Afghan War, the Additional Troops Request and the Election – Analysis

September 29, 2009

Analysis: By Padmini Arhant

From the earlier data, it is conclusive that since the inception of the Afghan war, the constant flow of funding and the troops surge has remained the routine build up in the ill-conceived ‘so-called’ war on terror. The long fought war in the past eight years and previously against the Soviets should provide the U.S. defense a concise idea about the Afghan terrains, terrorists’ hideouts and other relevant operational tactics by the Talibans and the Al-Qaida forces.

Considering the earlier Taliban generation were trained as the Mujahedeens by the CIA against the Soviets and instrumental in driving the Soviet Army from the Afghan land, it’s reasonable to ask the question,

When success was then possible with the limited financial and military contingency, why is it not feasible now with the exceptional assets at the defense forces disposal?

The Congressional approval of excess funding via discretionary channel to circumvent the constitutional limitations and the increasing troop deployment at the highest military hierarchy behest with no accountability for the monetary or combat forces investment in the evolved operation raises a serious credibility issue leading to an appropriate investigation.

Oddly, the Afghan situation possesses an uncanny resemblance to the financial sector bailout in the absence of checks and balances against the oligarchs responsible for the world economic crisis.

The irony is, the U.S. and NATO resources are superfluous against the insurgents’ outdated and conventional stockpiles purchased from the tribal warlords in control of the narcotic industry. Despite the United States extensive prior knowledge of the mountainous regions and enhanced weaponry including the state of the art technology, the U.S. and NATO command continue to claim the insurgency by the Taliban and Al-Qaida operatives as ‘uncontainable.’ Somehow, it doesn’t fit in with the rationality.

Then the trio forces represented by Afghanistan, Pakistan and the United States declare the combatants, ‘a force to reckon with,’ when Pakistan and Afghanistan must be familiar with the respective demography in the northwestern Pakistan, the eastern Afghanistan apart from the southern provinces of the Kandahar district. Again, the status acknowledged by the U.S. and NATO highest command in a statement that “Talibans are emboldened more than ever and dangerously widespread making Afghanistan a possible failed state.”

Is it a real concern or a proposition for a permanent military base evidenced in the topic’s prequel?

Another poignant matter is Pakistan’s role in aiding and abetting the Talibans following the U.S abandonment and the Soviet departure. During the Bush administration, the Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf received substantial financial aid and arms supply as an “important” ally of the apparent war on terror.

Evidently, the disclosed $10 billion dollars and more was not spent for the desired purpose, instead Pakistan ventured into replenishing stocks targeting the eternal rival and neighbor India.

In spite of the U.S. royal treatment of the former military regime under President Musharraf, the nuclear technology trader A.Q. Khan was protected and the U.S. intelligence forces were denied access to the entity by the regime. Today’s nuclear proliferation among North Korea and Iran stem from A.Q. Khan’s illicit dealings in trading WMD secret programs.

The trend continues with the financial aid being tripled combined with more arsenal supply ‘supposedly’ to extinguish the fire set by the Pakistani ISI and the military in cohort with the Talibans and the Al-Qaida elements in Waziristan and other parts of the north western region up until recently. It’s not a concocted theory when the independent Pakistani and other international journalists reported that the world’s most wanted terror leader Osama Bin Laden received medical treatment in Pakistan during the Musharraf Presidency.

The military agents actively promote the Kashmir issue between the two nuclear neighbors to see the snoring lion turn into a roaring beast. Meanwhile, distracting the world from the compounded problems within Pakistan – the people of Pakistan deprived of the genuine freedom and democracy not to mention the chaos and mayhem caused with frequent suicide bombings and explosions.

In fact, the situation in the two Islamic nations has been perpetually meddled with excessive foreign policy interventions doing more harm than any good until date. The constant turmoil and warfare has crippled the economies leaving the populations at the mercy of the oil rich Saudi Arabia and the Western control.

The bright and the educated middle class to the poorest of the Pakistani population are subject to the dynasty rule disguised as democracy with the Pakistani military having an upper hand in the major governance.

Diverting attention homeward;

The legitimate question for the American taxpayers engaged in the health care battle of the century is –
How do the so-called fiscal conservatives from both sides of the aisle justify the enrage at the hypothetical costs of providing universal health care, while seemingly comfortable with the Fiscal Year 2009, defense spending amount to 4.7% of GDP?

The military industrial complex dominance with strong hawkish representations in the Defense and the State Departments in the current administration is conspicuous with the irrational winning streak calculations in the misguided missions in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The tragic truth revealed in the casualties endured by the families of the U.S. military and the ally forces along with the scores of civilian deaths callously dismissed as the ‘collateral’ damages in the warfare.

Regarding the permanent military base in Afghanistan, the published reports confirm the former Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s complicity to the occupation of his homeland by foreign forces, questioning the President’s loyalty to the nation, he is expected to govern.

Then the subsequent crowning of the controversial ex-President Hamid Karzai amidst election fraud and widely exposed scandals by the secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton and other NATO diplomats clearly indicates the entities following specific directions of the military industrial complex defining the role for the executive members in the sprawling scheme.

Since when the Secretary of State and other NATO foreign ministers overtly assigned the duty to select the head of the foreign government smeared with corruption charges and voter fraud allegations, against the will of the population yearning for real democracy?

Isn’t the role of the U.S. military and NATO in Afghanistan restricted to eliminating terror, and refrain from any intervention in the electoral decisions?

