United States Presidential Race 2016 – Full Feature

June 18, 2015

By Padmini Arhant

Dear Citizens,

The segment will focus on the United States Presidential race 2016.

I present my thoughts on two Presidential candidates – Hillary Clinton of the democratic party and Jeb Bush representing the republican party.

The other candidacies in the race will be discussed in the upcoming segment.

Your attention is critical for the world could no longer afford the status quo with the political systems worldwide under incognito power.

Furthermore, the participation and subsequent election more likely the selection of either the democratic contender Hillary Clinton or the republican challenger Jeb Bush would mean the continuation of Clinton or Bush dynasty in disguise as democracy besides perpetual warfare prolonging economic recession.

Thank you for your interest.

Padmini Arhant

Checks and Balances – Afghan War Strategy

December 1, 2009

By Padmini Arhant

In my earlier post, World Peace – Part 1, I mentioned about the military might prevalent in the economic and political aspects governing the domestic and the international societies. Although, it’s not a revelation that the military industrial complex (MIC) authority spreads beyond the realm of providing national security, it’s imperative to study the extent of the institutional power.

Besides the limited constitutional role by the military to defend the nation upon real and potential attack, the unconstitutional engagements are expansive and encroaching on the general society.

Often, it’s the “potential” more than the ‘real’ threats or attacks that are the premise for the prolonged military operation proved extremely lucrative in the prolific conventional and nuclear arms race.

Among them, the prominent activities are:

The appointments of foreign heads of the government usually the undesirable choices that are unanimously rejected by the global citizens, not part of the exclusive membership. In this context, the deliberate selection of such candidates aka the ‘puppets’ facilitates the anticipated political instability stunting economic growth and declining social progress.

It’s a perfect ambiance for creating a generation, a partly weak and submissive otherwise resigning to the state of no return and the other, resisting the status quo which becomes the recruits for the forces challenging the dominance of the superior.

The end-result being the terrorists rejecting the foreign occupation and/or the anti-government rebels vs. the military industrial complex ‘supposedly’ representing the democracy.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s nomination along with the pre-meditated military coup and the subsequent army backed undemocratic election in Honduras are the recent demonstrations by the external forces, ironically entrusted with the diplomatic responsibility.

Another interesting yet unconvincing factor is the Pentagon being the most sophisticated military institution on the face of the earth with the capability to intercept the rogue spy satellite in 2008 and many other phenomenal challenges up until now,

Claimed to have been taken to task by the overzealous fundamentalists, the Taliban and Al-Qaeda insurgents in possession of inferior artillery and resources by any means for the past eight years.

Source: http://gizmodo.com/359031/video-of-spy-satellite-getting-shot-down

“Lockheed Martin’s Aegis missile launches and successfully destroys the rogue spy satellite. This is a huge success for the Pentagon and the anti-missiles system.

The mission was simple. At 10:26PM EST, a standard missile 3 carrying a kinetic warhead was launched northwest of Hawaii from the USS Lake Eire, a Ticonderoga Class missile defense cruiser. 24 minutes later, at 10:50, the Joint Space Operations Center at the Vandenberg Air Force base confirmed the breakup of the satellite at 153 nautical miles above the Earth from a direct hit.

The video, however, shows that the direct kinetic hit has completely obliterated its target. Now the world can rest at peace. Until A542B, that asteroid ten times bigger than Texas, finally arrives.”

American taxpayers are currently funding two simultaneous wars in Afghanistan and Iraq over the last nine and six years respectively. With no end in sight and mounting casualties on all sides, the combined U.S. and NATO combat and support troop level serving in Afghanistan is nearly 150,000 compared to the former Soviet Union occupied level at 120,000.

Further, it’s reportedly more than double the number since the former President George W. Bush left office. Ref: U.S. force in Afghanistan swells with support troops – Washington Post October 13, 2009.

In that perspective, the military industrial complex, the President of the United States and the legislators supporting the massive contingency owe a legitimate explanation to the following questions:

Considering the nine-year war in Afghanistan, why is the mission not accomplished?

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee statement on the eve of the Presidential speech regarding the troops commitment confirmed that the U.S. defense headed by Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and the commander at that time Gen. Tommy Franks failed to execute an order to apprehend the terror mastermind Osama Bin Laden within the armed forces’ grasp at Tora Bora in 2001.

What was the real motive behind abandoning the apprehension of the terror leader Osama Bin Laden that could have not only prevented subsequent attacks in Bali, Indonesia, Riyadh, Jordan and several other locations but also debilitated the terror organizations around the globe?

Is it because Osama Bin Laden remaining at large was convenient for all concerned parties i.e.the military industrial complex, Pakistan receiving over $10 billion in U.S. aid for the “war on terror” that is unaccounted until date notwithstanding the re-emergence of Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan for the war games to persist?

