———————————————————————————————————————
U.S. Foreign Policy in the 20th and 21st Century
July 6, 2009
By Padmini Arhant
The United States foreign policy in the twentieth and twenty first century viewed by allies and adversaries differently depending upon the U.S. engagement viz. modus operandi in the conflicts of the affected regions.
Throughout the twentieth century, the United States direct and indirect dominant role brought peace and chaos to the world order, ominously the Cuban crisis and the infamous Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos war combined with constant interventions in the Korean Peninsula, the Americas, the Middle East, Africa as well as South and South East Asia.
With the exception of sparing the world from Nazi and fascist rule in Europe and elsewhere – a significant contribution to the birth of democracies in Japan and Western Europe,
Ironically, the subsequent U.S. foreign policy mostly enabled the rise of brutal regimes and totalitarianism particularly in the under developed, poor and impoverished parts of the world.
The colonial British dethroned by the Imperial U.S. foreign policy primarily responsible for the status quo in the Middle East, while other European and Mediterranean colonialists – France, Netherlands, Spain, Greece and Portugal leaving their trademark in Africa, Asia and the Americas.
World witnessed the emergence of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Theocracy in Iran following the overthrow of U.S. backed monarchy Shah of Iran including the predecessors and the successors in the entire Middle East aided by the contrived U.S. foreign policy driven by selective internal and external political interests focused on personal agenda.
Much to the operators’ surprise, their misguided policies led to the formation of terror organization such as Al Qaeda and the coronation of its leader Osama Bin Laden, a former Mujahedeen trained by CIA and the U.S. professional armed forces during the confrontation with the Afghanistan invaders, the former Soviet Union.
Given the track record of military aggression and perpetual violence by the profiteers representing the military industrial complex successfully causing carnage and destruction around the world up until now,
The cold war era might have curbed huge conventional and nuclear clashes between the two Superpowers in the 60’s and the 70’s but certainly facilitated the lucrative arms race specifically the nuclear arsenal between the rich and poor nations.
Late twentieth century comprising the Soviet Union disintegration along with nuclear fragmentation in that politically unstable vast region left the field open for U.S. foreign policy dominance in the world.
The United States foreign policy architects wasted no time in the invasions and occupations on the national security pretext and supporting their ‘ally’ Israel in the highly volatile Middle East or promoting ill-conceived democracies in the Western hemisphere through military coups.
The United States reputation until the 2008 Presidential election, as the leader of the free world and the Superpower tarnished because of the failed U.S. foreign policies for most part of the twentieth century and well into the twenty first century. Again, U.S blunders complemented with Iraqi invasion contributed to the neglect of the U.S. mission in Afghanistan to eliminate the strengthening Al Qaeda and Taliban forces from the northwestern Pakistani turf.
Further in the Middle East, as a defense surrogate the United States’ sworn allegiance to Israel against potential threats and attacks from Iran, Syria, Lebanon through Hezbollah, and Palestinian Gaza through Hamas is another factor for skepticism towards the ‘Western partner, USA’ among the Arab nations controlling the ‘oil’, the world’s most required natural resource.
Although, the strange predicament of U.S. surrogacy towards Israel and platonic relationship with the Arab world defended by declaring energy independence to undermine Arab stance in this matter, the reality of it is at least a decade away if not longer considering the Washington stalemate in the energy bill pending Senate approval.
The existing Israeli illegal invasion and occupation of Palestinian territories through settlements expansion must end to resolve the relic Israeli-Palestinian issue.
Meanwhile, in the Iranian political crisis and nuclear program, the recent rhetoric from the key White House representatives is not helpful as it creates unnecessary obstacles on the path towards democracy and stability in the Middle East such as Iraq and inevitably Iran.
Aside from pursuing the independent Palestinian state free of Israeli control in any form or shape and ensuring Israel’s safety and security as a sovereign state, it is paramount for Iran to free itself from the repressive theocratic regime for long lasting peace in the Middle East.
Fortunately, the current developments by the Iranian dissent galvanizing pro-reformist movements and the moderate clerics’ defiance to validate the rigged June 12 election results are optimistic and encouraging in terms of the possible democratic Iran evolving amidst reprehensible pro-democracy crackdown and human rights violation.
Any assertion by the United States proclaiming Israel’s sovereignty as a precursor for military strikes against Iranian hypothetical nuclear proliferation could be immensely detrimental to the United States, Israel, Iraq, and the remaining international security.
Why United States must refrain from controversial political posturing in an effort to defend Israel against alleged Iranian nuclear threat?
And
Why Israel should abandon any military option against Iran?
1. Firstly, Iran embroiled in the political crisis following the courageous decision by the pro-democratic Iranian population to seek twenty first century governance that guarantees fundamental human rights and economic relief with jobs, distribution of oil revenues through investment in common national growth and development.
2. Iranian theocracy fractured from the political turmoil delineating the moderate clerics from the hardliners with respect to unlawful killings, arrests and clamp down in the wake of forming the theocratic rule with their nominee Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, an unpopular choice even among the
Ayatollahs representing the theocracy.
3. During the political transitioning in Iran any such statements by the United States – “Israel has a sovereign right to strike Iran’s apparent nuclear site and that the United States will not interfere in Israeli mission with the reaffirmation from the State Department that strike against Israel will be an attack against the United States” sever than serve the purpose.
———————————————————————————–
ABC’S SUNDAY TALK ON JUNE 5, 2009: “This Week” Host George Stephanopoulos
Three times, I asked Biden if the Obama Administration would stand in the way of an Israeli military strike. Three times, he repeated that Israel was free to do what it needed to do. “If the Netanyahu government decides to take a course of action different than the one being pursued now, that is their sovereign right to do that. That is not our choice.”
A subsequent interview with the Secretary of State – Hillary Clinton.
“CLINTON: I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
STEPHANOPOULOS: Is it U.S. policy now?
CLINTON: I think it is U.S. policy to the extent that we have alliances and understandings with a number of nations. They may not be formal, as it is with NATO, but I don’t think there is any doubt in anyone’s mind that, were Israel to suffer a nuclear attack by Iran, there would be retaliation.
STEPHANOPOULOS: By the United States?
CLINTON: Well, I think there would be retaliation. And I think part of what is clear is, we want to avoid a — a Middle East arms race which leads to nuclear weapons being in the possession of other countries in the Middle East, and we want to make clear that there are consequences and costs.”
————————————————————————————–
Analysis – By Padmini Arhant
President Obama’s candidacy pledged towards relentless diplomacy and peaceful negotiations in all foreign policy matters including the Middle East, assuring a dramatic shift from the Bush administration’s formula involving military action to resolve any political crisis.
The commitment reversal in the Iranian matter would deeply hurt the administration’s credibility in the Middle East as well as among the nations, the President is attempting to outreach for better international relations i.e. Russia and its allies.
