Connect with us

Americas

Why can Hillary Clinton not be US president?

Published

on

Like in Israel, US ruling elites plan for the future strategies and choose presidents to suit the needs. After using a Black President Obama to attack North Africans and Arab nations for their energy resources in order to ensure energy security of the superpower, now the US leaders seem to think of using a female President in the name of Hillary to advance US interests globally.

Former US state secretary Hillary Clinton and associates are being pampered by those who are scared of any possible change in US foreign policy towards a possible thaw and neutrality in world affairs, notwithstanding what trump talks now.

So-called progressive bits like Sanders, the dummy candidate of President Obama the so-called lefty, was only promoting prospects of Hillary as the first ever “woman” president all Americans should be proud of.

Media publish very charming pictures and of Hillary Clinton while deliberately placing a terrorist cum drunkard looking Trump in order to promote the cause of democratic band of capitalist imperialism.

It seems, cutting across the bipolar political spectrum, there is some understanding to make Hillary to enter the White House to continue with the disastrous policies of Obama who has dutifully accelerated Bushdom war for resources and Muslims’ blood and flesh blood in Islamic world. Both bush and his ally Obama could reduce the Islamic population with backing from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and other Muslim nations.

Only recently Turkey, the only Muslim nation in Europe with an Islamist ideology but promoting the joint interests of USA and Israel in Europe and Mideast, has realized its mistake of colluding with USA in killing Muslims under the banner of NATO terrorist organization.

Media not only in the West but also in third world as well try to see in Hillary Clinton all virtues of freedom, liberty, democracy, etc., as the so-called first ever woman president of the super power without comprehending the truth about this devastating woman candidate who as Secretary of State willingly dispatched Pentagon led NATO military into Arab world and is more than keen to control entire world, including the other America, Europe, Africa and Asia, to serve Israel – America’s illegally born, spoiled terror child.

Being in the company of extremist Neocons camp, not only Hillary is bent upon promoting the Zionist criminal regime in Mideast but also equip Israeli military with newer terror technologies to kill all Palestinians once for all.

Hillary Clinton must already have promised all colonialist, fascist and imperialist nations/forces the continued US support under her presidency as well and Israel would be chief beneficiary of Hillary’s reign. As such Hillary could be best candidate for the criminal Israeli regime, the Jews and Mossad agency to advance its fascist goals in Mideast.

On the contrast, the Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, despite all his sick rhetoric to impress the fanatic sections of US society, appears to suggest several positive things for USA and world at large. Trump said when he assumes presidency, he would revise the US policy for Mideast and neutralize its existing Palestine-Israel policy to promote peace in the region and he’d also recognize Russia’s annexation of the Ukrainian territory in 2014.

Future Russia policy

Annexation of Crimea long appears to be on the agenda of Putin’s regime as it had earlier been a part of Russian empire and made a part of Ukraine Republic during the time of Khrushchev who belonged to Ukraine. Russia maintained close links to Crimea even after the dissolution of the Soviet Union as the region mostly has Russians and Russian speaking nationalities. More than half of Crimea’s 2 million people were Russian; Russia maintained a naval base in the region; and Russians retired in Crimea in large numbers. Also, Ukraine maintained the most pro-Moscow positions until 2014. But when Ukraine’s pro-Moscow president, Viktor Yanukovych, was ousted, the tensions over Crimea became apparent. USA claimed victory. In a referendum in May of that year in which an overwhelming majority of voters said they wanted to rejoin Russia. The West reacted with anger and imposed a string of sanctions on Russia—sanctions that even Putin acknowledged adversely affected Russia’s economy, which was already hurt by falling oil prices.

Last year, on the anniversary of Russia’s annexation, the U.S. State Department said: “We do not, nor will we, recognize Russia’s attempted annexation and call on President Putin to end his country’s occupation of Crimea.” However, Washington refuses to see Israeli occupation of Palestine territories or Indian occupation of neighboring Kashmir – both committing genocides of Muslims by regular aggressions and fake encounters. American democrats and republicans do not see any violation of human rights both by India and Israel against Kashmiris and Palestinians.