What were the strategies at the beginning i.e. 2001 and What are they now?

If the war was unwinnable in the past nine years, what is the basis for the present victory speculation?

How do the legislators propose funding the war amid the heavily contested health care reform and the soaring unemployment?

While demanding drastic spending cuts on health care and economic stimulus,

Are the fiscal conservatives on the right and the left comfortable with the military spending $1 million per soldier per year to satisfy the Army Generals’ elaborate military plan in Afghanistan, not to mention the expense in Iraq as well?

If the war tax is being introduced to finance the MIC mission, who is picking up the tab and where are the anti-tax advocates and the small government proponents?

The Defense department being part of the federal government, the sprawling budget allocated for military expenditure comes right out of the American taxpayers wallet.

Aren’t the conservatives bothered by the ballooning national deficit and the burden on the next generations from the unmitigated Pentagon military extravaganza? When in fact, the illegal adventure in Iraq initiated the precipitous decline of the economy.

Is it going to be the top 10 percent absorbing the costs since the rest at the bottom already hit rock bottom given the economic woes ranging from the heath care and education costs exacerbated by the rising unemployment in the stagnant economy?

Any thoughts on the deteriorating morale and the escalating social crises detailed in the preceding article such as the suicides, the divorces and the systemic collapse of the family structure among the armed personnel. Is it even a matter of concern for those touting support from the comfort zones of the executive and legislative authority?

It’s well known that truth is the primary casualty during war and election.

Afghanistan’s corrupt government is an alibi now to quell the pervasive dissent in the United States and particularly Afghanistan. The fact of the matter is the Karzai government was the preferred choice for the MIC, the U.S. Secretary State and the Defense department.

The reason being, the beleaguered leader was conciliatory to the permanent occupation of the foreign troops all along and the details were published on this website under the article titled – Afghanistan war, troops request and election analysis.

Hence, it should come as no surprise when President Karzai’s appointment is falsely propagated as a ‘re-election’ in the absence of any election following the earlier fraudulent election results that was overwhelmingly rejected by the international community.

If the kingmakers in the Afghan deal were sincere, they would have moved heaven and earth to ensure free and fair elections yielding the desirable outcome i.e. the removal of the Karzai government riddled with corruption charges from the onset for the Afghan population.

Instead, the powerhouse decided to nominate (never re-elected) the worst possible choice for the oppressed Afghan people, in order to sustain the perpetual carnage, chaos and catastrophe for the Afghans and the U.S. as well as the NATO armed personnel.

There were even photo-ops with the U.S. Secretary of State as the ‘Foreign Policy expert,’ enthusiastically blessing the second term of the Karzai government during the recent inauguration, striking a resemblance to the former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld cordially greeted by the dictator Saddam Hussein during the official visit to Baghdad.

Similar scenario was carried out with the Honduran election. Orchestrating military coup, appointment of corrupt leaders with complete knowledge and recognition of despots as the heads of the government later transform into the mortal enemies for the United States and allies to justify the implementation of war.

When evaluating the credibility and the real purpose behind the alarmingly high troops presence i.e.. the existing U.S. troops 71,000 plus the new proposal 30,000 – 35,000 combined with the NATO alliance equals nearly 150,000 to contain the approximately 25,000 Taliban and Al-Qaeda insurgents beckons reasoning with clear and honest submission of facts from the high command in the military industrial complex.

It’s rather hypocritical of the powerful entities constantly fearing self-mortality despite extraordinary security to treat other human lives as easily dispensable.

Troops withdrawal and not additional deployment is required to resolve the nearly decade old conflict.

Finally, It’s about time the military industrial complex confine to national defense and refrain from regional dominance.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

Conflict of Interest

January 28, 2009

Secretary of State

By Padmini Arhant

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

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

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

—————————————————————————————————-

Bill Clinton made millions from foreign sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition to the foreign earnings,

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

————————————————————————————————————-

Voice of Concern:  By Padmini Arhant

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Such expectations by those considering themselves extraordinary are not surprising.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

————————————————————————————————————-

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

Thank you.

Is Hillary Clinton Unconstitutional?

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

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

Article 1, Section 6, Clause 2

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

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

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

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

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

Hillary Clinton and the Emoluments Clause:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Republic Action:  By Padmini Arhant

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

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

Conflict of Interest

January 28, 2009

Secretary of State

By Padmini Arhant

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

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

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

——————————————————–

Bill Clinton made millions from foreign sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition to the foreign earnings,

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

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

Voice of Concern: By Padmini Arhant

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Such expectations by those considering themselves extraordinary are not surprising.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is Hillary Clinton Unconstitutional?

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

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

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

Article 1, Section 6, Clause 2

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

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

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

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

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

Hillary Clinton and the Emoluments Clause:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Republic Action: By Padmini Arhant

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

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

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