United States and Israeli positions could also be misconstrued as provocative and derail the ‘behind the scenes’ progress developing in Iran. Besides fomenting fear and concern among the Iranian population already mortified from the latest violence, it could escalate tension in the neighboring Iraq adjusting to the gradual U.S. troops withdrawal from its cities with the hope of seeing complete timeline withdrawal by 2011.
United States will be officially presenting itself complicit in the catastrophic event with similar overtures not barring double standards in anything related to Israel.
Above all, the economic impact is even greater with respect to crude oil stocks superficially skyrocketing based on the speculative ramifications of Israeli strike against Iran (an OPEC member and one of the leading oil producers) on United States watch.
Moreover, Israel’s unilateral action against Iran would isolate Israel and exacerbate Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s status as a hardliner even though the Prime Minister now appearing to reconcile terms with the two states solutions vital for the Israeli-Palestinian future and,
Notwithstanding the proposed Israeli military action jeopardizing the Arab states’ recognition of Israel as a sovereign state and a viable peace partner in the Middle East.
As for the rest of the world, the terror attacks will substantially increase by default, embolden the weakened Al Qaeda in Iraq and Pakistan with vigorous recruitments through mere propaganda that U.S, and ally Israel preparing yet another military action against an Islamic nation Iran after the prolonged occupation in Iraq.
In light of the projected precarious scenarios, United States being the world leader has a moral responsibility to prioritize diplomacy and non-violence over military attacks either directly or by proxy.
It’s time for the United States to make a conscientious departure from the disastrous old ways proven counterproductive and write a new chapter in history by remaining a trustworthy partner and a reliable negotiator for all nations in the establishment of global peace.
Opportunities are rare and power guided by wisdom produce positive outcome.
Thank you.
Padmini Arhant
http://youtu.be/wHduddO7ZaU http://youtu.be/IWtj7kr35Ck http://youtu.be/p9QO-http://youtu.be/p9QO-xvkyRY http://youtu.be/bm92_NDdTw4 http://youtu.be/dLT8UjF7ZYY http://youtu.be/EpM49PRu5h4 http://youtu.be/dNoskHbTaOk http://youtu.be/xcfEIsX7t6A http://youtu.be/3fgpJJUGElQThe People’s Republic of Iran Under Siege
June 28, 2009
By Padmini Arhant
It’s been well over two weeks since the fraudulent election in the Iranian Republic and subsequently the nation is under siege by the hard line clerics exerting authoritarian rule – vowing to crush its’ own people for their dissent against corruption and totalitarianism.
The threats from the puppet nominee Mahmoud Ahmadinejad echoed by the theocracy subjecting sacred Islam to disgrace through oppression of the peaceful demonstrators is nothing but a group of enraged power hungry dictators in self denial of the verdict – their end, the demise of tyranny once and for all.
The despots, the brutal theocrats and their henchmen (Basij militiamen and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard) might have temporarily succeeded in quelling the dissent on the streets in Tehran and elsewhere, the reality known otherwise.
Realistically, the entire offenders daring blasphemy of the Holy Quran, the Holy Prophet Mohammad (Peace be upon him) and the Almighty God, Allah are,
Obviously frustrated within, due to their inability to fight the brewing battle in their mind overwhelmed with fear, anxiety and disintegrating resolve triggering aggression and violence against anyone in their path to enslave the pious and peaceful people of Iran.
The recent assertion and rhetorical remarks from the illegitimate leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad directed at the United States Presidency is an open self-invitation for isolation from the international community through various stringent measures that would effectively paralyze the regime leading to the ousting of the undemocratic rulers from power.
Therefore, the present regime must exercise caution and reasoning in their speech and action towards the nations aimed at as traditional rivals besides reigning terror against the non-violent people of Iran desperate and destined to be set free.
Ironically, the Iranian authorities are providing the alleged ‘lawlessness’ as the reason for the hard line approach that includes the raiding of people’s residences by militiamen Basij wreaking havoc in the unarmed civilian lives.
What the incumbent rulers fail to understand is, for every innocent life hurt in Tehran and other parts of Iran, they are hurting one of their own family members both closely and remotely related individuals as described in the Islamic law. The Holy Quran warns the sinners against any harm on their Muslim and non-Muslim brothers and sisters particularly the non-combatants in the privacy of their homes.
Perhaps, it’s time for G8 and other nations around the world to take action against the regime through formal withdrawal of diplomatic relationships, denial of travel visas to not only the figureheads and their representatives but also their family members traveling and living abroad for business, education and tourism. When the world condemnation translated from statements into action, the seriousness of the crime committed by the authoritarian rulers will sink in their ignorant aptly arrogant mind.
These simple prickly measures against the dictatorial regime should send a strong message about the repulsive action towards their nationals apart from the urgency in conceding to ‘truth’ represented by the people of Iran.
Any further deterioration in the unruly conduct of the unlawful government would be detrimental to the survival of the institution behind the anarchy.
Given the status quo in Iran, the reformist movement and the opposition with the republic support should maintain the peaceful and non-violent approach in achieving the democratic goals for the people of Iran.
It would be in the best interest of the future of Iran for the momentum to continue in freeing the nation from the shackles of theocracy binding irreligious morals with personal philosophy diametrically opposed to Islamic law.
Reiterating the earlier message on Peace – A beautiful delicate flower with a sweet fragrance permeating the surrounding bringing natural joy upon sensual contact, yet resilient and a formidable force against violence.
Nations that sought peace towards their freedom guaranteed political, social and economic stability due to the inherent determination of the people to prevail against the odds – the violence that produces only bloodshed and immense loss of life.
The green reformist movement has tremendous potential to conquer the debilitating characteristics of the totalitarian government using violent and undemocratic strategies against the citizens for whom they are politically responsible.
Victory is within reach of those who tread on the trails of peace, will and optimism.
The people of Iran courageously display these qualities in the on-going political crisis.
Good luck and fortune waits in abundance for the enduring population of Iran. Your sacrifice will not be futile.
One should never quit without tasting the flavor of success in life.
Persian , Independence, … الله أكبر (Allahu Akbar )
(Arabic , … Allāhu Akbar (الله أكبر) : "God is the Greatest." …)
Thank you.
Padmini Arhant
Warning: Some visuals displayed in the ‘Featured Video’ may not be suitable for all.
International News and Developments – Education under Attack in Australia
June 3, 2009
By Padmini Arhant
Prelude: The topic will touch base on the human rights violation and much more about the nation from “Down Under” – Australia.
The United States preoccupied in numerous important events unfolding by the hour, international community set their eyes on the much-anticipated speech from the U.S. President Barack Obama in Cairo, Egypt and,
Other industrialized nations engaged in criticizing China on the eve of Tiananmen Square anniversary; similar events involving the brutal racist attacks on Indian students lured to the Australian educational institutions could not compete effectively in the press and media coverage.
