White House is blaming the Gazans.

The president of the United States is a sick joke. He has falsified history.

Americans should be ashamed that their president is a puppet of a small, but ruthless, state in the Middle East that lives off American largess.

Nothing has changed with the election of Obama, whose first act was to put Israel in charge of the White House. For the first time in its history, the Americans have a dual citizen, an Israeli who served in the Israeli military, as chief of staff of the White House.

My friends in the Israeli peace movement are despondent that America, “the light of the world,” is overcome by evil and serves wickedness.

America has entered its decline. America has exported its manufacturing so that CEOs and Wall Street crooks could claim large bonuses while the working class declined.

The American financial industry is discredited and in chaos, having resorted to stealing one trillion dollars from American taxpayers, while putting the rest of the world into financial crisis, including the destruction of Iceland’s currency.

Most of the world now has reasons to hate and to distrust the United States.

American unemployment is high and rising despite the massive printing of money and budget deficits that are too large to be financed, except by the printing of more money.

The damage done to the American people in the first decade of the 21st century by their own government is comparable in some ways to the damage American hubris and self-righteousness have inflicted on the civilian populations of Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Gaza, and South Ossetia.

Instead of losing their homes to bombs, more than one million Americans have lost their homes to the subprime mortgage fraud. We are spied upon without warrants or cause. Our civil liberties are endangered.

Does anyone believe that George Bush, who assaulted his own country’s civil liberty, will be remembered as a “fighter for human rights”?

Paul Craig Roberts [email him] was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during President Reagan’s first term. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal. He has held numerous academic appointments, including the William E. Simon Chair, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University, and Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He was awarded the Legion of Honor by French President Francois Mitterrand. He is the author of Supply-Side Revolution : An Insider’s Account of Policymaking in Washington; Alienation and the Soviet Economy and Meltdown: Inside the Soviet Economy, and is the co-author with Lawrence M. Stratton of The Tyranny of Good Intentions : How Prosecutors and Bureaucrats Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name of Justice. Click here for Peter Brimelow’s Forbes Magazine interview with Roberts about the recent epidemic of prosecutorial misconduct.
———————————————————————————————————————————
Also transcripts from http://www.democracynow.org Thank you..

January 05, 2009

Israeli Professor Under Hamas Rocket Fire, Neve Gordon Condemns Israeli Invasion of Gaza

Earlier this morning, three Qassam rockets exploded in open areas in the western Negev in Israel. We go to the region to speak with Neve Gordon, chair of the Department of Politics and Government, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel, and the author of Israel’s Occupation. [includes rush transcript]
Guest:

Neve Gordon, chair of the Department of Politics and Government, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel, and the author of Israel’s Occupation. His latest article for The Guardian newspaper is titled ‘The Dire Cost of Domestic Rivalries’

AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to go to Beersheba right now in Israel to Neve Gordon, chair of the Department of Politics and Government at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Israel. He’s author of the book Israel’s Occupation.

We just heard a description of the rockets going as far as the Negev. Can you talk about the effects of what is happening right now in Israel proper and what your thoughts are on this movement that Phyllis Bennis is describing around boycott, around divestment?

NEVE GORDON: Well, we just had a rocket about an hour ago not far from our house. My two children have been sleeping in a bomb shelter for the past week. And yet, I think what Israel is doing is outrageous, as opposed to what Meagan said before. We have here a situation where actually Israel did leave the Gaza Strip three years ago, but it maintains sovereignty in any political science sense of the term. We’ve controlled all the borders. We’ve basically had an economic boycott on the Gaza Strip. And the people there have been living in what one should probably call as a prison. And they’ve been reacting with rockets, because probably that’s the only way that they can react.

And I think what Israel has been doing now has little to do with stopping the rockets, but actually it’s an election move inside Israel. It’s a move to build the reputation of the Israeli military after its humiliation in 2006. And what they’re actually doing is bombing from the air and massacring people, and we have to say no to this from here.

I’m not sure an international boycott on Israel is currently the way to go, because I think what we need is pressure from below, pressure from within Israel. As an Israeli citizen, I still believe in the importance of democracy and in the importance of the Israeli people also making a decision. This should be done through pressure. I agree with Phyllis on that. I think international pressure has to come. I think a divestment of the Occupied Territories and everything made in the Occupied Territories should be the first stage.

I think that Obama has a major role to play. He has been silent. And I think he can pressure the Israeli government into reaching agreement with the Palestinian people. I think today and for the past years,

Israel has been the obstacle to peace in the Middle East, because it’s not willing to compromise on the three major issues, which is a return to the 1967 borders, it’s the division of Jerusalem, and it’s a recognition of the right of return of the Palestinians with a stipulation that only a small amount can return back to Israel.

AMY GOODMAN: And do you see the Obama administration, as he’s now constituted it, going in this direction? Do you see any signs of this, Professor Gordon?

NEVE GORDON: I see—I hear silence. Now, I think I’ve written that Obama has an opportunity, because what it needs to bring peace in the Middle East is—or between Israel and the Palestinians is now known. We’ve had the Geneva Accords. We’ve had the Sari Nuseibeh and Ayalon. We’ve had the Arab Initiative. What needs to be done is clear. What is also clear is that regardless of the elections in Israel, the government that will be chosen will not go in the direction of peace.

