U.K. Elections and the Political Dilemma

May 10, 2010

By Padmini Arhant

The last week General Election results in the United Kingdom generated political confusion.

With the conservatives aka the Tory Right led by the leader, David Cameron as the front runner and the incumbent Labor Prime Minister Gordon Brown trailing behind, the liberal democrats’ leader Nick Clegg is the ‘kingmaker,’ in the hung Parliament.

In the absence of a clear majority, the political parties are attempting unconventional alliances to form a government raising anxiety among the observers at the domestic and international front.

According to the reports, the Tory Right members are advising their leader David Cameron to function as the minority government daring the opposition majority in the Parliamentary affairs.

Unfortunately, it’s an ill advice for the majority could render the minority redundant in the legislative voting process and turn the tide against them in the next possible election.

The conservative leader, David Cameron’s approach to seek liberal democrats coordination is better in resolving the political dilemma.

Moreover, in politics, the public trust and patience is like a flickering candle light particularly in the backdrop of political scandals, high unemployment, and housing market crisis.

Political stability is crucial for economic recovery, national security and the future.

The conservative party and the liberal democrats’ merger characterized as the ‘odd couple,’ are trying to reach a workable agreement on major issues.

Recent discussions held between the two political factions appear promising.

However, the electorate would prefer the talks delivered in actions.

Since the liberal democrats are urging on the electoral reform to increase the marginal winners leverage in the Parliament and during political negotiations,

The conservatives reluctance to accommodate the liberal democrats’ valid proposal could diminish the prospects for a viable coalition.

If the liberal democrats step away from the much-anticipated electoral reform,

It might jeopardize the momentum considering their victory was way below the expectations despite the leader, Nick Clegg’s popularity in the political debate.

Further, the supporters’ confidence in the leadership could potentially dwindle for not remaining firm in the political bargain.

Similarly, the conservatives artful maneuvering on this issue might backfire projecting them to be domineering and unreliable even while being dependent upon the liberal democrats for majority rule or in the legislation.

All of this would exacerbate the electorates anti-government sentiments producing more of the same electoral outcome in the forthcoming elections.

Therefore, the ideal political settlement would be to minimize the risks of losing the liberal democrats cooperation on issues relevant to their base.

Sharing a macro vision on the economy, deficit reduction, bank regulations, foreign policy, social issues and environment are quintessential to reaffirm the solidarity in the unique political mandate.

The U.K. economic situation could greatly improve with the immediate financial sector regulations and demonstrating fiscal responsibility through deficit reduction programs.

Auditing defense spending and eliminating wasteful expenditures is the beginning of the end to national deficit.

Reallocating and reconciling Social services funding to identify excess and shortfall is prudent.

Job market review and curbing housing market decline are the immediate priorities in the global recession.

Providing tax incentives to the corporations, small business and Retail industry for hiring and retaining jobs would stimulate the economy via consumer spending.

The tax breaks on applicable sources to corporations and other industries for job creation would generate tax revenue from the employees personal income tax, business payroll tax and consumer sales tax.

Housing market could be revived by containing foreclosures and enforcing rules through bank regulations to reassess the loan status on individual basis,

Apart from resuming credit facilities to revive qualified mortgage financing and business borrowing.

Upon adopting appropriate measures, the United Kingdom could emerge from the political and economic strife.

Congratulations! To the winners of the various political parties and,

Good Luck! To the leaders on the political decision to serve the people in the United Kingdom.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

Written by Padmini Arhant · Filed Under International Politics | Leave a Comment 

Congressional Conservatives’ Legislation Blockade

February 10, 2010

By Padmini Arhant

In the preceding article “Progressive Policy for National Progress and Prosperity,” I emphasized on the need to intercept the Congress gridlock by electing the ‘Progressives,’ in the Democratic Party.

Following news articles reaffirm such recommendation.