As a website committed towards issues generally isolated by the large focus groups in the media and press, a detailed analysis on the appalling incidents concerning Indian students systematically targeted for their ‘skin color’ in the new millennium, twenty first century is attention worthy.
Please stand by for the in-depth coverage on the topic presented shortly.
Meanwhile, please take a moment to review the You-Tube images of the incidents and the victims’ plight in the “socially-advanced” nation in southern hemisphere.
Thank you.
Padmini Arhant
Keeping Democracy Alive
March 8, 2009
The new administration is still in the process of filling positions and since the beginning, there has been problems with some major cabinet appointments as the nominees had withdrawn from considerations to avoid political challenges during the hearing process.
Lately, it appears to be the nominee CNN medical correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta.
It is evidenced in the following article;
Gupta won’t be next surgeon general
Neurosurgeon and TV Correspondent withdraws from Consideration
By Richard Alonso-Zaldivar, Associated Press – Thank you.
CNN medical correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta won’t be the next surgeon general, the Obama administration confirmed Thursday.
Gupta 39, a neurosurgeon with star appeal, was seen as President Barack Obama’s first pick for the job. He would have brought instant recognition to the office of surgeon general, a post that has lacked visibility since the days of C. Everett Koop during Ronald Reagan’s presidency.
An administration official said that Gupta had been under “serious consideration” but took himself out of the running because he wants to focus on his medical career and spend more time with his family.
“We know he will continue to serve and educate the public through his work with media and in the medical arena,” said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of nominations.
The official said there were no problems that would have disqualified Gupta, and it was his decision to withdraw.
The surgeon general is the nation’s doctor, and while the job doesn’t involve much policymaking responsibility, it’s a bully pulpit for promoting public health. Gupta could have helped Obama pitch his health care reform plan.
Initial reports in early January that Obama had approached Gupta about the job created a stir. The new president had not yet taken office. The chairman of the American Medical Association’s board said at the time it would be a boon to the government if Gupta accepted.
But Gupta would have had to give up a lucrative career. He hosts “House Call” on CNN, contributes reports to CBS News and writes a column for Time magazine. He also practices surgery at Atlanta’s Grady Memorial Hospital, which sees more than its share of trauma cases.
Political opposition had started to form.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., called Gupta inexperienced and circulated a letter urging Obama not to appoint him. Conyers is a leading supporter of health care reform that would create a government system similar to Canada’s and is particularly influential among liberals.
Gupta does have some Washington experience. During the Clinton administration, he served as a White House fellow and a special adviser to then-first lady Hillary Clinton.”
———————————————————————————————————————
Washington Hypocrisy:
Strangely enough, with recent appointees for high profile cabinet positions involving decision-making on International crisis affecting billions of lives around the globe “experience” didn’t seem to matter to the members of the hearing committee.
Some were sworn in with a mere formality hearing and they were aptly called by the media a shoe-in appointment.
Also, there was swift approval of nominees considered “controversial” with tax issues, conflict of interest notwithstanding the nation’s critical cabinet post supposedly being “unconstitutional.”
However, an administrative post with none or minimal policymaking responsibility as cited in the above article, aroused skepticism in the minds of certain members prompting them to an all out campaign against the adequately qualified and nationally as well as internationally prominent candidate with White House experience, reveals the true colors of Washington Politics.
Last fall, history was made for a reason. People of the human race overwhelmingly came together to convey a loud and clear message…
It is no longer the “red states” or the “blue states”, but it is the United States of America.
Apparently, like everything else it is being regarded a catchy campaign slogan rather than embracing and most importantly practicing to keep democracy alive.
Thank you.
Padmini Arhant
Humanitarian Call
March 3, 2009
In the tough economy, charities and humanitarian groups are worst hit and struggling to raise funds for various causes. Their relentless effort to reach out to millions at home and around the world is admirable despite sharp decline in donations from ordinary people willing to participate but unable to do so in these difficult times.
Each one of us could make a difference with whatever affordable to the less fortunate and those deserving inspiration to meet with challenges in life.
I request all generous citizens to spare time and share limited resources at our disposal to help charities engaged to promote spirit of living against all odds.
There are many charity organizations praiseworthy and I list some of them to raise awareness of their service to humanity.
Your generosity will serve many aspiring athletes, children deprived of any future and adults incapacitated due to debilitating illnesses.
Let us not forget our fellow citizens at home and around the world.
Your time and donations deeply appreciated now and in the future.
Thank you.
Padmini Arhant
——————————————————————————-
Special Olympics – 2009 Annual Fund –
If you decide to make any donations, please mail payments to;
Special Olympics Northern California
3480 Buskirk Avenue, Suite 340
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
www.sonc.org
Accredited by Special Olympics, Inc. www.specialolympics.org
Important: Your gift may be doubled if your employer has a matching gift program. Please see your Human Resources Department today.
——————————————————–
2. International Rescue Committee – Mr. Tom Brokaw (Reputable and well respected journalist and NBC Host)
among the Board of Overseers.
Why is it important? In Mr. Brokaw’s words —
"If I seem to be writing about the IRC in very personal terms, there is a reason. You see, the Brokaw family has a long history with this remarkable organization. It dates from my daughter’s work in Europe helping refugees from Soviet oppression to her six months in Pakistan, providing health care to Afghani women during the Soviet occupation.
Jennifer saw this legendary organization from the inside and impressed on the rest of our family the importance of the IRC’s work. So when I was given the opportunity to take on a new role with the IRC, I quickly agreed. Jennifer’s engagement with the IRC has continued as well. A highly-skilled physician, she was a member of the IRC emergency response team dispatched to Louisiana in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
Because it operates in 42 countries around the world, the reach and scope of the IRC’s work is quite dramatic. But, at the end of the day, it all comes down to individual people getting the help they need when it matters most.
Helping the IRC is about reaching out to a child in a crowded refugee camp who, along with her mother, fled Darfur when armed men burned and attacked their village."
For further information: Please visit www.theIRC.org – International Rescue Committee.
Your contribution is tax-deductible to the extent allowed by law.
Mailing address: International Rescue Committee, P.O.Box 98152, Washington DC 20077-7355.
——————————————————————-
3. St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, P.O.Box 50, Memphis, TN 38101-9929
www.stjude.org
Many children are living after traumatic and agonizing illnesses like cancer through chemotherapy, radiation and bone marrow transplants at this center.
—————————————————————-
4. Easter Seals, San Jose/San Mateo Region, P.O.Box 611840, San Jose, CA 95161-1840
Easter Seals is involved in helping all people with severe disabilities to gain independence.
Again, if you wish to make payments, please make check payable to Easter Seals.
—————————————————————————–
5. Feed The Children, P.O.Box 36, Oklahoma City OK 73101-9989
www.HelpFeedNow.com, Tel.# (405) 942-0228
Engaged in helping American families receiving pink slips instead of paychecks at this time.
————————————————————————–
OP-Ed Impact of Military Arsenal on Children
March 1, 2009
How does war impact young minds?