Now, the third facet is that a majority of Israelis will probably vote for a two-state solution. My suggestion to Obama is to take—to write up an Obama plan, which I say I think is clear what needs to be done, and to go over the Israeli government and to bring it to a referendum to the Israeli people, and ask them, “Do you want a two-state solution?” We have a constellation, a configuration in the Israeli government, that a large minority will control any government and not allow it to make peace, regardless of what happens in the elections. And so, what we need is some kind of intervention from outside to go directly to the people. I think the people of Israel, if the American president will come and say, “Listen, you take it, and if not, you’ll be penalized, too. You take the two-state solution, and if not, you’ll be penalized.” And I think that is probably the way to go for Obama. I don’t know whether he’ll do it or not.

AMY GOODMAN: Neve Gordon, as you said, your kids are in a bomb shelter now. You’re in the Negev. We have seen many images of the rockets, the effect of the rockets hitting Sderot. But we’ve heard little voice from Israelis like you. And I’m wondering, is that an effect of the US media or the Israeli media? Or are those voices not that loud? In Sderot, for example, there is an alternative group that is called Alternative Voices, who actually, despite the rockets there, are calling for an end to the blockade and are calling for a ceasefire, calling for an end to the attack on Gaza. And this is over 1,800 people of Sderot.

NEVE GORDON: There is an alternative movement. This past Saturday—you mentioned protests around the world—I participated in a protest with my children in Tel Aviv. There were about between 5,000 and 10,000 people, which, proportional to the population, is not a small protest. The vast majority—let us not delude ourselves, because the vast majority of the people in Israel do support.

There are plenty of voices against. If you read Ha’aretz, the Israeli newspaper, people like Gideon Levy and Amira Hass, you’ll see that there are voices that are against.

The problem is that most Israelis say what Meagan said before.

They say, “Israel left the Gaza Strip three years ago, and Hamas is still shooting rockets at us.”

They forget the details. The details is that Israel maintains sovereignty. The details is that the Palestinians live in a cage.

The details is that they don’t get basic foodstuff, that they don’t get electricity, that they don’t get water, and so forth.

And when you forget those kinds of details, and all you say is, “Here, we left them. Why are they still shooting at us?” and that’s what the media here has been pumping them with, then you think this war is rational.

If you look at what’s been going on in the Gaza Strip in the past three years and you see what Israel has been doing to the Palestinians, you would think that the Palestinian resistance is rational.

And that’s what’s missing in the mainstream media here. And so, although there are voices of resistance in Israel and although there was a quite big protest on—actually, two big protests on Saturday, one in Sakhnin and one in Tel Aviv, it is still a really small minority.

AMY GOODMAN: Neve Gordon, I want to thank you for being with us, chair of the Department of Politics and Government, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, speaking to us from Beersheba. His book is called Israel’s Occupation. Phyllis Bennis, thank you for being with us, fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, D.C. When we come back, we go back to Gaza.”

——————————————————————————————————–

Summary:  Armageddon

It is evident from the concerned voices that the ongoing reign of terror by Israel particularly against innocent civilians in Gaza through invasion, occupation , blockade and now direct confrontation is a heinous crime against humanity.

As indicated by Israeli citizen, Professor Neve Gordon, ideal candidate to be the head of the state of Israel,

The murder and massacre is carried out for political reasons by the incumbent Israeli administration and the eternally belligerent counsel Mr. Benjamin Netanyahu with a commanding support by U.S. administration and Congress members.

On the other hand, the hideous Hamas masquerading as the benefactors of the Palestinian population in Gaza has in fact led the situation to deteriorate from survival to peril by forcing Palestinian children obliterated through suicide bombing and Israeli shelling as well as Israeli children sleeping in bomb shelters for days and nights.

As suggested earlier in the blog post titled Israeli Palestinian Conflict on December 30,2008,

It is a rude awakening for both Israeli and Palestinian civilians being the real victims and casualties of the ongoing conflict orchestrated by war mongering authorities and aggressors in the United States, Israel and provocative Hamas.

Hence, fundamental political transformation in Israel and Palestine is the only saving grace for the people of these two states.

————————————————————————–

Peace Proposal:

Israel and Hamas must ceasefire or deal with the wrath of natural phenomenon.

Now is the time for Israeli citizens to reflect upon the pros and cons of peace over war .

It is unequivocally important for Israeli government to make unconditional withdrawal of troops and settlements from all Palestinian territories backtracking to 1967 i.e. Gaza, West Bank and Golan Heights.

In addition, recognize the truth that peace rests in their hands by letting their Palestinian neighbors live with respect and dignity required for complete status as a sovereign nation, which means no blockades and check posts barring Palestinians from normal existence.

Israel cannot and must not hold any Palestinian area for settlement or occupation along the borders under the pretext of their national security.

With four weeks, left for the general election Israelis must elect a government represented by views like Professor Neve Gordon for long lasting peace and security of Israel and the entire Middle East region.

Palestinians, all those remaining after the barrage of Israeli missile attacks and bombings combined with Hamas’ tactics to use Gaza as launching pads for rocket attacks, must come in terms with reality…

That electing an ideological group like Hamas, committed towards their own agenda of terror has yielded carnage and chaos costing tens and thousands of lives and their future.

Therefore, Palestinians must make a concerted coalition of moderate and peace loving visionaries pledging support for the people and their future to represent the independent Palestinian state.

Palestinians must vow to themselves and their children not to seek the path of revenge paved with hatred, rage and terror against Israel.

Palestine and all other Arab nations must recognize Israel as a sovereign nation and acknowledge its democratic system.
———————————————————————————————-

Myth clarification:

The hegemony in the United States and Israel responsible for fueling this inhumane onslaught in Gaza with inevitable cyclical violence in Middle East and around the world is due for clarification on Armageddon.

Reference also applicable to Hamas and all other terrorists groups imposing death penalty as jihad on citizens through suicide bombings and rocket attacks.