——————————————————————————————–
1. Congress trying to have it both ways on spending

Lawmakers lament rising deficits but fight for pet projects

By Carl Hulse – New York Times – February 7, 2010 – Thank you.

Washington – While Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., said he was all for slowing federal spending , he has no appetite for the substantial cuts in farm programs proposed in President Barack Obama’s new budget.

Rep. Todd Akin, R-Mo, issued a news release simultaneously lamenting the deficit spending outlined in the new budget and protesting cuts in Pentagon projects important to his state.

And Sen. Jeff Sessions, R- Ala., a fiscal conservative and a senior Republican on the Budget Committee, vowed to resist reductions in space program spending that would flow back home.

The positions of these Republicans – and similar stances by dozens of other lawmakers of both parties – are a telling illustration of why it is so hard to control federal spending.

Every federal program has a constituency, and even lawmakers who profess to be alarmed by rising deficits will go to the mat to preserve money that provides jobs and benefits to their constituents.

“I am not a hypocrite,” Sessions said in reconciling his fiscally conservative credentials with his outrage over the administration’s proposal to essentially end the human space flight program and allow private enterprise to take on some of the load – an approach that Republicans typically favor.

Sessions said money taken from NASA would not be saved but would instead be directed to other Obama administration priorities that he did not support.

Others said that the annual tableau in which members of Congress criticize the spread of red ink even as they reassure voters back home of protection for popular subsidies and Pentagon projects exposed the high degree of cynicism and lack of conviction that colors the fight over congressional spending.

“It shows that in Washington, you can be firm on your opinions; it is your principles you can be flexible on,” said Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff.

The Republican juggling act on spending comes after a legislative proposal for an independent commission to study ways to cut the deficit stalled in the Senate, partly because some Republicans who had originally backed the idea balked.

“There are not enough statesmen who will stand up and say, “Cut it even when it is in my district,” said Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., who has crusaded against spending by both parties on pet projects known as earmarks.

It is not only Republicans who are trying to have it both ways.

Conservative and moderate Democrats who have pushed against deficit spending also quickly protested the cuts in NASA, military and farm spending.

————————————————————————————————–
2. GOP hammers Obama over jobs

Republicans oppose giving leftover bailout money to small banks

By Phillip Elliott – Associated Press, February 7, 2010 – Thank you.

Republicans sparred with President Barack Obama in their Saturday media addresses over proposals to create jobs, further evidence of the difficulty of bipartisan solutions to the nation’s pressing problems.

Obama pushed Congress to use $30 billion that had been set aside to bail out Wall Street to start a new program that provides loans to small businesses, which the White House calls the engine for job growth.

Republicans, meanwhile, taunted Obama with a familiar refrain:

Where are the jobs the president promised in exchange for the billions of dollars already spent?

The barb came a day after the government reported an unexpected decline in the unemployment rate, from 10 percent to 9.7 percent.

It was the first drop in seven months but offered little consolation for the 8.4 million jobs that have vanished since the recessions began.

“Even though our economy is growing again, these are still tough times for America,” Obama said.

“Too many businesses are still shuttered. Too many families can’t make ends meet.

And while yesterday, we learned that the unemployment rate has dropped below 10 percent for the first time since summer, it is still unacceptably high – and too many Americans still can’t find work.”

To help the recovery, Obama asked Congress to use leftover money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, to provide to small banks so they can make more loans to small businesses.

Republicans have criticized the move, arguing any money left over from the bailout should be used to reduce the budget deficit.

In the weekly GOP address, Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas chided Obama for proposing a 2011 budget last week that would increase spending, taxes and the national debt.

“Americans are still asking, ‘Where are the jobs?’ but all they are getting from Washington is more spending, more taxes, more debt and more bailouts,” Hensarling said.

The Republicans attack came even as key Democrats and Republicans in the Senate are working on a bipartisan jobs bill.

The senators hope to unveil legislation as early as Monday.”