Can the military industrial complex justify their profits at the expense of these innocent lives?
A teenager’s viewpoint regarding an article by New York Times and concerns about the real victims of war – Children, the future of the world.
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/18/world/asia/18afghan.html
http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2009/02/17/world/20090217AFGHAN_9.html
———————————————————————————
By: Kanish Arhant-Sudhir
The article that goes along with this picture talks about how the death toll in Afghanistan has risen by over forty percent in 2008. One specific example reported on a man named Syed Mohammed, who’s entire family was slaughtered by American and Afghan soldiers. He went next door to his son’s house, only to find that the only survivor in his entire son’s family was his four year-old grandson, Zarqawi. In another case, an American AC-130 gunship, which is a plane armed with several deadly explosive rounds as well as a gatling cannon, attacked a suspected Taliban building, killing more than 90 people.
Marai, age 7, was blinded
in one eye from shrapnel during fighting between the Taliban and NATO troops.
Mohammed Amin Kadimi, age 47, was pushing a wheelbarrow through a city street, looking for work.
A young man approached him carrying a paper bag weighing about ten pounds. He asked him to carry the bag to Pul-e-Khesti, a nearby neighborhood. After some time walking, Mr. Kadimi noticed that the young man was no longer behind him. The bag then exploded, blasting Mr. Kadimi away, mangling his right leg and severing his left one. He now sits on a city street, selling phone cards. He wonders why he was chosen as a target.
————————————————————————-
Youssif, age 5, before explosion (left), and after explosion (right)
Youssif’s skin was so deformed that hypodermic balloons had to be inserted in his skin to stretch it, allowing operations to be possible. He underwent 37 surgeries in one month.
When I assess these so-called carnage reports, I am absolutely disgusted. It is appalling that human kind would resort to such violence against one another, and for no valid cause at all. Exemplified in the cases of Marai and Youssif, the boy who’s face was grotesquely deformed by shrapnel from a fragmentation grenade; even children on the cusp of life are subject to such tortures as these. The brutality towards these innocent civilians is inexplicably revolting and inexcusable. No ‘political’ motive should be so great as to put the lives of innocent people at risk.
It’s time for mankind to reassess the pros and cons of war and peace for the sake of children around the world.
There is no compensation for loss of life especially children who are wiped out of this earth before they get to know it.
Thank you.
Kanish Arhant-Sudhir
Conflict of Interest
January 28, 2009
Secretary of State
By Padmini Arhant
Secretary of State position has been filled and the appointee, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has assumed office.
Did the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the full Senate pay any attention to the substantial facts and evidences provided by citizens and news editorials on this matter as well as other cabinet post appointments?
Apparently not and that appears to be the interesting focus for concerned electorate.
—————————————————————————————————-
Bill Clinton made millions from foreign sources
By MATTHEW LEE, Associated Press Writer Matthew Lee, Associated Press Writer – 35 mins ago 01/27/09
WASHINGTON – Former President Bill Clinton earned nearly $6 million in speaking fees last year, almost all of it from foreign companies, according to financial documents filed by his wife, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton .
The documents obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press show that $4.6 million of the former president’s reported $5.7 million in 2008 honoraria came from foreign sources, including Kuwait’s national bank , other firms and groups in Canada, Germany, India, Malaysia , Mexico and Portugal and a Hong Kong-based company that spent $100,000 on federal lobbying last year.
Executives at many of the firms that paid honoraria to Bill Clinton have also donated large amounts of money to the Clinton Foundation , according to documents it released last year as part of an agreement with Congress on Hillary Clinton’s nomination as secretary of state.
That agreement was aimed at preventing the appearance of any conflict of interest between the ex-president’s charitable organization and his wife’s new job as the United States’ top diplomat.
In addition to Bill Clinton’s income from speaking fees, Hillary Clinton reported joint holdings of between $6.1 million and $30.3 million in a blind trust as well as cash, insurance and retirement accounts worth between $1 million and $5.2 million.
Hillary Clinton made between $50,000 and $100,000 in royalties from her 2003 memoir "Living History."
Bill Clinton earned between $100,000 and $1 million in royalties for his 2004 autobiography "My Life," the documents show. The Clintons reported no liabilities.
All senior officials in the Obama administration are required to complete a detailed disclosure of their personal finances, including spouse and children, which is updated yearly.
The two men selected to serve as Hillary Clinton’s deputy secretaries of state, Jacob Lew and James Steinberg , also filed financial disclosure forms.
Lew, a former Clinton administration official who recently headed Citigroup’s Alternative Investments unit, reported 2008 salary income of just over $1 million along with numerous investments, including between $50,000 and $100,000 in State of Israel bonds .
Steinberg, another former Clinton administration official who recently was a professor at the University of Texas, reported receiving $35,000 in 2008 for foreign speaking engagements, including three before Japanese media firms and one before the Confederation of Indian Industries in New Delhi.
The most Bill Clinton got from a foreign source was $1.25 million for appearing at five events sponsored by the Toronto-based Power Within Inc., a company that puts on motivational and training programs around North America , according to Hillary Clinton’s submission.
For one Power Within speech alone, delivered in Edmonton in June 2008, Clinton was paid $525,000, the most for any single event that year. For one event, he got $200,000 and for three others he received $175,000 each, the documents show.
The Hong Kong firm, Hybrid Kinetic Automotive Holdings, paid Clinton a $300,000 honorarium on Dec. 4, 2008. Twenty five days later, on Dec. 29, a man listed as the company’s chief financial officer, Jack Xi Deng, made a $25,000 cash donation to the Virginia gubernatorial campaign of Clinton confidant Terry McAuliffe , according to the Virginia Public Access Project.
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the Hong Kong firm paid at least $100,000 in 2008 to lobbyists on immigration issues.
The other foreign honoraria Bill Clinton received in 2008 are:
$450,000 from AWD Holding AG , a German-based international financial services company.
$350,000 from the state-owned National Bank of Kuwait . The Kuwaiti government donated between $1 million and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation , according to the foundation’s disclosure.
$300,000 from Value Grupo Financiero SA de CV, a Mexico -based financial holding company , whose chief executive officer , Carlos Bremer Gutierrez, is one of the Clinton Foundation’s leading donors. Gutierrez donated between $250,001 to $500,000 to the foundation, according to foundation’s documents.
$250,000 from Germany’s Media Control Gmbh, which bills itself as the world’s leading provider of entertainment data and was founded by Karlheinz Koegel, who contributed $100,001 to $250,000 to the Clinton foundation.
$200,000 from Malaysia’s Petra Equities Management on behalf of the Sekhar Foundation run by Malaysian multimillionaire Vinod Sekhar who donated between $25,001 and $50,000 to the Clinton Foundation, according to its documents.