Armageddon is not for the salvation of demagogs engaged in the exhaustion of weaponry and deadly arsenal through unjustified wars to replenish new stock.

Armageddon is for deliverance of the oppressed, persecuted , tortured and tormented population on earth.

Non-acceptance of the stated peace proposal will lead to dire consequences for perpetrators on both sides.

Finally, leadership lacking in courage to defend truth, justice and innocent lives is doomed for failure.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

December 30, 2008

Cause and Effect:

The half a century old battle between two neighbors has evolved into an eternal volcano erupting periodically with sparks flying across the Middle East and in all Islamic nations around the world.

Israeli-Palestinian crisis also created a new war in the twentieth century and that is terrorism.

Unfortunately, it is now the epidemic around the world.

Amazingly, in the wake of unresolved intolerance between the two neighbors,

Peace and Diplomacy never had a chance instead,

Both sides relegated to techniques like suicide bombing, aerial bombardment through rockets and missiles with children and women as the so-called collateral damage in this senseless violence.

Negotiations between both parties rejected due to incessant obsession to deprive one another of peaceful existence.

Ironically, neither of them is a winner confirming the fact –

Nobody ever wins a war. Every one is a loser.

As stated earlier, there is cause and effect behind every event.

All this bloodshed is because of the Israeli controlled and illegal occupation of Palestinian territories for nearly five decades and the bitter truth of the matter is,

In the twenty first century, the people of Palestine are still suffering and struggling, as they do not have a place they could call home.

Israel might claim that it endured numerous suicide bombings and constantly threatened by the neighbors instigated by Iran.

Therefore, it reserves the right to defend itself by any means.

While this is true, Israel must ask itself, who is responsible for the unnecessary unmitigated violence that has emboldened terrorists, proliferated widespread fundamentalism and relevantly encouraged nations like Iran to seek nuclear weapons for wiping Israel of the map?

Undeniably, radicalism exists around the world particularly in the Middle East region.

Again, reiterating the fact nothing happens without a cause.

—————————————————————–

Fact Check:

The criticism against Israel as the coveted ally of the United States is an absolute truth predominantly from the active lobbying and representation of Israeli interests in Washington.

Every Presidential candidate treads over a fine line not to jeopardize the Jewish votes and actively vows to protect Israeli welfare by religiously attending the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference during the Presidential campaign.

—————————————————————————————

AIPAC according to http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=235

Author – Br Nathanael Kapner

What’s Behind The AIPAC Curtain?

“CONTROL” IS WHAT THE AIPAC ZIONIST JEWS are all about. Is it then any surprise that the June 2-4 2008 AIPAC Policy Conference with 7,000 attendees including 300 from Congress was a media blackout ?

How could it be that with Condoleezza Rice, all 3 Presidential hopefuls, and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in attendance, the media coverage was nill? Well – since Jews stick together, (I grew up as a Jew), the Jewish owned mainstream media apparently agreed to “stonewall it.”

The business of wielding influence is what American Jewry is all about. And American Jewry prefers not to have this made public. This was brought home to the American Conservative Magazine journalist, Phillip Weiss. At his very first AIPAC Conference this year, Weiss was demanded by AIPAC officials while writing down his report to show his credentials.

Weiss, who made the observation regarding the Conference that AIPAC was serving their tribal interests , reported: “At the outset AIPAC performed a ‘roll call.’ The names of all the politicians in attendance were read off by three barkers in auctioneer fashion. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi won the day before her peers by shedding tears when mentioning the Israeli soldiers captured by Hezbollah.”

Indeed – all with political ambitions to remain in power came to the Conference to be accounted for before the influence-wielding Jews of AIPAC.

——————————————————————

AIPAC’S CONTROL OF AMERICA’S POLITICAL SYSTEM

In his Rense.com article, AIPAC Vs America , Rense political analyst Ted Lang observes that AIPAC controls American foreign policy in the Middle East. Lang also says that attempts to terminate the slaughter of innocent Iraqi citizens and to stop the AIPAC-ordered invasion of Iran will invoke the smear of ‘Anti-Semitism.’

And with the mass murders of Iraqi civilians and women with their children in Palestine, Ted Lang asks the most important question of our day:

“Are the world’s greatest atrocities now attributable to Jews?” Here .

If this question is not answered soon, groups like AIPAC will make our entire political system one great Zionist atrocity!

———————————————————————–

Analysis:

First and Foremost, Palestinians are not responsible for the horrific holocaust in the twentieth century.

Illegal occupation of the Palestinian territories by Israel since 1967 is the root cause of all evil that followed the trail of violence up until now.

Despite being the holocaust victims, it is fathomless that Israeli oppression of Palestinian population is upheld as the national defense and security act.

Israel always is in the forefront to rescue Jewish citizens in crisis around the world whether it is Ethiopian Jews or the five Jewish victims in the recent Mumbai terror attacks.

In fact, Israel volunteered to send its own commandos to rescue the five Jewish captives held hostage at Nariman Center in Mumbai, India.

Why can’t Israel expand its obligation towards humanity rather than being selective in the safeguard and rescue of Jewish people alone?

Isn’t this planet inhabited by humans of other faith and denomination as well?

Shouldn’t their life matter?

Why is Israel not forthcoming with its possession of Nuclear arsenal and Washington including United States media and news organizations relentlessly defend Israel of every offensive act against Palestinian population?

If only Washington played an unbiased role in the mediation of peace process between Israel and Palestinian people, by demanding Israel to an unconditional withdrawal of troops and settlements from Gaza, West Bank and Golan Heights and,

Granting Independence to Palestinians by allowing them to call these territories provinces of Palestine, there can be an eternal peace in the entire region including the security of Israel and United States.