USA maintains doublespeak on occupation and double standards

As president, Trump may reverse that policy, and if he does Ukraine won’t be the only country that worries. Another is likely to be Georgia, the former Soviet Republic. A brief war with Russia—brief in that Georgia was crushed—in 2008 resulted in Russia extending support to two breakaway Georgian regions, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and wielding its influence with the rebels there. Russia’s recent military exercises over Ukraine have worried US backed Eastern European states such as Poland and the Baltic nations that share a border with it.

However, it is premature to conclude that Trump would lead USA towards a normal course of diplomacy and his presidency would help herald a peaceful world in real sense of w the word. By nature USA, ever seeking to dominate the world and showcase it military prowess to the world, especially to those that refuse to budge and fall in line, cannot prefer peaceful course of diplomacy.

Now, with his comments on Crimea, Trump has given the foreign-policy establishment in the USA and Europe even more to consider before November.

Donald Trump’s recent call on Russia to hack Hillary Clinton’s emails resulted in widespread criticism. But his comments on Crimea, coupled with ones he made last week on NATO, are likely to have greater significance if he is elected president in November. As President Trump would recognize Crimea as Russian and even might lift sanctions on Moscow imposed after its 2014 annexation of the Ukrainian territory. He would thus give a chance for peace to thrive globally. Under trump USA could develop new relations with Russians and pave way for consolidation of globalized relations.

Interestingly, Trump the man who could become the next American president has not only questioned the utility of NATO, though the critics say he only trying to repudiate the post-World War II security consensus, he also has seemingly removed whatever fig leaf of artificial protection from Russia the USA offered the post-Soviet republics and Moscow’s former allies in the Eastern bloc.

Trump policy would allow EU and European nations to chart their own independent foreign policies for the future regional discourses and security architectures. This would allow every nation to reduce expenditures on terror goods and military equipments and spend the money for the welfare of the common masses who have suffered a great deal over decades and centuries.

Having came to power after the death of Joseph Stalin, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev, belonging to Ukraine, gifted Crimea, a region that had been part of Russia for centuries, to Ukraine in 1954—though, to be fair, Khrushchev thought the Soviet system is permanent and probably didn’t foresee that the mighty USSR would be the stuff of history books less than four decades later.

Democratic disaster

The foreign policy legacy of Bill Clinton is this: foreign interventions on the flimsiest of “humanitarian” pretexts. Bill Clinton embarked upon a series of military interventions, often in the absence of UN sanction, in Somalia (1993), Haiti (1994), Bosnia (1995), Iraq (1998), Sudan (1998), Afghanistan (1998) and Kosovo/Serbia (1999). Yet, rather than undertake serious steps to find and capture Al Qaeda’s Osama bin Laden after the bombing of the Khobar Towers (1996) and the USS Cole (2000), President Bill Clinton did little more than fire a tomahawk missile into a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan. He repeatedly allowed the Saudis to block FBI Director Louis Freeh’s investigation into the Khobar Towers bombing which killed 19 servicemen and wounded 350. No one knows why.

In foreign policy, it was a period in which liberal hawks like Madeline Albright, Richard Holbrooke, Strobe Talbott and Samuel Berger took the reins of the foreign policy apparatus and abandoned the mostly nuanced realism, if any, of the government of George H.W. Bush, former CIA boss. It launched a crusade to spread “democracy” to achieve regime change in West Asia and Africa, and “open markets” abroad which, in practice, amounted to isolating plus targeting Russia, relegating America’s European allies into vassals and immiserating the developing world.

Under neoconservative pressure – including from Robert Kagan’s and William Kristol’s Project for the New American Century – Bill Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act (1998) which helped set the stage for the Bush regime’s disastrous decision to invade Iraq in 2003. Meanwhile, Clinton embarked on a series of policies in the former Soviet Union which have had dire consequences. The decision to expand NATO by the alliance at its 1994 summit in Brussels came only 12 months into the Clinton presidency and only 24 months after the Soviet Union dissolved itself and peacefully disbanded its own military alliance, the Warsaw Pact.

The NATO alliance’s expansion to include its own former allies and protectorates remains a mystery. Indeed, by expanding NATO, Clinton and his team not only went against the advice offered by scores of distinguished Russian experts, savvy politicians and foreign policy thinkers, Clinton also sought to tie the former Soviet Republics of Central Asia and the Caucasus to the USA. All this took place while Clinton studiously ignored the grotesque abuses of power by Russian President Boris Yeltsin. “Good old Boris,” as Clinton liked to call him, bombed the democratically elected Russian parliament in 1993, stole the 1996 election with the help of American political advisers and pseudo-academics, and launched a barbaric war in Chechnya, while simultaneously raiding the state treasury and enriching the circle of thieves around him.