In addition to the foreign earnings,
Bill Clinton made just over $1 million from domestic speaking engagements, including $250,000 from MSG Entertainment , $225,000 from the National Association of Home Care and Hospice, $200,000 from the United Nations Association , $175,000 from the ING North America Insurance Corp., $125,000 from the Rodman and Renshaw Capital Group and $100,000 from the Hollywood Radio and Television Society.
————————————————————————————————————-
Voice of Concern: By Padmini Arhant
I suppose, now it must be clear to America why despite the impressive combined earnings by the then Senator and now newly appointed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s request for personal donation was not met .
The impression might be what could possibly a small, diminutive, frail and fragile individual’s support or the lack thereof do to powerful nominations and subsequent confirmation.
It was already proven during the election when several requests and demands were placed for endorsement of the Presidential candidates.
Otherwise, would any ordinary citizen be sought after relentlessly by the candidates for endorsement in a high profile and vigorously contested political battle?
Further, Supreme force representative’s subservient manner should not be translated as an inferior or a weak personality in any shape due to intimacy with natural phenomenon.
Regardless, the stark contrast between the powerful on earth and those representing the power of the universe is,
The latter are courageous in speaking the truth and standing up for justice and peace wherever and whenever it applies.
History is testimony that Prophets and messengers were subject to incredible endurance tests including death for some as in the case of Lord Jesus Christ.
In the ancient era, Prophets and Messiahs had to prove their identity and worthiness by performing wonders or miracles.
It ranged from bearing the cross and resurrection to life and possessing witnesses for the ability to walk on water.
Now, in the new millennium the expectation of the virtuous could still be to exhibit magic moments by spitting fire, moving mountains and relevantly excavation of economy from deep recession heading towards Great Depression.
Such expectations by those considering themselves extraordinary are not surprising.
In fact, up until recently the utterance of God and any discussions related to the highest grace was argued as undemocratic by calling for elimination of such discourse in public square.
Anyone challenging the might of the mortals is frequently dismissed as a questionable character and their concerns for humanity invalidated through defiance per recent demonstration of Cabinet posts confirmation.
All those bound by ethics and compliance of common law in a democracy rejecting the plea with presentation of facts and evidences against Hillary Clinton’s confirmation as well as other appointees are in denial of the highest authority.
Hence, the comment during the Radio talk show on “Free Palestine” about public displays of prayers and worships as meaningless because of selective embracing of God by political figures.
Thus, forcing one to arrive at a conclusion that even “Almighty God” is a fair game in politics.
It goes to prove that Cabinet posts in any administration could be picked and chosen by the privileged members of a political party and some outsiders through virtue of their association with previous administrations leaving no opportunities for the deserving aspirants outside the circle in the so-called democracy.
Then why bother wasting taxpayers’ dollars with senate hearing and confirmation process if the purpose is meant to be a mere formality?
With foreign governments and sources donating to Clinton foundation and honorarium for his speeches, should American electorate consider such generosity by these entities an act of pure benevolence for humanity and not have Clintons reciprocate in return?
Alternatively, are these donors so magnanimous that they are involved in a great humanitarian effort whilst ignoring the plight of the population in their own backyard?
Washington was to be changed and shaken up to give way to new political system.
Is shuffling the cabinet posts among the group consisting of those demanding party favors a fair selection process?
Does democracy really have a chance when Power is still the dominant force crushing the will of the republic?
The lawmakers awestruck by candidates despite controversial background moved forward to fill positions in fulfillment of their obligations and responsibilities with no regard for due process.
New administration was sworn in with the pledge to America to change Washington corroded with corruption, cronyism and power politics into new era guided by the constitution and democratic values.
WASHINGTON (CNN) — Promising "a new era of openness in our country," President Obama signed executive orders Wednesday relating to ethics guidelines for staff members of his administration.
"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency," Obama said.
Has there been a breach of constitutional law in the Cabinet post appointments?
It is worth examining, as it appears to be the case according to some concerned citizens who are also legal experts in the constitutional law.
————————————————————————————————————-
Source: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/11/25/is-hillary-clinton-unconstitutional/ –
Thank you.
Is Hillary Clinton Unconstitutional?
Posted by Ilya Shapiro, Previous: There’s No Change Here
It appears that there may be genuine constitutional problems with her expected nomination. To wit, Article I, section 6, clause 2 reads:
Via http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_6_2.html
Article 1, Section 6, Clause 2
No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.
That is, under this “Emoluments Clause,” members of Congress are expressly forbidden to take any appointed position within the government which was created or whose pay has been increased during their current term in office.
Now, a January 2008 executive order, promulgated in accordance with a statute from the 1990s that addressed cost of living adjustments for certain federal officials, raised the Secretary of State’s salary, thus constitutionally prohibiting any then-serving senator who remains in office from taking charge of Foggy Bottom. (Sen. Clinton’s current term began in January 2007 and expires in January 2013.)
—————————————————————————————————————————————
Source: http://volokh.com/posts/1227548910.shtml
Hillary Clinton and the Emoluments Clause:
There’s been talk about whether Sen. Hillary Clinton is disqualified from a position as Secretary of State by the Emoluments Clause:
Adam Bonin’s Daily Kos blog has a bit more on this, but the short version is that a Jan. 2008 executive order, promulgated pursuant to a 1990s cost of living adjustment statute, raised the salary of the Secretary of State, so the Emoluments Clause question is in play.
I very recently read an article by John O’Connor on the subject, The Emoluments Clause: An Anti-Federalist Intruder in a Federalist Constitution, 24 Hofstra L. Rev. 89 (1995), so I asked him what he thought.
Here’s his answer (some paragraph breaks added); please note that I have some comments at the end of this post that express a somewhat different view:
It seems to me that there are two questions regarding whether the Emoluments Clause to the U.S. Constitution (Art. I, § 6, cl. 2) renders Senator Hillary Clinton constitutionally ineligible for appointment as Secretary of State:
(1) whether Senator Clinton is now ineligible for appointment; and
(2) if Senator Clinton is ineligible for appointment, whether that ineligibility may be cured by the so-called “Saxbe Fix,” whereby the Secretary of State’s salary is reduced to the salary in effect before Senator Clinton’s current Senate term began.
I think it is beyond dispute that Senator Clinton is currently ineligible for appointment as secretary of State. I also believe that the better construction of the Emoluments Clause is that the “Saxbe Fix” does not remove this ineligibility.
The Saxbe Fix got its name because the Nixon administration sought to eliminate Senator William Saxbe’s ineligibility for appointment as Attorney General by reducing the salary of that office to the level that existed before Senator Saxbe’s appointment.
The Emoluments Clause provides that “[n]o Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time.”
As I understand it, 5 U.S.C. § 5303 provides for an automatic annual increase in certain federal salaries, including the salary of the Secretary of State, unless the President certifies that an increase in salaries is inappropriate.
The salary of the Secretary of State has increased during Senator Clinton’s current Senate term, which does not end until 2012.