Further, the Palestinian population need not rely on radical elements like Hamas and it would negate the reasons available to threaten Israel by Hezbollah and their mastermind Iran.

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

Recent Assault:

The escalated violence in the past three days from December 27, 2008 through up until now resulting in major civilian casualties on the Palestinian side estimated over 360 victims with children being the majority is a callous demonstration of Israeli might against weak and fragile Palestinian population.

Israel’s sophisticated airstrikes and missile attacks (Thanks to United States supply of weaponry and multibillion dollars aid) on civilian targets in retaliation to Hamas’s outdated rockets is a crime against humanity worthy of condemnation.

There is no justification whatsoever in the mass murder of civilians carried out in the pretext of national security.

It is not to glorify Hamas’ terrorist action proclaimed as “jihad” towards Israeli population either.

An eye for an eye will make the world go blind.

In the quagmire, the civilians on both sides are the targets and the action by the political factions representing the people of Gaza and Israel is belligerent and must be halted instantaneously.

————————————————————————–

Ceasefire:

Israel must refrain from further attacks for the safety and security of its own existence now and in the future.

Hamas on the other hand must realize that their reign of terror against Palestinians through exploitation and abuse of Power by encouraging young, vulnerable citizens as suicide bombers against Israeli civilians is not the kind of representation the Palestinians deserve at present and beyond.

In light of the current carnage and destruction brought upon particularly the innocent civilians in Gaza and those hurt in Israel it is evident that fundamental transformation is required in the political process on both sides.

———————————————————————–

Face the Truth:

Time’s up for conservative politics in Israel and Washington lobbying responsible for the plight of Palestinians through unlawful settlements and occupation of their homeland.

It is incumbent on Israel effective immediately to start preparing for the unconditional withdrawal from territories backtracking to 1967 i.e. Gaza, West Bank and Golan Heights to enable Palestinians their entitlement to a homeland.

Hamas in turn will wind up all of its insidious activities and ploy at the behest of Iran against Israeli population or else deal with regrettable consequences.

Similar destiny will be shared by all those elements whether it is Hezbollah or any Islamic anarchists, theocracy like Iran involved in systematic destabilization of peace and progress in the Middle East region particularly Palestine, Israel and Iraq.

————————————————————————————————-

Message Alert:

Information is being delivered according to the earlier warning of an imminent Armageddon through divine intervention to end sufferings of all human beings on this planet and restore peace, progress and prosperity for all.

Solutions on confrontations between nuclear neighbors India and Pakistan, Oppression of Tibet by emerging economic power China, Persecution of Burmese population by the Burmese Junta and ultimatum to Military regimes in Africa and the Americas with a promise to liberate the people of all these regions is in order.

Failure to adhere to suggested strategies and proposals will lead to unrequested and unprecedented disaster.
————————————————————————————————————-
Special Request:

The readers of the blog posts and visitors to the website www.padminiarhant.com are advised that any delay in response to national and international events are not to be treated as lack of interest or concern by the entity.

While being mindful of the adverse impact such as loss of lives from conflicts like war, every article is presented after meticulous research and fact check for authenticity of the information.

Therefore, your understanding and patience is appreciated at all times.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

Voice of Democracy

December 10, 2008

One Big Happy Family!

Only if family politics could be resolved like Washington Politics, then,

It would be Utopia and,

Thanks giving, Christmas and every other religious celebration will eternally be,

This is the Season to be jolly! SHA LA LA LA LA~ LA LA LA LA

Moreover,

No child will be in a foster home and,

There will be no such thing as a single parent regardless of whether one is,

Straight or gay, well that is another completely different saga — What is good for me is not good for you!

It is all in the context of the recent developments following election that deserve attention and action.

The presidential election is over and what an entertainment that was?

Now the nominations for key cabinet positions are in place.

What are interesting about the entire episode of the election are,

The country and the world were primed and prepared for the process of “Change?”

Change we can all believe in!

Somewhat similar to the release or performance of an exciting movie, opera, musical, favorite rock, jazz, classical concert or a comedy show whatever one might be interested in.

We all even had a preview so to speak.

The campaign slogan was…

Change the way Washington functions i.e. eliminate cronyism yielding to corruption and miserable failure in all fronts witnessed and experienced by the nation and the entire world in the past eight years.

If you have missed the last eight years because you have been away or not awake then please refer to the blogpost titled The Republic’s Verdict – Crime against humanity on this website.

If memory serves, the political slogan against the Republican opponents,

Senator John McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin was – If elected they will be more of the same meaning Bush/Cheney Empire.

Soon after Halloween, What did democracy do on November 4, 2008?

They were terrified at the mere thought of the nation ruled by a Vampire again,

Oops, that was supposed to be Bush/Cheney Empire.

So, the Red States and the Blue states of the great United States came together and unanimously rejected the possible nightmare and instead made the right choice by electing the,

“Change we can all believe in” at least on that particular day.

The excited audience i.e. the people of the United States who are also the electorate was all ready to view the gala opening of the new administration’s panel in a manner similar to much anticipated…

The Academy Award/Oscar ceremony and waited for the announcement of the nominees names.

Then I received the following email stating,

The nominees are…

From: "David Plouffe, BarackObama.com"

To: Padmini Arhant

Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2008 4:53:21 AM

Subject: National security announcement from Barack

Padmini —

Yesterday, President-elect Barack Obama and Vice President-elect Joe Biden announced key members of their national security team.

Barack and Joe have asked some of the country’s most experienced leaders on national security, foreign policy, law enforcement, and military matters to come together to renew America’s security and standing in the world.

Watch the video of Barack’s announcement and learn about the national security team.