When the U.S and NATO forces indulge in the appointments of the heads of the foreign governments, they not only threaten the democratic opportunities for the subject nations but also undermine the democracy they represent.

The Defense Forces’ high commands testify to the elected representatives in a democracy, the Congress, by repeatedly urging that “the troops and discretionary funding requirement is essential to succeed in the escalating war on terror” with the reality being otherwise.

But not anymore. This time, it’s incumbent on the Pentagon to face the nation and lay the facts as the permanent military base in Afghanistan or elsewhere is an act of treason against the nation, not barring the crime against humanity with the notion to enslave the innocent population trusting the organization to protect and liberate them from the tyranny and oppression.

When the defense budget funds are misappropriated for destructive reasons of the never ending warfare, illegal arms race i.e. both conventional and nuclear arsenal in the open markets, then the military institution loses the trust and respect of the national population. It’s equivalent to the betrayal of the parents declining to protect the children and instead endanger their lives.

If the military institutions confine to the honorable duty to defend the sovereignty of the nation, safeguard the pledge of allegiance to the flag and regard the life of another like their own, then the battle grounds would no longer be the killing fields.

Those who engage in invasion, occupation, pillage, ruin of other nations have engulfed in the self ignited flames, while others eventually come to the realization that in the laws of nature, there is no state of permanence. History witnessed the emperors like Napoleon Bonaparte, Alexander the Great and the likes succumb to the crumbling of their greatness, regarding themselves once as invincible.

The wisdom serves that mortals brought nothing into the world and hence take nothing back with them and no one is a permanent resident on the planet irrespective of status. Life is a journey and travelers leave when their travel ends with their activities evaluated and judged accordingly.

Wars can’t go on forever and must eventually ceasefire.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

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

Afghanistan War, the Additional Troops Request and the Election

September 28, 2009

By Padmini Arhant

There has been additional troops request from the U.S. and NATO Commander, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal accompanied by the endorsements of the other highest commands. The request made with a sense of urgency within the military ranks based on variable assessments and conflicting reports from different sources that if the troops request delayed or denied; “it could perhaps lead to the mission failure” in the prolonged war that had continued to deploy troops on that strategy.

According to reputable news sources, the U.S. force in Afghanistan estimated to reach 68,000 by the year’s end. Now, the fact remains to be carefully examined on the U.S. and NATO defense policy implemented in the Afghanistan war prompting the current administration to inflate the defense budget disproportionately to $651.2 billion excluding the various non-itemized expenditures by the other departments in the nucleus.

The following materials are extremely important in ascertaining the real purpose of the persistent war nearing almost a decade with incessant violence, lawlessness and horrendous loss of lives on all sides that could have been contained considering the interjection of enormous resources in terms of funding and troops supply possibly restoring a democratic rule in Afghanistan conforming with the metaphor –

“Where there is a will, there is a way.”

The sequel with a detailed analysis will follow in due course of time.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant
————————————————————————————————–
Advisers split over Afghan troop request:

Military divided over force levels required for plan

By Peter Baker and Elisabeth Bumiller – New York Times

Provided through The San Jose Mercury News, Sunday September 27, 2009 – Thank you.

“Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal’s troop request, which was submitted to the Pentagon on Friday, has reignited a longstanding debate within the military about the virtues of the counterinsurgency strategy popularized by Gen. David H. Petraeus in Iraq and embraced by McChrystal, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan.

McChrystal is expected to ask for as many as 40,000 additional troops for the eight-year old war, a number that has generated concern among top officers like Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the Army chief of staff, who worry about the capacity to provide more soldiers at a time of stress on the force, officials said.

While Obama is hearing from more hawkish voices, including Hillary Rodham Clinton, the secretary of state, and Richard C. Holbrooke, the special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, some outside advisers relied on by Obama have voiced doubts.

But other officers who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan and say they admire McChrystal nonetheless have privately expressed doubt that additional troops will make a difference.
“If a request for more forces comes to the Army, we’ll have to assess what that will do in terms of stress on the force,” said a senior Army officer, who asked not to be identified speaking before McChrystal’s troop request became public.”

Casey, whose institutional role as Army chief is to protect his force, has a stated goal by 2012 to increase a soldier’s time at home from the current one year for every year of duty in Iraq or Afghanistan to two years at home for every year served.”

——————————————————————————————

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States – Thank you.

U.S. Defense Budget for the Fiscal Year 2009:

For the 2009 fiscal year, the base budget rose to $515.4 billion. Adding emergency discretionary spending and supplemental spending brings the sum to $651.2 billion. Not included in the DoD budget is $23.4 billion to be spent by the Department of Energy to develop and maintain nuclear warheads.

NON DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DEFENSE RELATED EXPENDITURES

This does not include many military-related items that are outside of the Defense Department budget, such as nuclear weapons research, maintenance, cleanup, and production (about $16.4 billion, which is in the Department of Energy budget), Veterans Affairs (about $53.0 billion), defense spending by the Department of Homeland Security (about $41.4 billion),

Interest on debt incurred in past wars, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (about $83.4 billion in 2009, funded through extra-budgetary supplemental bills), or State Department financing of foreign arms sales (about $5.3 billion) and militarily-related development assistance.