Therefore, under a straightforward application of the Emoluments Clause, Senator Clinton is ineligible for appointment as Secretary of State because the emoluments of that office “have been encreased” during Senator Clinton’s current Senate term, and this disability continues until the end of “the time for which [she] was elected, or until January 2013.
I do not believe it affects the analysis that the salary increase occurred as a result of an Executive Order or that the statute creating these quasi-automatic salary increases was enacted prior to Senator Clinton’s current term.
By its plain language, the Emoluments Clause applies when the office’s salary “shall have been encreased,” without regard to exactly how it was increased.
Indeed, an early proposed draft of the clause included language limiting it to an increase of emoluments “by the legislature of the U[nited] States,” and was later revised to encompass any increase in emoluments.
It is worth noting that several Framers thought, without much explication, that the clause was too lax as initially drafted. The clause also does not require that a Senator or Representative have voted for the increase.
This focus [on] a past act of increasing emoluments, rather than on the emoluments existing at the time of appointment suggests to me that the clause’s best reading is that an act of increasing emoluments renders members of Congress ineligible for appointment [to] the office until their respective congressional terms end.
In addition, one of the central theses of my law review article on the subject is that the purpose of the Emoluments Clause is disserved by the Saxbe Fix.
The records of the federal constitutional convention indicate two purposes underlying the Emoluments Clause:
(1) general anti-corruption, whereby Congress might conspire with the President to create offices, or to give existing offices exorbitant salaries, with the understanding that a Member of Congress would be appointed to the office; and
(2) limiting the size, importance, and reach of the federal bureaucracy.
————————————————————————————————————————————–
Republic Action: By Padmini Arhant
It is important for the people of the Republic to awaken and ensure that elected representatives honor commitments towards their constituents and the nation by respecting the constitutional law and abide by the common rules and regulations meant for all regardless of societal hierarchy.
Indeed, it is a huge disappointment that electorate is relevant only during the electoral process.
Once the ballots are cast and power entrusted to the lawmakers as the people representatives, the abuse of power is a reflex action with a tendency to discount and dismiss the will of democracy particularly during federal appointments and other legislative matters.
Any functional democracy requires that apart from transparency and accountability, the office of Presidency and Congress act with entire integrity in recruitments by not violating the trust of the people and the constitution governing the nation.
Additionally, rather than personal choices for various cabinet posts contributing to ethical issues, the real change in Washington would be depicted if the cabinet posts were advertised for direct public appointments reflecting the acknowledgement of talent and caliber among the eligible electorate.
Is it too late to review the appointments that have already taken place?
Action is anytime better than inaction to confirm the power of democracy.
Shouldn’t we all know now from the past eight years’ legacy?
The voice of America is the only legitimate force that can bring about any Positive Change in every citizen’s life.
Thank you.
Padmini Arhant
P.S. Please review the insightful presentation “Secretary of State Nomination” on www.padminiarhant.com for complete comprehension.
Conflict of Interest
January 28, 2009
Secretary of State
By Padmini Arhant
Secretary of State position has been filled and the appointee, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has assumed office.
Did the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the full Senate pay any attention to the substantial facts and evidences provided by citizens and news editorials on this matter as well as other cabinet post appointments?
Apparently not and that appears to be the interesting focus for concerned electorate.
——————————————————–
Bill Clinton made millions from foreign sources
By MATTHEW LEE, Associated Press Writer Matthew Lee, Associated Press Writer – 35 mins ago
WASHINGTON – Former President Bill Clinton earned nearly $6 million in speaking fees last year, almost all of it from foreign companies, according to financial documents filed by his wife, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton .
The documents obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press show that $4.6 million of the former president’s reported $5.7 million in 2008 honoraria came from foreign sources, including Kuwait’s national bank , other firms and groups in Canada, Germany, India, Malaysia , Mexico and Portugal and a Hong Kong-based company that spent $100,000 on federal lobbying last year.
Executives at many of the firms that paid honoraria to Bill Clinton have also donated large amounts of money to the Clinton Foundation , according to documents it released last year as part of an agreement with Congress on Hillary Clinton’s nomination as secretary of state.
That agreement was aimed at preventing the appearance of any conflict of interest between the ex-president’s charitable organization and his wife’s new job as the United States’ top diplomat.
In addition to Bill Clinton’s income from speaking fees, Hillary Clinton reported joint holdings of between $6.1 million and $30.3 million in a blind trust as well as cash, insurance and retirement accounts worth between $1 million and $5.2 million.
Hillary Clinton made between $50,000 and $100,000 in royalties from her 2003 memoir "Living History."
Bill Clinton earned between $100,000 and $1 million in royalties for his 2004 autobiography "My Life," the documents show. The Clintons reported no liabilities.
All senior officials in the Obama administration are required to complete a detailed disclosure of their personal finances, including spouse and children, which is updated yearly.
The two men selected to serve as Hillary Clinton’s deputy secretaries of state, Jacob Lew and James Steinberg , also filed financial disclosure forms.
Lew, a former Clinton administration official who recently headed Citigroup’s Alternative Investments unit, reported 2008 salary income of just over $1 million along with numerous investments, including between $50,000 and $100,000 in State of Israel bonds .
Steinberg, another former Clinton administration official who recently was a professor at the University of Texas, reported receiving $35,000 in 2008 for foreign speaking engagements, including three before Japanese media firms and one before the Confederation of Indian Industries in New Delhi.
The most Bill Clinton got from a foreign source was $1.25 million for appearing at five events sponsored by the Toronto-based Power Within Inc., a company that puts on motivational and training programs around North America , according to Hillary Clinton’s submission.
For one Power Within speech alone, delivered in Edmonton in June 2008, Clinton was paid $525,000, the most for any single event that year. For one event, he got $200,000 and for three others he received $175,000 each, the documents show.
The Hong Kong firm, Hybrid Kinetic Automotive Holdings, paid Clinton a $300,000 honorarium on Dec. 4, 2008. Twenty five days later, on Dec. 29, a man listed as the company’s chief financial officer, Jack Xi Deng, made a $25,000 cash donation to the Virginia gubernatorial campaign of Clinton confidant Terry McAuliffe , according to the Virginia Public Access Project.
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the Hong Kong firm paid at least $100,000 in 2008 to lobbyists on immigration issues.
The other foreign honoraria Bill Clinton received in 2008 are:
$450,000 from AWD Holding AG , a German-based international financial services company.
$350,000 from the state-owned National Bank of Kuwait . The Kuwaiti government donated between $1 million and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation , according to the foundation’s disclosure.
$300,000 from Value Grupo Financiero SA de CV, a Mexico -based financial holding company , whose chief executive officer , Carlos Bremer Gutierrez, is one of the Clinton Foundation’s leading donors. Gutierrez donated between $250,001 to $500,000 to the foundation, according to foundation’s documents.
$250,000 from Germany’s Media Control Gmbh, which bills itself as the world’s leading provider of entertainment data and was founded by Karlheinz Koegel, who contributed $100,001 to $250,000 to the Clinton foundation.
