Search - Menendez

Importance of brain education   Dear Sir,   These are exciting times for education; a huge leap forward is now a distinct opportunity. We have the knowhow to make our society wise across the board by introducing a compulsory subject that teaches “brain education”. The time has come where we can combine the latest insights of religion, philosophy and psychology to create a subject that teaches wisdom. We now have enough knowledge to bring the route to wisdom education on the same page from the insights of religion, philosophy and psychology. Philosophy is still struggling to define wisdom. Wisdom is an innate property of the pure self, according to religion. The pure self is a projection of an emotionally healthy brain and an emotionally healthy brain is a brain that is free of all emotional baggage, according to psychology. Religion first recognised the importance of wisdom. Wisdom is selflessness; whereas ignorance is selfishness. It is the self-identity/self-image that determines selflessness/selfishness. The self-image is powered by the ignorant selfish ideas originally integrated by Satan into the physics of the brain. It is selfishness that blocks wisdom. Thus wisdom education, according to religion, is removing the selfishness-generating property of the brain and making the brain pure again to generate selflessness/wisdom. According to religion, wisdom education boils down to being brain therapy! Philosophy was created to uncover wisdom. Philosophy figured that society is a mess because there is a lack of wise people. If only they could teach wisdom to one and all the society would become a Utopia. The philosophers correctly recognised the importance of wisdom but they misunderstood the direct cause of the mess in society. The society is a mess because the vast majority of the people are unwise. The problem is not lack of wise people; it is the unwise people who cause all the mess in society. It is clear that to make the society wise the unwise masses have to be cured of their ignorance-generating self-image. Philosophy has failed so far because it tries to teach wisdom without trying to remove the ignorance-generating property of the self-image. It is like pouring spring water into a glass that is generating its own polluted water. The spring water becomes polluted too. Thus our wisdom sages will have to wake up to re-tuning the ignorant/selfish self-image into becoming a selfless pure self. According to philosophy, wisdom education should be very crystal clear. It must be brain therapy. According to psychology, the mess in society is due to emotionally-challenged behaviour. Psychology is all about identifying and curing the emotionally sick. Psychology cures the emotional baggage generating properties of the brain. According to psychology wisdom education is brain therapy. The time has come for our sages of religion, philosophy and psychology to recognise that wisdom education is brain therapy. It is the physical health of the brain that determines the emotional health of the brain. The world is reeling from the emotional baggage that our current education system ignores: we can fix this problem. We can make a real positive change in the lives of the vast majority across the world. We, at the 4th R Foundation have published over 1,600 articles, blogs, essays, papers and press releases and yet our education leaders have not taken any action. Well, global leaders like President Barack Obama, Indian politician Sonia Gandhi,  Secretary of State  John Kerry, Bill Gates, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Oprah Winfrey, Senators McCain and Menendez and  HH Sheikha Moza bint Nasser of Qatar  must now take action on the fundamental crisis of impure/emotionally-challenged brains running and ruining people’s lives.    Sajid Khan. [email protected]   Please send us your  letters, By e-mail: [email protected]    

AFP/Doha Lekhwiya will have to work hard against Guangzhou Evergrande today to have any chance of advancing to the AFC Champions League semi-finals. The Chinese champions, who are looking to zero in on a famous treble under super-coach Marcello Lippi, hold a 2-0 lead over the Qatari club. Guangzhou were toppled by Saudi Arabia’s two-time winners Al Ittihad a year ago but they have returned stronger in their first full season under Lippi, whose coaching honours include the 2006 World Cup with Italy and 1996 European Champions League with Juventus. Lippi’s men hold a 14-point lead in the Chinese Super League and have reached the domestic cup semi-finals—as defending champions in both competitions—as they also bid to secure China’s first Asian title since 1990. Inspired by Argentine maestro Dario Conca, deep-pocketed Guangzhou have established themselves as the favourites in this year’s AFC Champions League, winning six of their nine games and scoring a tournament-leading 21 goals. Brazilian target man Elkeson has successfully replaced departed Paraguayan star Lucas Barrios, scoring against Lekhwiya on his tournament debut last month in what was his 21st goal of the season. “Lekhwiya are a strong team and as it’s the quarter-finals of the AFC Champions League it’s always going to be difficult to win games,” Elkeson said ahead of the second leg. “We managed to play really well in the first game at home and now we want to achieve another one of our goals and qualify for the semi-finals.” Lekhwiya are unbeaten at home in this year’s AFC Champions League but their task has been complicated by the suspension of three players including captain Madjid Bougherra for accumulating two yellow cards. In Thailand, former Racing Santander manager Alejandro Menendez will become the third coach to lead Buriram United in this year’s competition as the Thai FA Cup-holders attempt to recover from a 1-0 deficit against Iranian champions Esteghlal. Menendez was appointed last week following the resignation of Englishman Scott Cooper, and the Spaniard enjoyed a good start as Buriram beat BEC Tero Sasana 2-0 for their fifth consecutive league win last Saturday. Buriram were unfortunate not to get more from their visit to Tehran last month, and a victory in front of their passionate fans in north-eastern Thailand could help them to become the first Thai club to reach the semi-finals in a decade. The remaining two quarter-finals are both intriguingly poised after 1-1 draws in the first legs. South Korean champions FC Seoul will be seeking to make it third time lucky in the quarter-finals, after crashing out at this stage in 2009 and 2011, when they entertain last year’s runners-up Al Ahli of Saudi Arabia. And another Saudi side, Al Shabab, will look to build on their away-goal advantage when they host Japanese Emperor’s Cup-holders Kashiwa Reysol in Riyadh. The winners of the Al Shabab-Kashiwa tie will face either Guangzhou or Lekhwiya in the two-legged semi-finals, while FC Seoul or Al Ahli will meet either Buriram or Esteghlal.      