The U.S. Department of Defense budget accounted in fiscal year 2008 for about 21% of the United States federal budgeted expenditures. Including spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Homeland Security, and Veteran’s Affairs, defense spending was approximately $800 billion, or 32% of 2008 tax receipts of $2.5 trillion.[5]

Because of constitutional limitations, military funding is appropriated in a discretionary spending account. (Such accounts permit government planners to have more flexibility to change spending each year, as opposed to mandatory spending accounts that mandate spending on programs outside of the budgetary process.) In recent years, discretionary spending as a whole has amounted to about one-third of total federal outlays. Military funding’s share of discretionary funding was 50.5% in 2003, and has risen steadily ever since.

The 2005 U.S. military budget is almost as much as the rest of the world’s defense spending combined and is over eight times larger than the military budget of China (compared at the nominal US dollar / Renminbi rate, not the PPP rate). The United States and its close allies are responsible for about two-thirds of the world’s military spending (of which, in turn, the U.S. is responsible for the majority). In 2007, US military spending was above 1/4 of combined industrial and agricultural production in the USA.

————————————————————————————————–
Focus on the Afghanistan war and the Operational Deficiency:

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)

TOTAL CASUALTIES FOR THE YEAR:

By January 2009, the Taliban claimed that they had killed 5,220 foreign troops, downed 31 aircraft, destroyed 2,818 NATO and Afghan vehicles and killed 7,552 Afghan soldiers and police in 2008 alone. The Associated Press estimated that a total of 286 foreign military personnel were killed in Afghanistan in 2008.[130] Icasualties puts the total number of coalition soldiers killed in 2008 at 294.

——————————————————————————————
2009: U.S. Surge :

Main article: Coalition combat operations in Afghanistan in 2009

JOINT INTELLIGENCE CENTER –

The Khyber Border Coordination Center between the U.S., Pakistan, and Afghanistan, at Torkham on the Afghan side of the Khyber Pass, has been in operation for nine months. But U.S. officials at the Khyber Center say language barriers, border disputes between Pakistani and Afghan field officers, and longstanding mistrust among all three militaries have impeded progress.

In January, about 3,000 U.S. soldiers from the 3rd Brigade Combat Team of the 10th Mountain Division moved into the provinces of Logar and Wardak. The troops were the first wave of an expected surge of reinforcements originally ordered by George W. Bush and increased by Barack Obama.

In mid-February, it was announced that 17,000 additional troops would be deployed to the country in two brigades and additional support troops; the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade of about 3,500 from the 7,000 Marines, and the 5th Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, a Stryker Brigade with about 4,000 of the 7,000 US Army soldiers. The U.S. commander in Afghanistan, General McKiernan, had called for as many as 30,000 additional troops, effectively doubling the number of troops currently in the country.

—————————————————————————————–
TALIBAN’S GAINS

On August 10, 2009, Stanley McChrystal, the newly appointed U.S. commander in Afghanistan, said that the Taliban has presently gained the upper hand and that the ISAF is not winning in the 8 year-old war.
————————————————————————————————
Possible long-term U.S. role & military presence:

Many of the thousands of U.S. troops in Afghanistan are positioned in what experts say are large, permanent bases.

In February 2005, U.S. Senator John McCain called for the establishment of permanent U.S. military bases in Afghanistan, saying such bases would be “for the good of the American people, because of the long-term security interests we have in the region”.

He made the remarks while visiting Afghan President Hamid Karzai in Kabul as part of a five-member, bi-partisan Senate delegation travelling through the region for talks on security issues.

The same delegation also included then-Senator Hillary Clinton, now U.S. Secretary of State.

In mid-March, 2005, U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Richard Myers told reporters in Kabul that the U.S. Defense Department was studying the feasibility of such permanent military bases. At the end of March, the U.S. military announced that it was spending $83-million on its two main air bases in Afghanistan, Bagram Air Base north of Kabul and Kandahar Air Field in the south of the country.

A few weeks after this series of U.S. statements, in April 2005, during a surprise visit to Kabul by U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Afghan President Hamid Karzai hinted at a possible permanent U.S. military presence in Afghanistan, saying he had also discussed the matter with President Bush. Rumsfeld refused to say whether or not the U.S. wanted permanent American military bases in Afghanistan, saying the final decision would come from the White House.

As of July 2008, hundreds of millions of dollars were being spent on permanent infrastructure for foreign military bases in Afghanistan, including a budget of $780-million to further develop the infrastructure at just the Kandahar Air Field base, described as “a walled, multicultural military city that houses some 13,000 troops from 17 different countries – the kind of place where you can eat at a Dutch chain restaurant alongside soldiers from the Royal Netherlands Army.” The Bagram Air Base, run by the U.S. military, was also expanding according to military officials, with the U.S military buying land from Afghan locals in different places for further expansion of the base.

As of January 2009, the U.S. had begun work on $1.6 billion of new, permanent military installations at Kandahar.

In February 2009, The Times reported that the U.S. will build two huge new military bases in southern Afghanistan. One will be built in Kandahar province near the Helmand border, at Maiwand – a place famous as the site of the destruction of a British army during the Second Anglo-Afghan War. The other new U.S. military base will be built in Zabul, a province now largely controlled by the Taliban and criminal gangs.
————————————————————————————————–
AFGHAN RESISTANCE TO PERMANENT U.S. MILITARY BASES

The idea of permanent U.S. military bases vexes many people in Afghanistan, which has a long history of resisting foreign invaders.