Yeltsin was looking for a hawk to take over reign from him to finish off the Chechen war in Russia’s favor and former KGB man Vladimir Putin with enormous experience working in Germany suited for the occasion. It was Yeltsin who subverted Russia’s burgeoning democracy, not his successor, Vladimir Putin. And he did it all with Clinton’s help.

USA successfully worked for the dismantling of the mighty USSR and turned to Arab world. Now it is killing Muslims in Arab world with Russian backing. Joint operations!

Surrounded by Hawks

A Hillary Clinton presidency will more likely than not to be a faithful replication of her husband’s tenure. Her record as Secretary of State speaks to the kind of foreign policy she will pursue. She continually sought to embroil the U.S. in the Syrian civil war (2011-present), and pushed President Obama to unleash NATO forces in helping to overturn the Libyan government (2011) which cleared the path for ISIS to build dangerous footholds in both countries. Whenever the option was between military action and serious diplomacy, the nation’s chief diplomat would invariably opt for the former, as when she forcefully lobbied the President to send more troops to Afghanistan (2009).

As a candidate she has surrounded herself with regime change hawks, like former State Department Policy Planning chief Jake Sullivan and former the Ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul. She has also smothered the neoconservative establishment in a warm embrace. Leading members of the Neocon tribe like Eliot A. Cohen and Max Boot have signaled that “they’re with her” and on July 21 in Washington, D.C.’s tony Logan Circle neighborhood, leading Neocon Robert Kagan and former Biden adviser Julianne Smith spoke on Clinton’s behalf at a fundraiser.

A source who attended the Logan Circle soiree told me that Smith cited an outgoing memo to President Obama from Secretary Clinton which warned him of the danger of unchecked “Russian aggression.” Smith claimed that as someone who saw “Hillary in action,” that “it was the Secretary who pushed President Obama the hardest on checking Russian aggression.” Smith, according to my source, credited Clinton with pushing Obama “to turn up the heat on Putin.”

This effort by then-Secretary of State Clinton to “turn up the heat” on Putin, it should be noted predates the 2014 crisis in Ukraine by well over a year and predates. Russia’s annexation of Crimea (which occurred after a referendum in which Crimea’s voters, by a 96 percent margin, called for leaving Ukraine and rejoining Russia). In other words, if what Smith says is true, Clinton was actively working to subvert the “re-set policy” of which she was ostensibly in charge!

Hillary Clinton Is a known Neocon cum Zionist.

Donald Trump did something extraordinary even for him: He called on a foreign power to launch an espionage operation against his chief political opponent, hacking into Hillary Clinton’s email server to find 30,000 emails she allegedly deleted.

Trump has repeatedly expressed wild admiration for Putin personally; his campaign staff and businesses have extensive ties to Russian interests.

Trump’s policy instincts are objectively pro-Kremlin and the sources of information that shape his policy ideas (his advisers and business interests) serve to reinforce rather than challenge these instincts. If the Kremlin is helping Trump win the election, it would be a perfectly rational thing for them to do.

Hillary‘s hilarious task

Money plays its “democratic” role in presidential poll of USA as well.

In the Democratic National Convention, Mrs. Clinton may have made history by becoming the first woman nominee for president of the United States. Her husband and former US president Bill Clinton’s task at the Convention may have seemed deceptively simple: to add “new dimensions” to his wife’s public image – elements of her life story with which US public is well aware of. As Hillary Clinton’s husband for the past 40 years, the popular ex-president was her ultimate character witness, portraying her as hard-working, persistent, and caring. Bill Clinton was charming and steely-eyed, and owned the arena as he told his wife’s story in personal terms, from their courtship through to her time as secretary of State.

Thus far, husband Clinton, who has become “explainer in chief” for his own record, played a more low-key role in his wife’s campaign, appearing at smaller events and fundraisers, and weighing in privately with advice. Eight years ago, when Mrs. Clinton ran for the Democratic nomination against Obama, Bill Clinton stumbled at times and hurt her cause by saying that Obama had won South Carolina only because he’s black.