Hillary Clinton, U.S. Senator from New York and former First Lady, will serve as Secretary of State.

Secretary Robert Gates, the current Secretary of Defense, will continue to serve in that role.

Eric Holder, former Deputy Attorney General and a former United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, will serve as Attorney General.

Janet Napolitano, Governor and former U.S. Attorney for Arizona, will serve as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.

Dr. Susan E. Rice, a Senior Foreign Policy Advisor to the Obama for America campaign, a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, and former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, will serve as Ambassador to the United Nations.

General Jim Jones, USMC (Ret), former Allied Commander, Europe, and Commander of the United States European Command, will serve as National Security Advisor.

Barack’s national security team has been assembled to represent all elements of American power, diplomacy, and leadership that will be vital in overcoming the challenges of the 21st century.

Watch the video of today’s press conference:

http://my.barackobama.com/natsecteam

These appointees will be tasked with strengthening current alliances and forging new ones, protecting our citizens at home, defending against our enemies, and promoting our values and moral leadership throughout the world.

While the challenges they are sure to face will be great, the opportunities to unify our country and our world will be even greater.

With your support, we’ll meet those challenges and opportunities with the hope and optimism that has brought us to this moment of change.

Thank you,

David

David Plouffe
Campaign Manager
Obama for America

———————————————————–

Furthermore, the following communication from the Vice President-elect Joe Biden,

On the selection of the particular nominee for the most sensitive cabinet position,

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton as Secretary of State to represent United States in damage control of the image and reputation that she was equally responsible.

From: Joe Biden

To: Padmini Arhant

Sent: Friday, December 5, 2008 5:39:57 AM

Subject: Our commitment to a friend

Padmini —

President-elect Obama and I have been assembling our team, and we plan to hit the ground running next month.

We want to be ready to go, and that’s why I’m asking you to help us honor an outstanding commitment we made during the election.

Our campaign pledged to help Senator Hillary Clinton — one of the vital members of our team and our future Secretary of State — retire her campaign debt. That’s the money her campaign owes to the vendors across the country that make our political process possible.

Barack and I had the deepest respect for Hillary as an opponent on the campaign trail. Her undeniable intellect, talent, and passion strengthened Barack as a candidate and tested our movement for change.

We welcome Hillary as a partner in our administration, and I hope you will show your support by helping Barack fulfill our campaign promise.

Will you make a contribution of $100 or more now to retire Hillary’s campaign debt?

I saw your generosity and commitment to this team throughout the election, and I know we can do it.

In the general election, Hillary was one of our strongest advocates. She traveled the country and did more than 70 events, raising money and bringing new supporters into our campaign.

As Secretary of State, she will be indispensable in furthering Barack’s agenda for change.

Let’s welcome Hillary to the team and thank her for her efforts in support of our campaign by helping to retire her debt to the hard-working individuals and small businesses that were a part of the election:

https://donate.barackobama.com/hillary

Your support and generosity got us this far, and I know I can count on it now.

Thank you,

Joe

——————————————————

My response to the Vice President-elect Joe Biden:

From: Padmini Arhant

To: info@barackobama.com

Subject: Re: Our commitment to a friend

Hon. Vice President-elect Joe Biden,

Thank you for the update.

Please accept my apologies for the delayed response.

As always, I will present my thoughts and views in this matter through my blogpost on the website www.padminiarhant.com.

Meanwhile, I wish you and the President-elect Barack Obama success in all the tasks ahead of the new administration.

Best Regards

Padmini Arhant
———————————————————————————

Reaction: Shock and Awe!

There is more excitement in terms of the nominees recruiting their own staff members.

Again, not long ago Professor Samantha Power, the foreign policy advisor to Obama campaign resigned amidst tough Primary battle in March 2008, after the following comment:

“Hillary Clinton is a monster who will stoop to anything to get what she wants.”

It was certainly not a Freudian slip.

Now, none other than Senator Hillary Clinton rehires Professor Power in the transition team.

It is an amazing unification of souls in utter reverence for one another despite past turbulence in the love-hate relationship.

Is it believable? One’s guess is as good as others are.

————————————————————————————-

Comparative Review:

The national security team geared up for the challenges created by the incumbent administration – Bush/Cheney Empire, resonates the dictum of the administrators they are in cohort with.

For instance,

War over Peace – Having conscientiously voted for Iraq war as the member of the Senate Committee for Armed Services and,

Thereby approving the death penalty of brave young men and women in our armed forces and millions of innocent civilians in Iraq including members of the International peacekeeping force.

Blatant threats over diplomacy i.e. Obliterate Iran with Nuclear Weapons.

Default on timeline for troop withdrawal from Iraq on the pretext of national security when,

In fact, the reason is to maintain and mobilize the lucrative arms race and now even the nuclear weapons for the Defense industry.

Ironically, the entire team is from the twentieth century establishment that pursues the personal goal…

Claiming Power to dominate the world with belligerent policy and malevolent philosophy that has exacerbated terror and horror in the present world environment.

The portfolio assigned to the individuals in the national security team is oxymoron to their personal profile and voting record.

What is next?

Gov. Sarah Palin as the environment czar?

The appointments suggest the strategy – “I dare you to defy me” appears to be prevalent in the reverse manner.

Who is in control of who is the impending issue of concern for democracy?

As if, this nation is devoid of eligible candidates for all of the above positions with sincere commitment towards the nation and democracy rather than narcissistic aspirations.

Politics is never without bargains as witnessed in the latest Illinois Gov.Rod Blagojevich scandal.

Negotiations like “What is in it for me?” as opposed to how can I make a difference in the world by doing what is good for the country and the entire world.