In May 2005, riots and protests that had started over a false report in Newsweek of U.S. interrogators desecrating the Koran and turned into the biggest anti-U.S. protests in Afghanistan since the 2001 invasion included demands that the Kabul government reject U.S. intentions to create a permanent military presence in Afghanistan.
——————————————————————————————–
Public opinion

Main article: International public opinion on the war in Afghanistan

Although the war was supported by most Americans, most people in the world oppose the war.
In a 47-nation June 2007 survey of global public opinion, the Pew Global Attitudes Project found considerable opposition to war.

In 41 of the 47 countries, pluralities want U.S. and NATO troops out of Afghanistan as soon as possible. In 32 out of 47 countries, clear majorities want this war over as soon as possible.

Majorities in 7 out of 12 NATO member countries say troops should be withdrawn as soon as possible.

————————————————————————————————–
Afghan Election:

After Karzai’s alleged win of 54 per cent, which would prevent a run off with his rival, Abdullah Abdullah, over 400,000 votes had to be discounted for Karzai, and many more with hundreds of thousands of votes and polling ballots being accused of fraud.

Making the real turnout of the elections much lower than the official numbers, many nations criticizing the elections as Free but not fair.

Coalition in Afghanistan backs Karzai’s Strategy:

By Karen DeYoung, Washington Post , provided by San Jose Mercury News, Monday September 28, 2009.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and other NATO foreign ministers, meeting Friday in New York with their Afghan counterpart, reached “consensus” that Karzai would probably “continue to be president,” whether through a runoff or as the legitimate winner of more than 50 percent of votes cast in disputed Aug.20 elections, an Obama administration official said.”

————————————————————————————————–

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

The 64th Session of the UN General Assembly and G-20 Summit

September 25, 2009

By Padmini Arhant

Welcome to the forum on the important global gathering of nations to discuss the issues confronting the international community at large.

A humble request to all visitors to the website https://www.padminiarhant.com to take a moment and view the featured videos that speaks volume of the serious humanitarian crisis in hand. As we all know that pictures are worth thousand words and a confirmation of the reality.

Again, the visuals may not be appropriate for all, given the graphic content. The dire situations in these parts of the world beckon the worldwide condemnation and put an end to these atrocities against humanity and bring the perpetrators irrespective of stature to justice as an evidence there is still hope for goodness to prevail in the ever deteriorating immoral world.

Please remember silence is the worst act of crime.

The general debate by the United Nations began early this week with President Barack Obama addressing the General Assembly for the first time since elected to the office of Presidency. The debate continued then onwards with the address by the undemocratically nominated authorities like the Islamic Republic of Iran and The Great Socialist People’s Libya…

The UN Security Council Conference on Facilitating the Entry into Force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty was the highlight of the UN session. The objective of this particular conference was aimed at bringing the States that have not yet agreed to or ratified the treaty for the Non-Proliferation Treaty to come into effect.

Another attention worthy factor is “the Conference effort to bring together representatives of ratifying States, States Signatories, and States that have not yet signed or ratified the Treaty. They will examine how hold-out States can be brought in to sign and ratify the Treaty for it to come into effect.”

What’s also missing in the effort is to have the covert states like the State of Israel, Iran and North Korea to declare their nuclear capability and quantity to determine the dangers of unaccounted nuclear stockpiles by these nations.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_testing – Thank you.

• Soviet Union: 715 tests (involving 969 devices) by official count,[3] most at Semipalatinsk Test Site and Novaya Zemlya, and a few more at various sites in Russia, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Ukraine.

• France: 210 tests by official count (50 atmospheric, 160 underground[4]), 4 atomic atmospheric tests at C.E.S.M. near Reggane, 13 atomic underground tests at C.E.M.O. near In Ekker in the then-French Algerian Sahara, and nuclear atmospheric tests at Fangataufa and nuclear undersea tests Moruroa in French Polynesia. Additional atomic and chemical warfare tests took place in the secret base B2-Namous, near Ben Wenif, other tests involving rockets and missiles at C.I.E.E.S, near Hammaguir, both in the Sahara.

• United Kingdom: 45 tests (21 in Australian territory, including 9 in mainland South Australia at Maralinga and Emu Field, some at Christmas Island in the Pacific Ocean, plus many others in the U.S. as part of joint test series)[5]

In 1963, all nuclear and many non-nuclear states signed the Limited Test Ban Treaty, pledging to refrain from testing nuclear weapons in the atmosphere, underwater, or in outer space. The treaty permitted underground nuclear testing. France continued atmospheric testing until 1974, while China continued up until 1980.

The last underground test by the United States was in 1992, the Soviet Union in 1990, the United Kingdom in 1991, and both France and China continued testing until 1996. After adopting the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in 1996, all of these states have pledged to discontinue all nuclear testing. Non-signatories India and Pakistan last tested nuclear weapons in 1998.

The most recent nuclear test was announced by North Korea on May 25, 2009.

There have been many attempts to limit the number and size of nuclear tests; the most far-reaching was the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty of 1996, which was not ratified by the United States.

Nuclear testing has since become a controversial issue in the United States, with a number of politicians saying that future testing might be necessary to maintain the aging warheads from the Cold War. Because nuclear testing is seen as furthering nuclear arms development, many are also opposed to future testing as an acceleration of the arms race.”

————————————————————————————–

True Perspective: By Padmini Arhant

In light of the real scenario, it is incumbent on the nuclear powers to follow through what they are prescribing for others in the most contentious issue of WMD that is by far the significant threat to global security in the twenty first century.