Bill Clinton’s presidency was a time of relative peace and prosperity, including a balanced budget and he would be an asset to her while she’s in the White House. She cannot say Bill Clinton was a “total non-factor” in one delegate’s decision to support her as a candidate.

Hillary Clinton’s nominating convention has focused on domestic issues, but her foreign policy has even many anti-war Democrats worried, as she surrounds herself with Neocons with their favorite regime change proposals, and liberal hawks The Democratic convention leaves one with an uneasy sense of déjà vu about the potential foreign policy direction of a second Clinton presidency. We’ve seen this movie before and we know how it turns out: badly.

The mood among some of the Democratic Party’s foreign policy cognoscenti here is one of an unadulterated smugness bred of certainty mixed with a sense of global entitlement. One Democratic US senator lamented to a roomful of well-heeled donors and foreign policy experts that the US had “lost” Ukraine.Lost? Does Crimea belong to America? But the Democratic Party’s foreign policy elites are certain that that is so. Funny! They are certain NATO is the “cornerstone” of American national security and therefore any criticism of the alliance is “dangerous”; and many are certain that the Republican nominee is the Kremlin’s very own Manchurian candidate. They are also certain Donald Trump is dead wrong about everything.

As former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton may be the most qualified candidate for the nation’s highest office since Republican hawk George H.W. Bush, but there the comparisons end. Clinton is not running to extend the Obama terror legacy (whatever that may be) but to extend the Clinton terror legacy, and this should worry the world deeply.

Observations: permanent war agenda of USA for resources

Divisions in Islamic world in West Asia allowed the hawkish foreign policy makers behind the doors like Neocons of USA to launch a permanent war program to control the energy resources of the region and promote the fascist interests of Israel by stretching the war tentacles across the region, killing millions of Muslims. Now the USA has enlisted almost every country, including Saudi Arabia led GCC, Russia and China to fortify its imperialist misadventures.

As per its secret plan,   the USA has been at war continuously for a quarter century, beginning with the first Persian Gulf conflict of 1990–91. While using propaganda catchphrases, such as “democracy”, “defense of human rights” “war on Terror,” to conceal the real aims of its interventions in the Middle East, Central Asia, and Africa, as well as its confrontation with Russia and China, the United States has been engaged in a struggle for global hegemony.

Today, energy and energy routes globally have been brought under US control with as many military bases of U across the globe.

However, the contradictions of American and world imperialism can be discerned by the rift between USA and Europe on the one hand, and between Arab/Islamic world and USA, on the other. The progression of military interventions and geopolitical crises as they have developed over the past quarter century as per US schedule, is not a sequence of isolated episodes, as US media want the world to know but the moments in the unfolding of an interconnected historical process to make the USA the top most military power with which every nation world be forced to make “adjustments”.

Having got nukes for retaining the annexed parts of Jammu Kashmir and killed thousands of Kashmiri Muslims, Pakistan and India, for instance, fall at the US feet just to gain support for their illegal Kashmir agenda. By using the weakness of Pakistani leadership, USA has, as part of its anti-Islamic tirade, destabilized Pakistan which is supposed to be an ally of NATO. India pumps a lot of money into US economy even as China stabilizes US finances by heavy lending, even while Pentagon .keeps pumping oil into USA., thereby ensuring its energy security on permanent basis. . This has been possible for US leaders only through a permanent war agenda.

Bush Sr. and Bush Jr., Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and Hillary represent the hawkish US imperialist agenda and carry forward the US war agenda

Hillary Clinton is wife of former President Bill Clinton and now both want to promote dynastic rule in USA. Daughter Chelsea, who will introduce her mother before her big acceptance speech, says she too may run for office someday. However, the failure of former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush in the Republican primaries signaled, in part, a rejection of dynastic politics in America. The idea of American politics as a family business is not endorsed by true democracy.

In fact, Hillary is a monster in woman format and as US foreign minister she has proven fascist instinct without any iota of doubt. She is just waiting for the poll results to accelerate, if she wins presidency, her and those of the “regime change” oriented Neocons terror brains. Wanting a woman president is one thing but promoting a known terror mind for presidency is totally different as Americans and world at large would have to face the terror consequences of Hillary’s term.