$200,000 from Malaysia’s Petra Equities Management on behalf of the Sekhar Foundation run by Malaysian multimillionaire Vinod Sekhar who donated between $25,001 and $50,000 to the Clinton Foundation, according to its documents.
In addition to the foreign earnings,
Bill Clinton made just over $1 million from domestic speaking engagements, including $250,000 from MSG Entertainment , $225,000 from the National Association of Home Care and Hospice, $200,000 from the United Nations Association , $175,000 from the ING North America Insurance Corp., $125,000 from the Rodman and Renshaw Capital Group and $100,000 from the Hollywood Radio and Television Society.
Voice of Concern: By Padmini Arhant
I suppose, now it must be clear to America why despite the impressive combined earnings by the then Senator and now newly appointed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s request for personal donation was not met .
The impression might be what could possibly a small, diminutive, frail and fragile individual’s support or the lack thereof do to powerful nominations and subsequent confirmation.
It was already proven during the election when several requests and demands were placed for endorsement of the Presidential candidates.
Otherwise, would any ordinary citizen be sought after relentlessly for endorsement in a high profile and vigorously contested political battle by the contestants?
Further, Supreme force representative’s subservient manner should not be translated as an inferior or a weak personality in any shape due to intimacy with natural phenomenon.
Regardless, the stark contrast between the powerful on earth and those representing the power of the universe is,
The latter are courageous in speaking the truth and standing up for justice and peace wherever and whenever it applies.
History is testimony that Prophets and messengers were subject to incredible endurance tests including death for some as in the case of Lord Jesus Christ.
In the ancient era, Prophets and Messiahs had to prove their identity and worthiness by performing wonders or miracles.
It ranged from bearing the cross and resurrection to life and possessing witnesses for the ability to walk on water.
Now, in the new millennium the expectation of the virtuous could still be to exhibit magic moments by spitting fire, moving mountains and relevantly excavation of economy from deep recession heading towards Great Depression.
Such expectations by those considering themselves extraordinary are not surprising.
In fact, up until recently the utterance of God and any discussions related to the highest grace was argued as undemocratic by calling for elimination of such discourse in public square.
Anyone challenging the might of the mortals is frequently dismissed as a questionable character and their concerns for humanity invalidated through defiance per recent demonstration of Cabinet posts confirmation.
All those bound by ethics and compliance of common law in a democracy rejecting the plea with presentation of facts and evidences against Hillary Clinton’s confirmation as well as other appointees are in denial of the highest authority.
Hence, the comment during the Radio talk show on “Free Palestine” about public displays of prayers and worships as meaningless because of selective embracing of God by political figures.
Thus, forcing one to arrive at a conclusion that even “Almighty God” is a fair game in politics.
It goes to prove that Cabinet posts in any administration could be picked and chosen by the privileged members of a political party and some outsiders through virtue of their association with previous administrations leaving no opportunities for the deserving aspirants outside the circle in the so-called democracy.
Then why bother wasting taxpayers’ dollars with senate hearing and confirmation process if the purpose is meant to be a mere formality?
With foreign governments and sources donating to Clinton foundation and honorarium for his speeches, should American electorate consider such generosity by these entities an act of pure benevolence for humanity and not have Clintons reciprocate in return?
Alternatively, are these donors so magnanimous that they are involved in a great humanitarian effort whilst ignoring the plight of the population in their own backyard?
Washington was to be changed and shaken up to give way to new political system.
Is shuffling the cabinet posts among the group consisting of those demanding party favors a fair selection process?
Does democracy really have a chance when Power is still the dominant force crushing the will of the republic?
The lawmakers awestruck by candidates despite controversial background moved forward to fill positions in fulfillment of their obligations and responsibilities with no regard for due process.
New administration was sworn in with the pledge to America to change Washington corroded with corruption, cronyism and power politics into new era guided by the constitution and democratic values.
WASHINGTON (CNN) — Promising "a new era of openness in our country," President Obama signed executive orders Wednesday relating to ethics guidelines for staff members of his administration.
"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency," Obama said.
Has there been a breach of constitutional law in the Cabinet post appointments?
It is worth examining, as it appears to be the case according to some concerned citizens who are also legal experts in the constitutional law.
—————————————————————————————————————————————————–
Source: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/11/25/is-hillary-clinton-unconstitutional/ – Thank you.
Is Hillary Clinton Unconstitutional?
Posted by Ilya Shapiro , Previous: There’s No Change Here
It appears that there may be genuine constitutional problems with her expected nomination. To wit, Article I, section 6, clause 2 reads:
Via http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_6_2.html
Article 1, Section 6, Clause 2
No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.
That is, under this “Emoluments Clause,” members of Congress are expressly forbidden to take any appointed position within the government which was created or whose pay has been increased during their current term in office.
Now, a January 2008 executive order, promulgated in accordance with a statute from the 1990s that addressed cost of living adjustments for certain federal officials, raised the Secretary of State’s salary, thus constitutionally prohibiting any then-serving senator who remains in office from taking charge of Foggy Bottom. (Sen. Clinton’s current term began in January 2007 and expires in January 2013.)
——————————————————————————————————————————————
Source: http://volokh.com/posts/1227548910.shtml – Thank you.
Hillary Clinton and the Emoluments Clause:
There’s been talk about whether Sen. Hillary Clinton is disqualified from a position as Secretary of State by the Emoluments Clause:
Adam Bonin’s Daily Kos blog has a bit more on this, but the short version is that a Jan. 2008 executive order , promulgated pursuant to a 1990s cost of living adjustment statute, raised the salary of the Secretary of State, so the Emoluments Clause question is in play.
I very recently read an article by John O’Connor on the subject, The Emoluments Clause: An Anti-Federalist Intruder in a Federalist Constitution , 24 Hofstra L. Rev. 89 (1995) , so I asked him what he thought.
Here’s his answer (some paragraph breaks added); please note that I have some comments at the end of this post that express a somewhat different view:
It seems to me that there are two questions regarding whether the Emoluments Clause to the U.S. Constitution (Art. I, § 6, cl. 2) renders Senator Hillary Clinton constitutionally ineligible for appointment as Secretary of State:
(1) whether Senator Clinton is now ineligible for appointment; and
(2) if Senator Clinton is ineligible for appointment, whether that ineligibility may be cured by the so-called “Saxbe Fix,” whereby the Secretary of State’s salary is reduced to the salary in effect before Senator Clinton’s current Senate term began.
I think it is beyond dispute that Senator Clinton is currently ineligible for appointment as secretary of State. I also believe that the better construction of the Emoluments Clause is that the “Saxbe Fix” does not remove this ineligibility.
The Saxbe Fix got its name because the Nixon administration sought to eliminate Senator William Saxbe’s ineligibility for appointment as Attorney General by reducing the salary of that office to the level that existed before Senator Saxbe’s appointment.