The irony behind such ambition is the key members enforcing the ban have not either ratified the treaty solemnly or themselves violated the pledge on numerous occasions with the continual nuclear testing by some not necessarily in their own backyard. Further, the meeting agenda was to move towards a nuclear free world, a phenomenal shift from the past that considered such notion to be naïve and a far-fetched principle in the prolific nuclear and conventional arms race era.

It is also important for the states in possession of nuclear arsenal but not admittedly so like the State of Israel to become the signatory and the rattling sabers like Iran and North Korea to abandon their nuclear status.

Such measure is necessary to ensure the credibility of the authorities exclusively focused on cornering the overt nuclear states unwilling to ratify the NPT on these moral grounds. There are clearly double standards by the twentieth century imperial powers in their dealings on most issues not to mention their reluctance to embrace the new world development and requirements.

Naturally, the dominant nuclear powers’ isolated targeting of the confirmed nuclear states to ratify the NPT is perceived by the respective populations as hypocritical to say the least.

Moving on to other matter pertinent to the UN General Assembly meeting is –

The absolute necessity for the expansion of the present Security Council, conspicuously discarded by the members with the exception of France willing to acknowledge the new memberships with a veto power that were listed earlier on such as Brazil, Japan, India, Germany, South Africa and UAE (The United Arab Emirates).

The existing Security Council performance thus far in most global issues have been a dismal failure due to discord among the member nations and mistrust by the international community, especially with the P5 inadequately measuring up to the global decision making essential to resolve complex international issues.

Unless and until a legitimate resolution to expand the Security Council is carried out in this session, any other proposals regardless of its magnitude are irrelevant, as it would signify the P5 resilience to conform to the rapidly changing global environment besides posing a major impediment for any international progress on all issues.

There are many urgent international crisis deserving the assembled world leaders attention and action.

They range from political, economic, energy, education, humanitarian issues related to women, children and exploited labor, global pandemic and epidemic problems, environment to international security.

Although, the heads of the government from different parts of the world command the center stage with speeches that resonates the sentiments of the regions they represent, the nexus of the meeting relies on the earnest commitment towards international peace, progress and prosperity.

Unfortunately, the nations fail to recognize the individual liabilities accumulated on their part towards their own population in denying them democracy, free and fair elections, equal rights to women, trustworthy regional and global trade partnerships, cross border relationships extending to the other international area and last but not the least respect for the humanitarian laws.

The UN General Assembly in the twenty first century should no longer be the diplomatic congregation dedicated to rhetoric and abstinent in concrete actions. The unique opportunity must be utilized to the full potential by all nations to consolidate ideas and strategies in promoting regional and world peace possible upon addressing the few of the many burgeoning crisis.

The first and foremost – Freedom and Democracy in Palestine, Afghanistan, Iran and other parts of the Middle East, Tibet, Mainland and ethnic provinces in China, Burma, North Korea,

Emancipation of ethnic Tamils from the brutal genocide in Sri Lanka, Civil liberties in war ravaged Africa,

Restoration of democratic rule in Honduras and other parts of Latin America and,

Law and order in nuclear Pakistan to list a few as the priorities among the world political crisis.

————————————————————————————————–
The G-20 Summit: BY Padmini Arhant

With respect to the G-20 summit, the selective nations view should encompass the rest of the world dependent on the elitists’ economic policies and environmental decisions interrelated to eliminate poverty in the impoverished regions of Africa, Latin America, Asia, notwithstanding the unemployment plight among the middle and lower income groups in the Western world.

Whether or not the summit involves the global economic challenges including the environmental issues, the consensus should be to provide pragmatic solutions to the entire world through reform and restructuring of the different economic and world agencies such as the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, WTO, ILO (International Labor Organization) and review of the G-20 role in the economic recovery plan.

In this aspect, the anomalies in the trade surpluses and deficits between economic powers must be effectively resolved for global benefits rather than the personal gains of the premier membership committee.

There is enormous work required to combat the global economic woes having a ripple effect as seen in the finance sector, housing market, international trade, manufacturing demanding desperate regulations to avert catastrophes in the future.

In the environmental front, the universal green revolution is paramount for lasting life sustenance on the planet. The United States energy and environmental policy in leading the G-20 nations is vital to achieve the targeted environmental goals.

Various economic treaties between nations due for a thorough review and evaluation at the summit to improve the labor laws, ethics and industrial obligations essential to expedite the sluggish global economy and contain the environmental degradation.

Finally, the UN General Assembly and the G-20 summit are worthwhile with the global community engaged in harmony rather than acrimony to confront the humanitarian crises at all levels for the universal cause.

On that note, every United Nations and G-20 member visit as well as the non-member nations’ participation is appreciated not barring their interest and contribution to the myriad of international achievements thus far.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant


P.S. The featured videos contain graphic content that may not be suitable for all.

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

The Noise Pollution

September 14, 2009

By Padmini Arhant

The blogpost on the “Aftermath of 9/11 including the global economy and international security’ rescheduled for publication. Meanwhile, the news media and press coverage with incendiary remarks and vitriolic comments by certain entities against the specific target as the ‘truthers’ and the ‘blogger in anonymity’ urgently required to be placed in true perspective.

It’s obvious from the news articles that the preachers do not necessarily practice their doctrine on morality, equality, civility and decency to say the least. While demanding decorum from the victim of gender, race, religion and ethnicity biased attacks, these oligarchs brandishing the swords not to slain the truth tellers but indeed the truth itself.