That would be music to ears.

Something the great former President John F. Kennedy taught his fellow compatriots and citizens of the world.

“Ask not what the country can do for you; Ask what you can do for the country.”

When a new beginning is promised and then broken upon securing power or political capital, to symbolize “Politics as usual”, then the frustration, anger and disappointment is justified among the electorate delivering their power to the elected officials.

——————————————————————–

Evidence:

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081208/pl_politico/16292 -Thank you.

Carol E. Lee, Nia-Malika Henderson Carol E. Lee, Nia-malika Henderson – Mon Dec 8, 4:22 am ET

Liberals voice concerns about Obama

Liberals are growing increasingly nervous – and some just flat-out angry – that President-elect Barack Obama  seems to be stiffing them on Cabinet jobs and policy choices.

Obama has reversed pledges to immediately repeal tax cuts for the wealthy and take on Big Oil.

He’s hedged his call for a quick drawdown in Iraq. And he’s stocking his White House with anything but stalwarts of the left.

Now some are shedding a reluctance to puncture the liberal euphoria at being rid of President George W. Bush to say, in effect, that the new boss looks like the old boss.

“He has confirmed what our suspicions were by surrounding himself with a centrist to right cabinet. But we do hope that before it’s all over we can get at least one authentic progressive appointment,” said Tim Carpenter, national director of the Progressive Democrats of America.

OpenLeft blogger Chris Bowers went so far as to issue this plaintive plea: “Isn’t there ever a point when we can get an actual Democratic administration?”

Even supporters make clear they’re on the lookout for backsliding. “There’s a concern that he keep his basic promises and people are going to watch him,” said Roger Hickey, a co-founder of Campaign for America’s Future.

Obama insists he hasn’t abandoned the goals that made him feel to some like a liberal savior. But the left’s bill of particulars against Obama is long, and growing.

Obama drew rousing applause at campaign events when he vowed to tax the windfall profits of oil companies. As president-elect, Obama says he won’t enact the tax.

Obama’s pledge to repeal the Bush tax cuts and redistribute that money to the middle class made him a hero among Democrats who said the cuts favored the wealthy.

But now he’s struck a more cautious stance on rolling back tax cuts for people making over $250,000 a year, signaling he’ll merely let them expire as scheduled at the end of 2010.

Obama’s post-election rhetoric on Iraq and choices for national security team have some liberal Democrats even more perplexed.

As a candidate, Obama defined and separated himself from his challengers by highlighting his opposition to the war in Iraq from the start. He promised to begin to end the war on his first day in office.

Now Obama’s says that on his first day in office he will begin to “design a plan for a responsible drawdown,” as he told NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday.

Obama has also filled his national security positions with supporters of the Iraq war: Sen. Hillary Clinton, who voted to authorize force in Iraq, as his secretary of state; and President George W. Bush’s defense secretary, Robert Gates, continuing in the same role.

The central premise of the left’s criticism is direct – don’t bite the hand that feeds, Mr. President-elect.

The Internet that helped him so much during the election is lighting up with irritation and critiques.

“There don’t seem to be any liberals in Obama’s cabinet,” writes John Aravosis, the editor of Americablog.com.

“What does all of this mean for Obama’s policies, and just as important, Obama Supreme Court announcements?”

“Actually, it reminds me a bit of the campaign, at least the beginning and the middle, when the Obama campaign didn’t seem particularly interested in reaching out to progressives,” Aravosis continues.

“Once they realized that in order to win they needed to marshal everyone on their side, the reaching out began. I hope we’re not seeing a similar ‘we can do it alone’ approach in the transition team.”

This isn’t the first liberal letdown over Obama, who promptly angered the left after winning the Democratic primary by announcing he backed a compromise that would allow warrantless wiretapping on U.S. soil to continue.

Now it’s Obama’s Cabinet moves that are drawing the most fire. It’s not just that he’s picked Clinton and Gates.

It’s that liberal Democrats say they’re hard-pressed to find one of their own on Obama’s team so far – particularly on the economic side, where people like Tim Geithner and Lawrence Summers are hardly viewed as pro-labor.

“At his announcement of an economic team there was no secretary of labor.

If you don’t think the labor secretary is on the same level as treasury secretary, that gives me pause,” said Jonathan Tasini, who runs the website workinglife.org.

“The president-elect wouldn’t be president-elect without labor."

During the campaign Obama gained labor support by saying he favored legislation that would make it easier for unions to form inside companies.

The “card check” bill would get rid of a secret-ballot method of voting to form a union and replace it with a system that would require companies to recognize unions simply if a majority of workers signed cards saying they want one.

Obama still supports that legislation, aides say – but union leaders are worried that he no longer talks it up much as president-elect.

“It’s complicated,” said Tasini, who challenged Clinton for Senate in 2006. “On the one hand, the guy hasn’t even taken office yet so it’s a little hasty to be criticizing him.

On the other hand, there is legitimate cause for concern. I think people are still waiting but there is some edginess about this.”

That’s a view that seems to have kept some progressive leaders holding their fire.

There are signs of a struggle within the left wing of the Democratic Party about whether it’s just too soon to criticize Obama — and if there’s really anything to complain about just yet.

Case in point: One of the Campaign for America’s Future blogs commented on Obama’s decision not to tax oil companies’ windfall profits saying,

“Between this move and the move to wait to repeal the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, it seems like the Obama team is buying into the right-wing frame that raising any taxes – even those on the richest citizens and wealthiest corporations – is bad for the economy.”