————————————————————————————————–

3. Obama seeks boost in business lending

Proposals draw fire from Democratic leader in House

By Christine Simmons and Marcy Gordon – Associated Press – February 6, 2010

Seeking to create more jobs, President Barack Obama on Friday asked Congress to temporarily expand two lending programs for the owners of small businesses.

But a Democratic House leader slammed the president’s proposals, saying they’re the wrong approach to creating jobs.

Obama said Friday he wants to bolster the impact of the businesses that are the chief creators of new jobs in a struggling economy.

Just hours before he spoke, the nation’s jobless rate finally dipped below 10 percent – to a stubborn high 9.7 percent – in the latest government figures.

The president said he wants businesses to be able to refinance their commercial real estate loans under the Small Business Administration and he wants that government agency to increase loans used for lines of credit and capital.

The truth is, the economy can be growing like gangbusters for years on end and it’s still not easy to run a small business,” Obama said as he visited a heating and air conditioning company in a Maryland suburb of the capital.

The White House said Obama’s plan would temporarily raise the cap on Small Business Administration Express loans from the current maximum of $350,000 to $1 million.

Obama’s plan would also expand the SBA’s program to support refinancing for owner-occupied commercial real-estate loans.

But even the Democratic head of a House committee wasn’t pleased about the plan to expand SBA lending.

Rep. Nydia M. Velazquez, D-N.Y., chair of the House Small Business Committee, said the SBA Express program has been criticized for underwriting loans that banks would have made without government backing and for carrying the highest default rate of any SBA program.

“With loan defaults on the rise, we should not base our strategy on increasing the size of the least stable SBA lending program,” Velazquez said.

The initiative to refinance commercial real estate debt may dilute it and draw away too many resources, she said.
————————————————————————————————–

Food for Thought – By Padmini Arhant Feburary 10, 2010

It’s clear from the listed articles that, the priorities for the congressional conservatives’ on both sides are not the people i.e. the working class, the middle class and the small businesses.

If they were, they would not try to have it both ways as suggested in the article.

Evidently, the national interest is not the primary concern for the Congressional conservatives and moderates in both parties.

They are preoccupied in their faultfinding against President Barack Obama, instead of cooperating with the rest of the Congress in passing legislations especially,

The health care and health insurance reform where a staggering 46 million Americans are reportedly dying due to these lawmakers’ unwillingness to pass the much-required legislations to heal every American.

Notwithstanding, the credit crunch experienced by the small businesses from the ‘bailed out’ banks’ reluctance to facilitate lending.

Again the finance sector’s default in containing the worsening real estate crisis in both residential and commercial markets calls for immediate action through finance reform – conveniently rejected by the conservatives’ and moderates on both sides.

These legislators positioning them to be ‘fiscal conservatives’ and rebuking President Obama on the rising national debt that, they are contributing with their ambitious pet projects over the ‘average’ American plight, speaks volume on their lack of commitment to the people electing them to the office.

With respect to President Obama’s strategy on SBA lending to the small businesses, the Democrat House Committee response is irrational and confirms the legislator’s ‘out-of-touch’ with reality.

The President’s justification on this issue is right on target.

Since the bailed out finance sector is back in the game with “business as usual,” motto and focused on self-promotion with multi-million dollar bonuses culminated by their Washington representatives’ successful blocking of the finance reform,

The President’s proposal is the only viable option to stimulate the job growth in the most desperate segment of the economy – the small business.

Besides, in the absence of the banking industry long overdue lending activity, the investment risks in the small business is blown out of proportion compared to the risk exposure in the multi-trillion dollar bailouts to the banks still withholding credit to their creditors-cum-taxpayers and consequently restraining the economic recovery.

Time is running out for the conservatives on both sides in correlation with patience among the suffering millions in the economy.

If the Republican members are counting on their rebellious attitude towards the democrat President and the Congress to win elections in November 2010,

They are in for a serious disappointment for the American electorate would not reward the party with a victory in the face of their deteriorating economic conditions resulting from the Republican members’ blockade.