The venom spewed in the local and major newspaper articles need dissection, because it is nothing but a concoction of personal theories layered with bizarre and intellectually lacking assumptions suggesting their own poor representations of the topic and personnel. Surprisingly, one among them ruthlessly accusing the ’10 percent vocal minority’ for the unfamiliar and unpopular self owned obscure websites and its miserable failure to attract traffic among the billion surfers on the cyberspace.

The objectionable content from the authors strongly indicate their characteristics and i.e. When things don’t fare well for them, rather than addressing the self-deficiencies they find a scapegoat preferably the diametrically opposite character to camouflage their fictional work. It is no surprise to view the isolation of the individual they aim at and their preposterous justification in demanding the ousting of personalities displaying courage to unveil the public related facts.

It’s time to shed light on the contentious issues highlighted in these articles.

The assertions by one of the leading daily columnist, also a contributor to a major cable news network that specializes in character defamation of the public with different political views, are:

The former administration falsely accused of being responsible for the 9/11 tragedy and framing the subject to have disgracefully ignored the plight of the 9/11 victims and their families. Hence, the author using the prerogative to disdain the accused with distortions of the blog post material regarding –

‘The previous administration taking the nation to war on false pretences’ when the particular reference was to the Iraq war, as globally known in the absence of any Weapons of Mass destruction,.’

What did the author, the news anchor and some talk show hosts of the specific cable news network do on the particular day of posting the blogpost, i.e. Friday September 11, 2009?

They cleverly distracted the American public by connecting the comment to the 9/11 event despite no mention of September 11, 2009 in that statement.

Furthermore, the author makes use of the citation of the Industrial contamination by the multinational companies such as the Union Carbide poisonous gas leakage disaster in Bhopal, India in the blogpost titled ‘Capitalism alias Communism’ and steer in the direction implicating the accused of polarizing the society playing the race card.

Last but not the least; the author proudly classifies the victim of political propaganda in the category of ‘Holocaust Denier” and a nonsympathizer of the September 11, event.

The irony in this instance is ominously revealing…

The author in the grand slandering of the victim blatantly accuses the subject to be the denier of the two most horrific crimes against humanity with no shred of evidence in any material presented thus far on the website.

Simultaneously the author reserves the right to the slight and dismissal of the worst Industrial genocide with irrecoverable consequences in human history that took place in Bhopal, India as an environmental incident in the ‘Third World.’

In addition, the utter disregard for the ‘Holocaust’ taking place by the hour in Sudan, Palestine in the form of oppression and illegal settlements, Iraq through illegal invasion and Afghanistan as the major failure warfare clearly suggests the author’s stance that the loss of lives from these atrocities are just and dispensable. Again conveniently forgetting that the world events affect the United States as it’s not in a parallel universe but instead a part of the planet.

When these entities overwhelmed with arrogance, discriminate between human lives based on race, religion and creed they fail to recognize that their ideology is no different from the terrorists’ fundamentalism.

Some individuals behold themselves above the human category to the extent of being invincible and stretch to any length in the character assassination of the noble souls defiant to any form of undemocratic and unethical oppression in the society.

Interestingly, these demagogues having prevailed in the past with the behavioral pattern remain frozen in time in terms of historic events and the general environment. Their knowledge often insular and limited as they refuse to look beyond their enclave and therefore paralyzed to the pain and suffering endured by the vast inhabitants on the planet stemming from their complicity to humanitarian crimes and criminal conduct.

It’s important for these overzealous defense counsels to realize that the verbal assaults against the genuinely concerned voices would reverberate making their effort futile and counterproductive.
Another noteworthy factor in that article was – the highlighting of the eligibility to the ‘White House’ high profile position, which is not only presumptuous but also elevating thyself as the ‘Supreme authority’ in the universe. Amazingly, these entities flex muscles regardless of them being in power or not.

As for the article written to presumably protecting the ‘Internet from blogger anonymity.’ the suggestions vary from internet censorship to condemnation of the ‘vocal minority’ squarely blamed for the suppression of the ‘apparently’ outstanding 90 percent majority. The article calls the blogger’s position hateful, cowardly…and squarely blames the blogger for the ‘minority’ dominance over the asserted ‘majority.’

Such character defamation is ‘hypocritical.’ By referring to the blogger as a ‘minority’ multiple times, the ignorance combined with the exceeding idiosyncrasy reflected in the article.

First, the blogger being the member of the human race, the term ‘minority’ deflects the reference.

Second, the female gender perceived as the ‘minority’ by the narrow minds voided by the planetary equal gender ratio, an act of Mother Nature to curb the superiority among the human race and lastly,

If the ‘minority’ remark laced with ethnicity or religious denomination, then the second most populous nation on earth India has at least one billion Hindus on the planet, which by no measure is a minority.

With respect to the ‘hateful’ and ‘cowardly’ characterizations, the appropriate response is ‘look within and find yourself.’ In the finger pointing, it’s not uncommon to overlook the remaining fingers’ direction.

A demand to reveal the identity responded to earlier on. Besides, it confirms the authors’ belligerence towards anyone not sharing the contemptuous outlook. That must explain the unpopularity of the complainant’s website.

Since, the birth certificate demanded of the ‘President of the United States,’ other ‘minority’ members in the society are a fair game to the charade.

Sadly, those who voluntarily submit to denigrate the ‘minority’ humanitarians are the ones posing to be the problems instead of being the solutions in the society.

No political threats, maneuvers and manipulations will alter the positions of those who stand firm against injustice, inequalities and irrationality. Humanitarians are never afraid to hold an unpopular position, if that is what is necessary. None other than the history is testimony to this effect.