Hillary Clinton as the proven state terrorist minister in the Obama government is unfit to be the president of USA but her daughter Chelsea who hands are free from blood stains from genocides of Palestinians and killing of their children at Gaza strip can contest for presidency nest time and even win.

However, if Bill and Hillary feel as their daughter Chelsea also shares the shame of what they did in Gaza Strip of Palestine and Arab world, then, Chelsea should also leave the field of politics for honest and sinecure people without any imperialist and fascist ideas.

An arrogant Zionist in USA, Madam Hillary violated all rules and norms with a sense of impunity because no one can punish her or Obama, for, republicans and democratic now collaborate against Islam and Muslims. Obama could get ‘resources” to Washington on the pretext of “security threats”.

As US President Hillary Clinton can fail both America and world and cause unbearable pains to humanity, including mothers, children and women.

If by chance Hillary makes her entry into the august White House as its custodian, obviously, Israel would officially decide both the domestic and foreign policy of USA. That would make it clear as to how the US decision making apparatus operates

Americans are really fed up with war agenda of US leaders of both democratic and republican party. Though Trump has expressed his ideas and agenda, Hillary pretends to a good looking nice lady but she is a ruthless US leader who can destroy entire world for the sake of Israel.

Like other nations, US people also are eager to see a credible peace agenda of the government to defend the humanity from evil intentions of hawkish leaders who are indeed merchants of death. .

Certainly, if elected, Hillary, notwithstanding her oratory skills to fool the Americans, would prove to be a hell for USA and disaster for the world at large.

Continue Reading
Comments

Americas

A self-inflicted wound: Trump surrenders the West’s moral high ground

Dr. James M. Dorsey

Published

on

For the better part of a century, the United States could claim the moral high ground despite allegations of hypocrisy because its policies continuously contradicted its proclaimed propagation of democracy and human rights. Under President Donald J. Trump, the US has lost that moral high ground.

This week’s US sanctioning of 28 Chinese government entities and companies for their involvement in China’s brutal clampdown on Turkic Muslims in its troubled north-western province of Xinjiang, the first such measure by any country since the crackdown began, is a case in point.

So is the imposition of visa restrictions on Chinese officials suspected of being involved in the detention and human rights abuses of millions of Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims.

The irony is that the Trump administration has for the first time elevated human rights to a US foreign policy goal in export control policy despite its overall lack of concern for such rights.

The sanctions should put the Muslim world, always the first to ring the alarm bell when Muslims rights are trampled upon, on the spot.

It probably won’t even though Muslim nations are out on a limb, having remained conspicuously silent in a bid not to damage relations with China, and in some cases even having endorsed the Chinese campaign, the most frontal assault on Islam in recent history.

This week’s seeming endorsement by Mr. Trump of Turkey’s military offensive against Syrian Kurds, who backed by the United States, fought the Islamic State and were guarding its captured fighters and their families drove the final nail into the coffin of US moral claims.

The endorsement came on the back of Mr. Trump’s transactional approach towards foreign policy and relations with America’s allies, his hesitancy to respond robustly to last month’s missile and drone attacks on Saudi oil facilities, his refusal to ensure Saudi transparency on the killing a year ago of journalist Jamal Khashoggi and his perceived empathy for illiberals and authoritarians symbolized by his reference to Egyptian field marshal-turned-president Abdel Fattah al-Sisi as “my favourite dictator.”

Rejecting Saudi and Egyptian criticism of his intervention in Syria, Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan gave the United States and Mr. Trump a blunt preview of what they can expect next time they come calling, whether it is for support of their holding China to account for its actions in Xinjiang, issues of religious freedom that are dear to the Trump administration’s heart, or specific infractions on human rights that the US opportunistically wishes to emphasize.

“Let me start with Saudi Arabia,” Mr. Erdogan said in blistering remarks to members of his Justice and Development Party (AKP). “Look in the mirror first. Who brought Yemen to this state? Did tens of thousands of people not die in Yemen?” he asked, referring to the kingdom’s disastrous military intervention in Yemen’s ruinous civil war.

Addressing Mr. Al-Sisi, Mr. Erdogan charged: “Egypt, you can’t talk at all. You are a country with a democracy killer.” The Turkish leader asserted that Mr. Al-Sisi had “held a meeting with some others and condemned the (Turkish) operation – so what if you do?”