Yet Campaign for America’s Future will be join about 150 progressive organizations, economists and labor groups to release a statement Tuesday in support of a large economic stimulus package like the one Obama has proposed, said Hickey, a co-founder of the group.
“I’ve heard the most grousing about the windfall profits tax, but on the other hand, Obama has committed himself to a stimulus package that makes a down payment on energy efficiency and green jobs,” Hickey said.

“The old argument was, here’s how we afford to make these investments – we tax the oil companies’ windfall profits. … The new argument is, in a bad economy that could get worse, we don’t.”

Obama is asking for patience – saying he’s only shifting his stance on some issues because circumstances are shifting.

Aides say he backed off the windfall profits tax because oil prices have dropped below $80 a barrel. Obama also defended hedging on the Bush tax cuts.

“My economic team right now is examining, do we repeal that through legislation?

Do we let it lapse so that, when the Bush tax cuts expire, they’re not renewed when it comes to wealthiest Americans?” Obama said on “Meet the Press.” “We don’t yet know what the best approach is going to be.”

On Iraq, he says he’s just trying to make sure any U.S. pullout doesn’t ignite “any resurgence of terrorism in Iraq that could threaten our interests.”

Obama has told his supporters to look beyond his appointments, that the change he promised will come from him and that when his administration comes together they will be happy.

“I think that when you ultimately look at what this advisory board looks like, you’ll say this is a cross-section of opinion that in some ways reinforces conventional wisdom, in some ways breaks with orthodoxy in all sorts of way,”

Obama recently said in response to questions about his appointments during a news conference on the economy.

The leaders of some liberal groups are willing to wait and see.

“He hasn’t had a first day in office,” said John Isaacs, the executive director for Council for Livable World. “To me it’s not as important as who’s there, than what kind of policies they carry out.”

“These aren’t out-and-out liberals on the national security team, but they may be successful implementers of what the Obama national security policy is,” Isaacs added.

“We want to see what policies are carried forward, as opposed to appointments.”

Juan Cole, who runs a prominent anti-war blog called Informed Comment, said he worries Obama will get bad advice from Clinton on the Middle East, calling her too pro-Israel and “belligerent” toward Iran.

“But overall, my estimation is that he has chosen competence over ideology, and I’m willing to cut him some slack,” Cole said.

Other voices of the left don’t like what they’re seeing so far and aren’t waiting for more before they speak up.

New York Times columnist Frank Rich warned that Obama’s economic team of Summers and Geithner reminded him of John F. Kennedy’s “best and the brightest” team, who blundered in Vietnam despite their blue-chip pedigrees.

David Corn, Washington bureau chief of the liberal magazine Mother Jones, wrote in Sunday’s Washington Post that he is “not yet reaching for a pitchfork.”

But the headline of his op-ed sums up his point about Obama’s Cabinet appointments so far: “This Wasn’t Quite the Change We Envisioned.”

————————————————————–

Significance of the Magna Carta to U.S. Constitution:

Let us reflect on the prominent Magna Carta as it has great relevance to the events since the dawn of the twenty first century i.e. Year 2000 – 2008 /up until now.

Courtesy: Wikipedia.org – Thank you.

Magna Carta (Latin for Great Charter, literally "Great Paper"), also called Magna Carta Libertatum (Great Charter of Freedoms), is an English legal charter, originally issued in the year 1215. It was written in Latin.

Magna Carta required King John of England to proclaim certain rights (mainly of his barons), respect certain legal procedures, and accept that his will could be bound by the law.

It explicitly protected certain rights of the King’s subjects, whether free or fettered — most notably the writ of habeas corpus, allowing appeal against unlawful imprisonment.

Magna Carta was arguably the most significant early influence on the extensive historical process that led to the rule of constitutional law today in the English speaking world.

Magna Carta influenced the development of the common law and many constitutional documents, including the United States Constitution.

Magna Carta was the first document forced onto an English King by a group of his subjects (the barons) in an attempt to limit his powers by law and protect their privileges.

It was preceded by the 1100 Charter of Liberties in which King Henry I voluntarily stated what his own powers were under the law.

In practice, Magna Carta mostly did not limit the power of the King in the Middle Ages;[citation needed] by the time of the English Civil War,

However, it had become an important symbol for those who wished to show that the King was bound by the law.

—————————————————————-

BACKGROUND

After the Norman conquest of England in 1066 and advances in the 12th century, the English King had by 1199 become a powerful and influential monarch in Europe.

But after King John of England was crowned in the early 13th century, a series of failures at home and abroad, combined with perceived abuses of the king’s power, led the English barons to revolt and attempt to restrain what the king could legally do.

———————————————–

SYMBOL AND PRACTICE

Magna Carta is often a symbol for the first time the citizens of England were granted rights against an absolute king.

————————————————————

AMERICA

The document is also honored in America, where it is an antecedent of the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights.

The United States has contributed the Runnymede Memorial and Lincoln Cathedral offers a Magna Carta Week.[11]

————————————————————————-

Food for Thoughts:

As stated earlier, the nation and the world is tired and bogged down from the devious modus operandi of the demagogues for centuries now more relevantly in the past eight years.

These stalwarts launch their figureheads continually and successfully to oppress and suppress the possibility of peace, progress and prosperity for all to protect self-interest and those selective few in agreement with their accord.

Thus, making a mockery of the highest office on land i.e. The Presidency of the United States and democracy defined as the government of the people, by the people and for the people.

So, in a concerted effort the nation decided to move forward by electing a leader of the nation,

As the world’s superpower to bring about the real Change…

A complete transformation of anything and everything resembling the current administration responsible for chaos and catastrophe at home and abroad.

In return, the electorate is handed a dish whipped with the same ingredients at an alarming proportion and guaranteed different results upon tasting.