Truth and Honesty, oxymoron in politics are the prime casualties during the war and election.

The nation that takes pride in the Bill of Rights, denial of the First Amendment to all via internet censorship or other communication media is a direct violation of the constitutional right and justifiably makes the propagandists place themselves as ‘Communists’ or “Militia” advocates by default.

The noise pollution is the least concern of the ‘self-proclaimed’ moralists who flagrantly look for flaws
in those dedicated to cleaning the environment.

Finally, the quote from the genius mind aptly summarize the ‘minority subject’s’ purpose.

FROM THE VENERABLE Albert Einstein –

“Strange is our situation here upon earth. Each of us comes for a short visit, not knowing why, yet sometimes seeming to a divine purpose. From the standpoint of daily life, however, there is one thing we do know: That we are here for the sake of others…for the countless unknown souls with whose fate we are connected by a bond of sympathy. Many times a day, I realize how much my outer and inner life is built upon the labors of people, both living and dead, and how earnestly I must exert myself in order to give in return as much as I have received.”

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

Written by Padmini Arhant · Filed Under Ethics, Featured, United States | Leave a Comment 

Nation Bids Farewell to the Hon. Senator Edward M. Kennedy

August 29, 2009

By Padmini Arhant

The moment has arrived for the nation to acknowledge the final departure of their tireless and long serving representative, Senator Ted Kennedy, the youngest son of America’s beloved family.

Senator Kennedy, the brave survivor of many family tragedies was a true warrior in various aspects. The Senator zealously battled for the large segments of the society on significant issues and health care was the top priority among them. Senator Kennedy delivered the health care speech with sincere emotion and great concern for the neglected groups in our society.

Ted Kennedy was not prepared to settle for anything less than universal health coverage and clarified the urgency with authority and conviction. The Senator, as a veteran legislator was all too familiar with the opposition and the politics behind the ‘health care’ reform and anxiously looked forward to realizing his lifetime dream into eventuality. Therefore, it’s a test of the time for his colleagues on both sides of the aisle eulogizing the departed leader’s dynamic role in legislative history to legitimize their words into action in the matter that was appropriately the Kennedy ‘brainchild.’

In other historic issues, Senator Kennedy’s valiant declaration to endorse the candidacy of the then Senator Barack Obama led to the successful nomination and election of the President Barack Obama as the first African American breaking the long held tradition to the office of Presidency.

It’s poignant to specify that Senator Ted Kennedy had many aspirations and desires for his fellow citizens and strived to accomplish them ranging from civil rights to equal wages and opportunities for all in every possible social and economic front. Once again, despite the current political atmosphere pervasive of a legion across the party lines to represent the powerful and influential in the society.

Another phenomenal trend set by the audacious Senator was to join the minority legislators and party members in his opposition to invade a nation, Iraq based on hypothesis and concocted theories validates the experience, foresight and diligence, rare qualities in contemporary politics.

Life presents choices and decisions are consequential, sometimes with a reversible or irreversible state. Senator Ted Kennedy demonstrated repeatedly by seeking the arduous journey in legislative affairs that it’s easier to default on the promise to the constituents electing public officials to power to do the right for them but rather challenging to live up to the trust and expectations of the republic.

Ted Kennedy portrayed the latter with poise and passion.

Considering the long career span of Senator Ted Kennedy, it’s a daunting task to summarize the portfolio sparsely without compromising the achievements in the several hard fought legislative issues.

The nation comes together to bid farewell to the bastion of peace, freedom and equal rights for all Americans – natives, naturalized and others on American soil.

As we celebrate the life of Senator Edward M. Kennedy, his legacy must continue beyond the horizon of hopes in the American politics.

So long, Senator – May your soul rest in eternal peace.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

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

Remembering the Service of the Honorable. Senator Edward M. Kennedy

August 27, 2009

By Padmini Arhant

The passing away of Senator Edward Kennedy, one of the longest serving public officials in the United States Senate has created a vacuum in the battlefield for humanitarian cause. Senator Kennedy’s representation on many issues remembered nationwide. Among them, the Senator’s relentless effort to bring equality and justice to the poor and underprivileged in the hallmark healthcare, education and immigration was commendable. There is more reason to pass the public option health care reform as a tribute to the deceased Senator.

Senator Kennedy fought for millions in not only his constituency but also the entire nation with passion and power. The Senator extended his service beyond shorelines in ways to resolve the international conflict such as the Northern Ireland peace process. Senator Kennedy was committed and dedicated in helping citizens of stars and stripes achieve their American dream.

The national recognition of Senator Kennedy as ‘The Lion of the Senate’ personified in the Senator’s role in every legislative matter of great value and importance to all people regardless of socio-economic status.

Senator Ted Kennedy lived up to the reputation of the Kennedy legacy in national service. As a true patriot, the Senator deeply cared and carried out the legislative duties and responsibilities diligently and frequently in a bipartisan manner, a monumental achievement in contemporary politics.

Senator Edward M. Kennedy will be truly missed by the nation, while his service commemorated now and in the future as the member of the iconic Kennedy family and the esteemed United States Senate.

No words can possibly heal the moment of sorrow except time.

Time is the best healer and trusting in the brighter tomorrow ease the pain experienced during the natural events in life.

I convey my heartfelt condolences to the Kennedy family, friends and the entire nation.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

P.S. Due to technical difficulty at the personal end, the delay occurred in posting the message earlier on. Please accept my apologies for the time lapse.