Somehow, if this were to happen, then it would be at the democracy’s peril.

Perhaps, it’s something, the American electorate ought to think about because they are responsible for the stalemate in Washington.

Having elected the ideological representatives for whom the people seem irrelevant – transparent in their obstinacy on legislative matter, the people are the ones who can undo the wrongdoing by voting the redundant representations out of power this November or even sooner.

Democracy is held hostage by the recalcitrant congress members defying the constitutional responsibility to serve the people and the nation as an elected official.

Washington hue shines through in these issues.

How can any President possibly achieve anything in such a hostile environment?

You decide.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

Written by Padmini Arhant · Filed Under Politics, United States | 1 Comment 

Progressive Policy for National Progress and Prosperity

February 9, 2010

By Padmini Arhant

The guidance is for all nations to review the status quo and not restricted to the United States.

People who are frustrated with ‘business as usual’ atmosphere – where necessary tax increases, reforms are voted against to the detriment of their loved ones’ health, economic and social well being, should speak their mind fearlessly to their representatives and make informed decisions on whether to retain or reject the official in office.

The country cannot afford to function on the idiosyncrasies exhibited by the ‘Nay’ Sayers for ideological purpose and win elections by pledging to strengthen the destructive element -the ‘filibuster,’ a weapon used by the anti-populist legislators.

Conservative and moderate democrats have their own style in blocking legislations and not surprisingly, it’s carried out at the industry lobbyists’ behest.

Only in the Democratic Party, there is diversity creating mayhem in legislations during their majority rule -– the conservatives, the moderates, the Dixie Democrats, the Reagan Democrats and then the progressives or the liberals who are constantly under attack from within and outside.

In fact, it’s the progressives or the liberals bound by the true democratic values constantly extend their support in passing legislations for the common good.

Even more reason to bring ‘progressives,’ into the democratic party to advance the national agenda.

People are interested in the Progressives’ platform and it’s as follows:

As a proud progressive, I define my principles and they are:

Prioritize the people and the national interest above everything viz. the corporation, unions, religious organizations…and any other external sources.

Speaking for myself, I’m fiscally conservative and socially Progressive.

I envision the progressive nature as follows:

Fiscal conservatism – Emphasis on valuable investments with lifetime returns as listed below:

*Economy that produces and sustains job growth,

*National Treasury geared towards National Surplus – By Presenting Balanced Federal
and State Budgets with prudent investments.

The focal point being the elimination of ‘earmarks’ spending, extravagant military expenditure,
exorbitant tax cuts for wealthy corporations and individuals, while expanding the revenue
horizons.

*Education – both young and old for a ‘bright’ future.

Allocate adequate funding for K-12 and beyond. A policy already implemented by
President Barack Obama.

Continuous Investment in Math and Science, Technology, Research and
Development and Engineering Studies.

Space Exploration for human knowledge and planetary interface in communication
fields.

Equal promotion of Arts, Music, Cultural Appreciation, Sports and Language skills.

Imperative to inculcate civic duty and educate students on local, state, national
and international politics to be an informed electorate and an eligible candidate
for the public office.

*Health Care – Universal Health Care that provides for all citizens.

Healthy people means Wealthy nation.

*Energy – Clean energy – Going natural all the way with wind, solar, and thermal
sources to power American homes and free mother earth from pollution generated by
fossil fuel through carbon emissions – oil and coal.

Nuclear technology is not only an environmental hazard due to the ambivalent
nuclear waste disposal, but also a contentious political nightmare – witnessed in the
Iranian nuclear program and,

Likewise in the Indian nuclear deal prompting Pakistan to increase its potential in the
Indian sub-continent.

Besides, civil nuclear proliferation hinder the ultimate goal – nuclear disarmament
from the planet.

*Environment – Be mindful of the fact that conservation, preservation of natural
resources ensures clean and safe habitat, a necessity for the survival and
sustenance of all living species.