So, naturally it is delectable to the taste buds of those immune to the familiar taste otherwise the status quo.

Another important factor to focus upon is;

It is apparent from the Vice President-elect Joe Biden’s email that Senator Hillary Clinton successfully negotiated with the Obama-Biden administration to make a commitment with,

A. A key cabinet position such as Secretary of State to gain on-the job training and experience in foreign policy, the primary reason for her to lose the democratic nomination.

Thereby, strengthening her attempts in 2012.

B. Assistance in eliminating her political campaign debt, despite the combined income of the Clintons’ reported as $109 million in their tax return.

——————————————————————

Source: Chicago Sun-Times – Thank you.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/04/clinton_releases_income_tax_re.html

“Clinton releases income tax returns for 2000-2006 show $109 million gross income.

By Lynn Sweet on April 4, 2008 5:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (18)

Sen. HIllary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) released tax returns for the years 2000-2006 on Friday afternoon. LINK

Disclosure of these returns has been an issue of Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).

The Clintons had previously released returns for the years President Clinton was in public life, in the White House and Washington.

But the big interest is in the years since he left and reaped millions of dollars once back in private life.”

—————————————————————————————–

Commitments from the Obama-Biden administration in return for campaigning rendered as a favor rather than a duty and obligation to,

The political party the Senator represents in the United States Senate and,

The nation all elected officials pledge to serve at all times.

———————————————————————

The article by Ellen Goodman, a columnist for The Boston Globe in the Mercury News, Friday, December 5, 2008 – Thank you.

Excerpt from the article "In Clinton’s newest role, women’s rights to go global"

Huge Challenges:

“Still the new secretary of state will be operating in a world in which three-fifths, of the world’s poorest people are women and girls.

Seventy percent of the children not in school are girls.

Half a million women die every year in childbirth.

One in three women will suffer from the pandemic of violence – rape, honor killings, genital mutilation.

But only 16 percent of legislators are women, and less than 3 percent of the people at the table when peace treaties are signed are female.”
——————————————————————————————————–
Analysis:

The highlighted tragedies are precisely the chilling facts and results of the on-going Iraq and Afghanistan war as well as in most civil wars in Africa.

According to human rights organizations and United nations refugee commission, women and children are the most vulnerable victims besides being major casualties during and aftermath of any war around the world.

What did Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton do as a legislator and a member of the Senate Committee for Arme d Services with privileges and complete access to information to prevent a war?

Senator Hillary Clinton did exactly the opposite.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s record as the former First Lady, Senator and the Presidential candidate in 2008 reverberates rhetoric in complete coherence with the Bush administration for the urgency to declare war over peace and diplomacy at every possible opportunity.

Why did Senator Hillary Clinton willfully squander the privilege to be part of history making as one of the few females at the table to sign the peace treaty rather than amplifying the war message of the Bush administration?

Because Old habits die hard.

—————————————————————————————-

Confirmation of Hillary Clinton on Military Policy

Stephen Zunes | December 12, 2007

EDITOR: EMILY SCHWARTZ GRECO, Foreign Policy In Focus

w ww.fpif.org

While much attention has been given to Senator Hillary Clinton’s support for the U.S. invasion of Iraq,

Her foreign policy record regarding other international conflicts and her apparent eagerness to accept the use of force appears to indicate that her fateful vote authorizing the invasion and her subsequent support for the occupation and counter-insurgency war was no aberration.

Indeed, there’s every indication that, as president, her foreign policy agenda would closely parallel that of the Bush administration.

Despite efforts by some conservative Republicans to portray her as being on the left wing of the Democratic Party, in reality her foreign policy positions bear a far closer resemblance to those of Ronald Reagan than they do of George McGovern.

For example, rather than challenge President George W. Bush’s dramatic increases in military spending,

Senator Clinton argues that they are not enough and the United States needs to spend even more in subsequent years.

At the end of the Cold War, many Democrats were claiming that the American public would be able to benefit from a “peace dividend” resulting from dramatically-reduced military spending following the demise of the Soviet Union.

Clinton, however, has called for dramatic increases in the military budget, even though the United States, despite being surrounded by two oceans and weak friendly neighbors, already spends as much on its military as all the rest of the world combined.

——————————————————————-

Conclusion:

After reviewing the above facts, should it be a surprise that,

The Republican representatives from top to bottom of the hierarchy were jubilant at the announcement of the National Security team of the new administration?

Whatever happened to the selection process on meritocracy?

What about the commitment to the people representing democracy?

Why should the commitment to establishment supersede the one with the people?

The Campaign pledge was to eliminate cronyism, nepotism, symbolism and pave way for new kind of politics in Washington representing the true American democracy and not dynasty.

With all due respect, unfortunately the present team of appointees all around have bargained the positions in exchange for rallying during election.

Even though the pledge of support was visible only after confirmation of the Presidential candidate as the absolute winner in November 2008.

Unlike, millions of ordinary citizens across the nation who selflessly contributed their time and money to enable democracy…

"Hope and Change", prevail on November 4, 2008.

In the land of Republic, the power lies with the people.

History is testimony to the fact that whenever the will of the people is denied and the trust violated,

It is the sign of democracy under siege.

Hope and Change was certainly the desire of all those exhausted with,

“The Politics as usual.”

Hope becomes reality

and

Change is inevitable only,

When one fulfills promises and commitments to the people of the Republic and not the power and establishment standing in way of peace, progress and prosperity for all.

After all, in a democracy one has to return to the electoral process to retain power and

Wisdom confirms the element of truth – Trust and Goodwill are not negotiable assets.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

« Previous PageNext Page »