The fact that the United States is likely to encounter similar responses, even if they are less belligerent in tone, as well as the fact that Mr. Trump’s sanctioning of Chinese entities is unlikely to shame the Muslim world into action, signals a far more fundamental paradigm shift:  the loss of the US and Western moral high ground that gave them an undisputed advantage in the battle of ideas, a key battleground in the struggle to shape a new world order.

China, Russia, Middle Eastern autocrats and other authoritarians and illiberals have no credible response to notions of personal and political freedom, human rights and the rule of law.

As a result, they countered the ideational appeal of greater freedoms by going through the motions. They often maintained or erected democratic facades and payed lip service to democratic concepts while cloaking their repression in terms employed by the West like the fight against terrorism.

By surrendering the West’s ideological edge, Mr. Trump reduced the shaping of the new world order to a competition in which the power with the deeper pockets had the upper hand.

Former US national security advisor John Bolton admitted as much when he identified in late 2018 Africa as a new battleground and unveiled a new strategy focused on commercial ties, counterterrorism, and better-targeted U.S. foreign aid.

Said international affairs scholar Keren Yarhi-Milo: “The United States has already paid a significant price for Trump’s behaviour: the president is no longer considered the ultimate voice on foreign policy. Foreign leaders are turning elsewhere to gauge American intentions… With Trump’s reputation compromised, the price tag on U.S. deterrence, coercion, and reassurance has risen, along with the probability of miscalculation and inadvertent escalation.”

Continue Reading

Americas

Trump’s effects on diplomacy

Irfan Khan

Published

on

No longer has Trump’s haphazard behaviour persisted, more will be easy for his administration to enact actions against China, Iran and Taliban. The state department is in a quandary because of it, on each front. Trump’s entrenched eagerness to remain “great” and “first” on the chessboard of International power, could damage the world more ahead than before.

Following the Iran’s attacks on the Kingdom of Saudi-Arabia’s oil infrastructure, US wanted to deploy troops to the Kingdom. It is primarily a justification for why the US has been imposing sanctions over Iran. Is troops deployment a solution? Or will it provide safe horizon to Kingdom oil’s installation? Or will it be revolutionary in oil diplomacy? Or is it the only target retaliated on, by Iran. However, such kind of engagement has short term beneficiary spots, while in broader perspective it has consequential effects for all stakeholders. The episode of nuclear deal has, as a factor of quid-pro-quo, been further dramatised by the state department, withdrawing from. Notwithstanding, the deal has advantageous prospects for the Middle East, and an exemplary for rest of nations, has been further dramatised by the US, in order to seek its diplomatic wins. What significant at this point, is an agreement to reback to the deal.

Embracing a different economic model, China, is plausibly on a runner-up position to the US. Whether it’s 5G tech. Or leading status of green energy, or ultra-scales exports or its leading developments for the nations having indigent economies, is a source of chaos for US administration. The current trade war is an antidoting tool for the whole scenario. The US should, I assume, eye China’s hegemony a piece of cake, and welcome its come out while securing its interests under the umbrella of cooperation. This logic, while posing no threat, seems to be long term functional. Is it?

Trump, according to many native writers, is psychologically unfit, unstable and fickle, however have had strong narrative to prevent America’s engagement into “useless wars” and end “endless” wars. Following this token, Trump announcement of troop withdrawal from Syria and Afghanistan put the world politics and even his administration into chaos. This divided strategists and Washington security officials, which was underpinned by the resignation of James Mattis and recently John Bolton. The ten months of peace process which followed the US’s announcement of troop withdrawal, precipitously ended, putting once again the international and national politics into chaos. Trump, grandiloquently fired a tweet that talks with Taliban are dead and futile. The argument he contended was the Attack in Kabil, where one American soldier with 12 other people were lost. The policymakers and high officials in Washington who already negated the policy of troop withdrawal and then after peace deal. They, of course are winner in this policy discourse, have staunch beliefs in their opinion, who may make Trump’s change of heart. The Kabil attack was given, probably, an agent of resurgent for Obama’s approach. However, Trump’s administration had already scripted their policy framework for the region, and pretending Kabul attack was perhaps a way of redemption from the peace talk.