With respect to democracy, freedom, peace and social justice:

The controversial presenters in the media and the political circle often distort socially liberal values by associating it with the ‘psychedelic’ era and denigrate the progressives as “Eugenics” or the liberals as “loony liberals” and down to ‘expletive “R” a connotation to the mental functionality.’

Socially Progressive policy is the one that regards every individual as a human being and nothing else matter like race, religion, sexual orientation, economic status etc.,…

Progressive policy embraces peace over pre-emptive wars.

Also, the policy underscores freedom for all human beings.

Progressive policy is committed towards liberty and an independent state for those who are oppressed by the neo-imperialists, theocrats and dynasty.

Progressives are not necessarily weak in national security, for they are a force to reckon with when the nation is in imminent danger.

Security threats and warfare against the nation will be dealt with appropriately,

However, such situations would be drastically mitigated through the resilient “Peace and Diplomacy,” process by divestments from prolonged wars to the civilian economic and social development in the regions vulnerable to terrorism.

Social Progressives believe in freedom for all – people, corporations, religious institutions and the government.

People – All are created equal.

Hence, everyone deserves equal rights in all matter. Unlike the Gay community and women harassed by the conservatives and religious groups and.

Notwithstanding, racial bias and discriminatory practices against the indigenous groups, African Americans, Hispanics, Islamic followers, the people of color and last but not the least, the en masse poor targeted in the justice system across the nation.

Corporations – Endorsement of a “Free market system” allowing the Corporations to focus exclusively and act responsibly in promoting the national economic growth.

Further, expect corporations to respect and follow the government regulations as a precautionary measure to protect the consumer and the shareholders interest. Abide by the taxation laws and lead in the environmental front.

Reward corporations for national job growth and international expansion upon reciprocation from the recipient economies. It cannot be a one-way street with a dead end as seen in the contemporary globalization.

Since corporations resist government interference in the management,

Synonymously, the Corporations should be barred from running the government by investing in politics.

In fact, the latter is common in the domestic and international governance.

Corporations have become increasingly dominant in influencing governments in the national and international affairs, thereby undermining democracy to the point of irrelevance.

Religious Institutions – Freedom to practice religion in private and public as well as hold discussions but not solicitations in public square.

Religion should preoccupy in spreading peace and harmony as opposed to confusion and acrimony.

Although, the religious centers work towards humanitarian causes in alleviating poverty, illiteracy and social issues, oddly some groups are engaged in inciting hatred and hegemony.

Church and State should not collide with one another.

Instead, lend support to each other in the humanitarian crisis during natural disasters and human orchestrated violence.

At other times, the religious institutions should adhere to the specific institutional role – advocate religious tolerance and refrain from defamation.

Religious organizations can also play an important role in cultivating better human understanding and cultural relationships in the society.

The Judicial Branch – The Supreme Court is honorable with its abstinence from political activism. Displaying empathy alongside observing constitutional rule of law would be highly beneficial to humanity and fulfill the fairness act when delivering justice.

Government – The elected officials must honor the constitutional oath to serve the public and strive for national welfare at all times.

Individuals running for public office should be evaluated on their actions and commitment to the people against personal or special interest.

Campaign finance reform is the only hope to eliminate special interest dominance in a democracy.

Public representatives should be elected on public finance entirely to legitimize transparency and accountability in the democratic system.

Public funded elections could be simplified and made economically affordable. In addition, the electoral process would force the candidates to focus on policies affecting the people and the nation rather than politics indulging in personal attacks.

Government Function involves national defense and safeguarding public interest.

Adjacent to providing an array of public services, the Government role includes facilitating, monitoring and maintenance of law and order and fair trade practices in the economy.

Passing legislations to address public related issues is the government’s fundamental responsibility.

National economic progress and prosperity is measured by the national GDP and the per capita income.