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

Judge Sotomayor’s Confirmation by the Senate Judiciary Committee

July 29, 2009

By Padmini Arhant

Supreme Court Justice Confirmation by the Senate Judiciary Committee

Heartfelt congratulations! to judge Sonia Sotomayor on her confirmation by the Senate Judiciary Committee to the highest court in the land.

Surviving a grueling confirmation hearing qualifies for a ceremonial victory. Judge Sotomayor exhibited perfection in the process that requires patience, knowledge, and skills to address issues and concerns set forth by the committee.

The final confirmation for a full Senate vote scheduled the following week will be a historic event. Besides complementing the existing judiciary talent and expertise, it would transcend identity politics that dominated since the President’s choice of the nominee for the United States Supreme Court.

However, the vehement opposition from the right side of the political aisle authenticates the partisanship prevalent in every national matter. The following news report citing the conservatives’ principles for future nominees – to prioritize fidelity to the law over personal emotions and prejudice is contradictory to their own doctrine and nine years late… considering the Presidential election outcome in the year 2000.

Judiciary Committee OKs Sotomayor for high court – Associated Press July 28, 2009.

Even though they never stood a chance of defeating Sotomayor, her Republican opponents said they gained ground during the confirmation process by getting Democrats to agree that judges should above all be faithful to the law — an idea they said counters Obama’s stated view that a justice should have “empathy.”

“We agreed that judges should be impartial and not pick winners and losers based on some subjective empathy standard or whatever is in the judge’s heart,” said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas. “We’ve defined where the judicial mainstream is … and we’ve set expectations, I believe, for future nominees.”

My best wishes to Judge Sonia Sotomayor, the imminent justice to the United States Supreme Court with her challenging new career and look forward to the voice of the democracy legitimized per the constitutional rule based on the humanitarian law.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

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

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/3fgpJJUGElQ

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

July 4, Independence Day

July 5, 2009

By Padmini Arhant

July 4th is a memorable day for all Americans to cherish the freedom of choice in every respect as citizens of this great nation.

The American society not only celebrates freedom like most free nations across the world but also strives to liberate those deserving equality no matter where they belong.

The President’s inspiring call to serve humanity on this day resonates with the patriots’ decision to pledge their valuable resources that enabled the Independence Day commemorated with joy through spectacular fireworks decorating the night.

The courageous troops in harm’s way protecting the freedom rejoiced by many on this day of Independence remain in most citizens’ thoughts and prayers all year around.

American freedom is the envy of the world, however regretfully the citizens’ privacy as well as civil liberties compromised in the past and present time with the wiretapping and monitoring private citizens’ communication by NSA warrantless surveillance in the wake of national security – a scapegoat in the divisive matter.

Freedom is a precious gift not possessed by all. There are millions on earth desperately seeking choices in life and often deprived of fundamental rights. While, in the land of the free and the home of the brave – freedom sometimes taken for granted with respect to the second amendment or the fourth amendment exhibiting excessive firepower figuratively and otherwise.

In view of the status quo related to citizens’ safety and privacy, freedom exercised with care and humanitarian concern is an ideal guide to those aspiring to be free.

The happiness from the Fourth of July legacy will continue to flow beyond expectations and shared by those dependent upon the leader of the free world for life honored with independent will.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant
P.S. Please stand by for views and analysis on important issues concerning the State of California and the nation in general.

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

National Day Service

June 26, 2009

On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 12:43 PM, First Lady Michelle Obama wrote:

Tere’s an old Thomas Edison quote I’ve always liked: "Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work." It’s no secret that our country faces some enormous challenges right now, and meeting them will take a lot of hard work. But in that work lies an equally great opportunity — a chance to serve. And I do believe the chance to serve is a precious gift indeed.

Service has played a transformative role in my life — bringing me tremendous joy and helping me find the path that led to where I am today. As a parent, I believe service is a great way to demonstrate values and to teach our children firsthand what it means to commit to a purpose beyond ourselves.

It should be a part of everyone’s life. From the moment someone can walk to the day they leave this planet, service should be a part of how we give back, how we say thank you, how we express our gratitude for the lives that we’ve been given.

So I’m deeply honored for this chance to support our United We Serve initiative and Organizing for America, and I hope you’ll be able to participate this weekend. Please sign up now to volunteer at a local event:

http://my.barackobama.com/hcserviceattend

Thank you,

First Lady Michelle Obama

—————————————————————————————-

On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 6:17 PM, Padmini Arhant wrote:

Dear Michelle,

National Health Care Day of Service organized through ‘United We Serve’ initiated by the Corporation for National and Community Service is indeed a great occasion for every American to get involved in raising awareness as well as being part of the solutions to the national crisis – the citizens’ health.

The concept – ‘Health is Wealth’ should not even be a debate leave alone a contentious issue on the Hill right now with the weak, fragile and the physically ailing population across the socio-economic strata desperately requiring healing to the prolonged pain and suffering endured by millions every hour.

Several compelling real experiences shared by thousands of affected citizens deserve action since the embattled health care proposal by President Obama brought to national attention for long overdue legislation.

I have no doubt that every caring American generally known for the generosity with their time and resources across the nation and abroad will respond to community service in any aspect regardless of political affiliations.

I wish the “United We Serve” success in the dedication to humanitarian service.

Thank you for the opportunity to be part of the worthy cause.

Best Wishes

Padmini Arhant

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

« Previous Page — Next Page »