Trump’s factor in US foreign policy was chaotic to his subordinates for which, he attempted to compensate by cancelling peace deal with Taliban. However , on the domestic front, it is likely to be more pluses than on diplomatic front given to Trump in next year’s presidential election. Let’s see which side the wind blow. 

Continue Reading

Americas

Trump Cannot Be Impeached Over Ukrainegate, But Pelosi and Schiff Can Be Charged Criminally

Rahul D. Manchanda, Esq.

Published

on

Pursuant to United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304 (1936), the U.S. Supreme Court issued an unmistakable clear edict concerning the foreign affairs powers of the President of the United States.

In its majority opinion, the Court held that the President, as the nation’s “sole organ” in international relations, is innately vested with significant powers over foreign affairs, far exceeding the powers permitted in domestic matters or accorded to the U.S. Congress.

The Court reasoned that these powers are implicit in the President’s constitutional role as commander-in-chief and head of the executive branch.

Curtiss-Wright was the first decision to establish that the President’s plenary power was independent of Congressional permission, and consequently it is credited with providing the legal precedent for further expansions of executive power in the foreign sphere.

In a 7–1 decision authored by Justice George Sutherland, the Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. government, through the President, is categorically allowed great foreign affairs powers independent of the U.S. Constitution, by declaring that “the powers of the federal government in respect of foreign or external affairs and those in respect of domestic or internal affairs are different, both in respect of their origin and their nature…the broad statement that the federal government can exercise no powers except those specifically enumerated in the Constitution, and such implied powers as are necessary and proper to carry into effect the enumerated powers, is categorically true only in respect of our internal affairs.”

While the Constitution does not explicitly state that all ability to conduct foreign policy is vested in the President, the Court concluded that such power is nonetheless given implicitly, since the executive of a sovereign nation is, by its very nature, empowered to conduct foreign affairs.

The Court found “sufficient warrant for the broad discretion vested in the President to determine whether the enforcement of the statute will have a beneficial effect upon the reestablishment of peace in the affected countries.”

In other words, the President was better suited for determining which actions and policies best serve the nation’s interests abroad.

Period.

It is important to bear in mind that we are here dealing not alone with an authority vested in the President by an exertion of legislative power, but with such an authority plus the very delicate, plenary and exclusive power of the President as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations – a power which does not require as a basis for its exercise an act of Congress, but which, of course, like every other governmental power, must be exercised in subordination to the applicable provisions of the Constitution.

Separation of Powers Doctrine

In other words, neither the U.S. Congress nor the U.S. Senate can say or do very much of anything to prevent or interfere with this power, and if they do, they can in fact be held responsible for violating the Separation of Powers doctrine pursuant to the U.S. Constitution wherein the three branches of government (executive, legislative, and judicial) are kept separate.

This is also known as the system of checks and balances, because each branch is given certain powers so as to check and balance the other branches.

Each branch has separate powers, and generally each branch is not allowed to exercise the powers of the other branches.

The Legislative Branch exercises congressional power, the Executive Branch exercises executive power, and the Judicial Branch exercises judicial review.

National Security and Foreign Affairs

The Curtiss-Wright case established the broader principle of executive Presidential supremacy in national security and foreign affairs, one of the reasons advanced in the 1950s for the near success of the attempt to add the Bricker Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which would have placed a “check” on said Presidential power by Congress, but that never passed, or became law.

If Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats really wanted to interfere with or prevent President Donald Trump from engaging in the activity that they are trying to prevent vis-a-vis Ukraine, China, and Joseph Biden’s alleged corruption and its effect on National Security, they would have to first draft, propose, enact, and pass sweeping legislation, and this could take years and would most probably never pass.

Even so, it could not affect President Donald Trump’s actions already occurred, since the U.S. Constitution prohibits ex post facto criminal laws.

Turning This All Against Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff

To that end if Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Congressman Adam Schiff persist in pushing said “impeachment proceedings” against President Donald Trump, it is actually they who could find themselves on the wrong side of the law, with formal and actual charges of Treason, Sedition or Coup D’ Etat being levied upon them by the U.S. Government.

The consequences of that occurring, are truly horrific indeed.

Continue Reading

Latest

Trending

Copyright © 2019 Modern Diplomacy