That being the case, the Corporations’ greed motivated strategies and speculative trading aka gambling have effectively demolished the middle class and driven the working class, the farmers…to poverty.

It’s poignant in the recent debacles across the economic spectrum with the finance, health care and energy sectors’ operating on the motto –

All for us (the shareholders and the CEOs) and none for you (the employees and the workers).

Evidently, the dire consequences prompted Government intervention to stabilize the economy and the social structure. More importantly, it beckons to establish economic equality and social justice.

Much to the false propaganda on the “government take over,” of the economy, the lack of government action would have been apocalyptic for the nation and the global economy.

Despite the status quo, the conservatives, ironically the legislators on the government payroll decry the “government” and demand that government stay out of public and private enterprise.

Perhaps making the job easier for them to deal with nothing but political scandals.

Simultaneously, the same dissenters overwhelmingly approve the government invasion of privacy in matter concerning –

Women’s reproductive rights –

Gay rights – Prohibiting the repeal of “Don’t ask Don’t tell,’ policy in the military.

FISA – Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act granting the government unprecedented rights to spy on American citizens’ personal communication regardless of its implications on civil liberties – the foundation of American democracy.

For those raising objection to the government existence, yet being the proponents of obtuse government intrusion – the bizarre stance leads to the characterization that;

If FISA is the delicious confectionary for them, then in the wake of the 2009 Christmas day bomb attempt, the bare body scanning of the citizens could be the icing on the cake.

To summarize the societal role, each institution in their respective identity has a clearly demarcated activity and democracy thrives when the organizations remain confined to their boundaries.

You can carve your own destiny by accepting the solution providers and rejecting the problem creators in Congress – the democracy epicenter.

Your affordable donations to the Democratic Party in getting the “Progressives” elected is the only viable path to move the nation forward. Please urge the Democratic Party to invest your donations on the best, the brightest and the populist candidate.

Public Financing begins now with your contributions in any amount to:

Hon. President Barack Obama
Democratic National Committee (DNC)
430 South Capitol Street, SE
Washington, DC 20003

Hon. Speaker Nancy Pelosi
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC)
P.O.Box 96039
Washington, DC 20077 – 7243

Hon. President Bill Clinton
Democratic Senate Congressional Committee (DSCC)
P.O.Box 96047
Washington, DC 20077-7245

Congress has far too many on both sides to represent the Wall Street and very few to speak for the Main Street – the reason for the lobbyists to frequent the Capitol Hill Chambers and the Hallways.

Interception via Progressives is the remedy to the anomaly.

Unequivocally, Progressives policy is the beacon to a bright future.

Global Peace and Security guarantee Progress and Prosperity, attainable at the helm of humanitarian goals.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

Written by Padmini Arhant · Filed Under International Politics, Politics, United States | Leave a Comment 

Separation of Church and State

October 12, 2008

This is a hot button topic leading to the polarization of views.

Not long ago, the former Speaker of the House, Hon. Newt Gingrich approached me for my viewpoint and support on the above topic.

The original transcript from the former Speaker of the House —

To: Padmini Arhant

Hon. Newt Gingrich
Speaker of the House (1995-1999)

Dear Friend,

I’m sending you this invitation today because I’ve been told that you are an American who agrees
with me that God should not be driven from the public square.

The Founding Fathers wanted it that way, too.

Yet for the last 50 years, ACLU lawyers and left-wing judges have been outlawing God in our
culture.

They insist that “separation of church and state” means that “under God” must be removed from
the Pledge of Allegiance… “In God We Trust” taken off U.S. currency… and all references to God erased from American history textbooks.

Any they’ll get away with this scheme unless people of faith like you and me stop them.

That’s why I need your help to make a vital documentary film called Rediscovering God in America.

This full-length film takes you on a walking tour through our Nation’s Capital — where evidence of God’s role in America’s history can be found on nearly every monument, memorial, and building.

In a moment I will tell you how you can receive a FREE copy of Rediscovering God in America.