The Emoluments Clause provides that “[n]o Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time.”
As I understand it, 5 U.S.C. § 5303 provides for an automatic annual increase in certain federal salaries, including the salary of the Secretary of State, unless the President certifies that an increase in salaries is inappropriate.
The salary of the Secretary of State has increased during Senator Clinton’s current Senate term, which does not end until 2012.
Therefore, under a straightforward application of the Emoluments Clause, Senator Clinton is ineligible for appointment as Secretary of State because the emoluments of that office “have been encreased” during Senator Clinton’s current Senate term, and this disability continues until the end of “the time for which [she] was elected, or until January 2013.
I do not believe it affects the analysis that the salary increase occurred as a result of an Executive Order or that the statute creating these quasi-automatic salary increases was enacted prior to Senator Clinton’s current term.
By its plain language, the Emoluments Clause applies when the office’s salary “shall have been encreased,” without regard to exactly how it was increased.
Indeed, an early proposed draft of the clause included language limiting it to an increase of emoluments “by the legislature of the U[nited] States,” and was later revised to encompass any increase in emoluments.
It is worth noting that several Framers thought, without much explication, that the clause was too lax as initially drafted. The clause also does not require that a Senator or Representative have voted for the increase.
This focus [on] a past act of increasing emoluments, rather than on the emoluments existing at the time of appointment suggests to me that the clause’s best reading is that an act of increasing emoluments renders members of Congress ineligible for appointment [to] the office until their respective congressional terms end.
In addition, one of the central theses of my law review article on the subject is that the purpose of the Emoluments Clause is disserved by the Saxbe Fix.
The records of the federal constitutional convention indicate two purposes underlying the Emoluments Clause:
(1) general anti-corruption, whereby Congress might conspire with the President to create offices, or to give existing offices exorbitant salaries, with the understanding that a Member of Congress would be appointed to the office; and
(2) limiting the size, importance, and reach of the federal bureaucracy.
—————————————————————————————————————————————————–
Republic Action: By Padmini Arhant
It is important for the people of the Republic to awaken and ensure that elected representatives honor commitments towards their constituents and the nation by respecting the constitutional law and abide by the common rules and regulations meant for all regardless of societal hierarchy.
Indeed, it is a huge disappointment that electorate is relevant only during the electoral process.
Once the ballots are cast and power entrusted to the lawmakers as the people representatives, the abuse of power is a reflex action with a tendency to discount and dismiss the will of democracy particularly during federal appointments and other legislative matters.
Any functional democracy requires that apart from transparency and accountability, the office of Presidency and Congress act with entire integrity in recruitments by not violating the trust of the people and the constitution governing the nation.
Additionally, rather than personal choices for various cabinet posts contributing to ethical issues, the real change in Washington would be depicted if the cabinet posts were advertised for direct public appointments reflecting the acknowledgement of talent and caliber among the eligible electorate.
Is it too late to review the appointments that have already taken place?
Action is anytime better than inaction to confirm the power of democracy.
Shouldn’t we all know now from the past eight years’ legacy?
The voice of America is the only legitimate force that can bring about any Positive Change in every citizen’s life.
Thank you.
Padmini Arhant
P.S. Please review the insightful presentation “Secretary of State Nomination” on www.padminiarhant.com for complete comprehension.
Radio Show Update
January 24, 2009
Schedule Update:
January 24, 2009, Air time – 8.00 – 10.00 P.M(PST)
Category: Current Events
Topic: Wall Street Bailout
Discussion:
What should financial institutions do with taxpayers’ bailout?
Why haven’t the financial institutions invested funds to stimulate economy?
What is public demand from them and the legislators?
——————————————————————————————————————-
January 25, 2009, Air Time 2.00 – 4.00P.M (PST) – (5.00 – 7.00P.M EST)
Topic: Free Palestine
Discussion:
1. How can we help to expedite independent state for Palestinians free of Israeli blockade, occupation and aggression?
2. What should the new administration do to be a trustworthy partner and unbiased peace broker in the Middle East conflict?
3. How can we help Israeli population elect a moderate government in early February favoring peace and diplomacy over military action for their national security and sovereignty?
——————————————————————————————————————
January 30, 2009, 120 minutes 2.00P.M – 4.00P.M – Cancelled due to restrictions on segments at frequent intervals.
Category: Current Events
Topic: Economy and Health Care – Please refer to blog post on www.padminiarhant.com for details and I invite you to post comments.
What should the new administration do for you and the economy?
How do we fix the Health Care system?
———————————————————————————-
Podcast live : http://www.blogtalkradio.com/Padmini-A
Guest Call-in-number: (646) 727 -3778
I invite you all to participate in the public forum and share your concerns, ideas and knowledge.
Your comments and thoughts are welcome in the political discourse.
Let us keep democracy alive and help our new President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden in rebuilding our nation.
Your participation is a huge encouragement and always appreciated – Thank you again.
Look forward to the session.
Thank you.
Padmini Arhant
Renew America Together
January 19, 2009
Today is an important day as we commemorate the outstanding contribution of the civil rights leader and icon of peace DR. Martin Luther King Jr.
Dr. King remembered as a trailblazer with his dream to transcend race that has long been an impediment for social, economic and political progress. This year is particularly significant, due to the long awaited promise of America scheduled for delivery upon swearing in of the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama to the office of Presidency on January 20, 2009.
Dr. King’s legacy span across the spectrum and focused on unity, equal rights and opportunities for all. Seldom, nations have sons like Dr. King to lay their life in pledge of support for humanity. It is truly an honor to be part of the nation with a hero like Dr. King paving the path for those human beings deprived of civil liberties and daring them to rise to the occasion.
If Dr. King were to be present today though he lives among us in spirit, the remarkable speech about his dream for a United America turning into reality with a bright and promising new President Barack Obama will serve as living testimony that change does not occur unless brought upon collectively.
As a nation, we ought to be proud of the great achievement with the election of the new President Barack Obama. Although, a milestone reached after several decades, there are still enormous tasks ahead in resolving racial prejudice, economic prosperity and social justice for those struggling at the bottom of the demographic data.
Dr. King is the beacon of light to courageously expel darkness in human minds that segregated one another, polarized the society and marginalized selective members of the human race. It is evident from history that freedom and equality for all comes with sacrifices by few and serve as the cornerstone for further developments in the future.
It is imperative now to get involved in activities for the common goal granting identical rights and privileges for all. We all have certain responsibilities as citizens and acknowledging them as the primary objective guaranteed to bear fruits for a better future.
Dr. King eloquently stated,
“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.”
As much as there are unprecedented challenges and crisis ahead, we have brilliant prospects with the new Presidency of Barack Obama and Vice President Jo e Biden.
Deep in our heart, we believe that we shall overcome the trials and tribulations as a unified force of the human race representing the great United States.
Thank you.
Padmini Arhant