But first, let me quickly explain why it’s so crucial that you and I get this movie made, into theaters, and into the hands of citizens across the country.

Over the last 50 years, radical secularist judges have slowly and steadily outlawed references to
God, religious symbols, and public prayer.

For instance, public prayer at high school graduations is no longer allowed.

And the Ten Commandments can’t be displayed in a public school.

These radical secularists don’t want our children to know that the Founding Fathers built this nation on a faith in God.

Worst of all, they’ve just about convinced an entire generation of Americans that even mentioning
God in public is against the law.

But they’ve got it backwards.

The U.S. Constitution guarantees our right to worship God at home… at work… and even at school.

It’s exactly what our Founding Fathers intended.

In fact, Benjamin Franklin proposed that the Constitutional Convention of 1787 begin each day with
a prayer.

George Washington hoped that all nations would “acknowledge the providence of Almighty God and
obey His will.”

And Thomas Jefferson himself warned the new United States to never forget that their “liberties are
the gift of God.”

These words of our Founding Fathers are a testimony to the role of God in America’s history.

But even more evidence can be found on the buildings right here in our Nation’s Capital.

Did you know that “Praise be to God” is inscribed in the capstone of the Washington Monument?

Or that “In God We Trust” is written over the southern entrance of the U.S. Capitol?

Or that an image of the Ten Commandments is engraved in bronze on the floor of the National Archives, where the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution are displayed?

It’s true. But the ACLU doesn’t want you to know.

They don’t want Americans to see just how much evidence of God’s role in our history is written
in stone here in the buildings of our Nation’s Capital.

When I was Speaker of the House, I saw these monuments and memorials every day on the way
to my office.

But not every American can make a trip to Washington to see these truths for themselves.

Meanwhile, atheists like Michael Newdow — who filed the lawsuit to strip “under God” from the
Pledge of Allegiance — are winning battles in court rooms across the nation.

Clearly, more Americans need to know what’s at stake here.

We can either sit back and let Michael Newdow and the radical secularists remove God from the
public square.

Or we can get Rediscovering God in America into the hands of citizens across the country and prove
once and for all that our Founding Fathers intended for God to be the backbone of our nation.

This documentary is our best defense against the attacks on God in our culture.

But I don’t have the financial resources myself to make such an important film.

And you can bet that liberal Hollywood doesn’t want anything to do with a movie that pays
tribute to God’s role in America’s history.

That’s why I’ve teamed up with the patriots at Citizens United Foundation (CUF) to produce
Rediscovering God in America and get it distributed across the nation.

Now we need your help to get this movie made and ensure that millions of Americans see it.

Only then will we expose and stop the radical secularists’ scheme to erase God from our history.

Will you make your very best contribution to Citizens United Foundation today to support this
vital movie?

We simply can’t do it without you.

Consider the fact that 91% of Americans think that the words “under God” should stay in the
Pledge of Allegiance.

Unfortunately, not enough of those 91% are doing anything to protect the Pledge.

Meanwhile, atheist Michael Newdow is working on more lawsuits, including one to erase “In God We
Trust” from U.S. currency.

I can’t sit idly by and let Michael Newdow, the ACLU, and liberal judges outlaw God from our nation.

And from what I’ve been told, you care too much about America to let this happen either.

That’s why I’m hoping you will make the most generous gift you can to Citizens United Foundation
today for their Rediscovering God in America movie campaign.

If you’ve heard of Citizens United Foundation, then you know this patriotic group has made many
other important documentaries, including:

** Border War — which exposed the war raging on our nation’s border as illegal immigrants and drug
smugglers swarm unchecked into America.

** ACLU: At War with America — an eye-opening look at the ACLU’s war on religion, patriotism, and
old-fashioned family values.

** And Broken Promises — which chronicles how the U.S. has been forced to finance 60 years
of scandal, waste and greed in the United Nations.

Now will you help me and Citizens United Foundation keep God in the public square — where the
Founding Fathers clearly wanted Him — by sending an urgent gift today to help produce and
distribute Rediscovering God in America?

CUF can’t get this important movie out without the help of you and other patriotic Americans.

I’m specifically asking you for a gift of $35, $50, $75, $100, $250, $500, or even $1,000.

If you can give as much as $35, you will receive a copy of Rediscovering God in America in DVD
format free for you and your family.

Not only will you enjoy this walking tour of our Nation’s Capital (hosted by me and my wife, Callista),
it will give you a chance to share the truth about God’s role in America with your children and
grandchildren.

Citizens United Foundation is run by my good friend David Bossie, who I’m proud to say is making
documentaries that the Hollywood elites refuse to.

Citizens United Foundation is funded wholly by American patriots like you and me. They don’t receive
one dime of federal funding.

Are you willing to give at least $25 or $35 to help make this important film — before the liberals erase
God completely from our public square?

You can understand why I am so committed to getting this movie made and into the hands of folks
across the country.

So won’t you please accept my invitation to be a part of this special movie — and refute the liberals?

I need to know right away. Production is already underway and we need to know if we have the
budget necessary to finish.

I’ll be watching for your reply in the next few days.l

Thank you for helping keep America a nation under God!

Your friend,

Newt Gingrich
Speaker of the House
(1995-1999)

P.S. Remember, if you can send a generous gift of at least $35, you’ll receive your very own copy of
Rediscovering God in America in DVD format.

And the next time someone tells you that God doesn’t belong in the public square, you can show them
a copy of this movie and proudly say, “Yes He does! ”

Thank you again for your prompt reply and for sending whatever amount you can today.

———————————

My response to the above request.

Hon. Newt Gingrich
Speaker of the House
(1995-1999)
Citizens United Foundation
P.O. Box 96408
Washington, DC 20090-6408

Dear Mr. Speaker,

Subject: “Separation of Church and State”

It is an honor to receive your invitation to discuss on the above subject.

There are different views and claims regarding the “Separation of Church and State”.

I think the diverse opinion is important to reflect “democracy.”

My understanding of “The Founding Fathers” approach to every issue in the “Constitution” is to emphasize the role of democracy then, and in the future.

Strong principles, values and ethics form the foundation of this great nation, “The United States of America.”

Having pioneered “Democracy”, the democratic values such as the “freedom of speech” is one of the fundamental rights of every citizen.

It is common for any democratic society to represent views from religious groups, atheists and agnostics alike. Therefore, it is not surprising to witness the political discourse about religion.

However, it appears that “The Founding Fathers” had a purpose behind the references to God in the Pledge of Allegiance and “In God We Trust” on U.S. currency and similar evidence in public focus.

The great minds and visionaries were thoughtful in preserving the rights of both believers and non-believers while drafting the Constitution.

The elimination of the references to God deprives the believers of the “individual right” to practice faith any time.

Thus, granting non-believers exclusive right to their belief, typically in direct contradiction to the definition of democracy in the U.S. Constitution.

The “Separation of Church and State” is vital to curb the strong imposition of religious views and traditions against others will.

Such provision, effectively protects the non-believers’ rights.

At the same time, the prohibition of the reference to God in the public square is an infringement upon individuals of faith since,

The non-believers have a choice to ignore the reference both in the Pledge of Allegiance as well as on the U.S. currency.

Choices signify core democratic value.

In this particular instance, the absence of it does not serve any logic.

Even when applying the mathematical concept to this issue, the desirable solution for value is to have a variable rather than a constant especially if the constant is “Zero” or “nothing”.

Hence, adherence to the “status quo”, provides probability and flexibility in the most sensitive matter.

In conclusion, as a secular spiritualist and a patriotic American, I support the democratic cause to protect the believers’ right of all faith and denomination.

I appreciate the opportunity to present my views in this regard.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Padmini Arhant

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