Republican Senator from Arizona John McCain (left) talking with Democratic Senator from New Jersey Robert Menendez (right) shortly before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved the resolution giving President Obama authority to use force in Syria in Washington yesterday. Reuters/Washington   The US Senate Foreign Relations Committee yesterday approved a resolution authorising a limited US military intervention in Syria, setting the stage for a debate in the full Senate next week on the use of military force. The committee voted 10-7 in favour of a compromise resolution that sets a 60-day limit on any engagement in Syria and bars the use of US troops on the ground for combat operations. The compromise is more limited than President Barack Obama’s original proposal but meets the administration’s goal of punishing Syria for what the US government says is the use of chemical weapons on Syrian civilians, killing more than 1,400 people. The authorisation still faces significant resistance in Congress, where many lawmakers fear it could lead to a prolonged US military involvement in Syria’s civil war and spark an escalation of regional violence. The full Senate is expected to vote on the resolution next week. The House of Representatives also must approve the measure. Obama and administration officials have pushed Congress to act quickly, saying US national security and international credibility is at stake in the decision whether to use force in Syria to punish President Bashar al-Assad’s government for chemical weapons use. “If we don’t take a stand here today, I guarantee you, we are more likely to face far greater risks to our security and a far greater likelihood of conflict that demands our action in the future,” Secretary of State John Kerry told the House Foreign Affairs Committee at a separate meeting yesterday. “Assad will read our silence, our unwillingness to act, as a signal that he can use his weapons with impunity,” Kerry said. The committee vote came after the two panel leaders - Democratic chairman Robert Menendez and senior Republican Bob Corker - crafted a compromise to meet concerns from some lawmakers that Obama’s resolution was too open-ended. Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona had objected to the more narrow wording. But the committee adopted amendments proposed by McCain with policy goals of degrading Assad’s ability to use chemical weapons, increasing support for rebel forces and reversing battlefield momentum to create conditions for Assad’s removal. Many lawmakers have said they are worried the resolution could lead to US ground troops, or “boots on the ground”, in Syria - which administration officials said would not happen. “It’s very clear on the House side there is no support for boots on the ground,” House Foreign Affairs Committee chairman Ed Royce told Kerry at yesterday’s hearing, which also featured testimony from Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel and Gen Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Kerry answered flatly: “There will be no boots on the ground. The president has said it again and again.” Earlier yesterday, President Obama issued a blunt challenge to sceptical US lawmakers, saying inaction would put America’s prestige and their own credibility at risk. Using a visit to Sweden to build his case for military action, Obama insisted that the world could not remain silent after the “barbarism” of the August 21 chemical weapons attack by Assad’s forces. “My credibility is not on the line. The international community’s credibility is on the line,” Obama told a news conference in Stockholm. “And America and Congress’ credibility is on the line, because (otherwise) we give lip service to the notion that these international norms are important.”    

By Trudy Rubin/The Philadelphia Inquirer/MCT If President Obama has any strategy for a decent exit from Afghanistan, he is certainly keeping it a secret. The latest White House effort to jump-start peace talks with the Taliban in Doha, ended in an embarrassing fiasco. Then, last week, the White House once again floated the idea that it would pursue a “zero option” in Afghanistan, meaning Washington would leave no residual force behind after US troops exit in 2014. If this is the new US exit strategy, it is destined to fail. Some say floating the “zero option” is only a tactic to pressure Afghan President Hamid Karzai to be more co-operative with Washington. Others say the leak reflects Obama’s deep desire to wash his hands of the whole Afghan mess, and therefore could actually become American policy. I asked Ryan Crocker, one of America’s premier diplomats and a former ambassador to Afghanistan, what he thought, and his anger was palpable as he responded: “If it’s a tactic, it is mindless; if it is a strategy, it is criminal. “Nothing could encourage the Taliban more. The Pakistanis (who are helping the Taliban) will dig in harder. It will send Karzai in completely the wrong direction. “It invokes memories of the early 1990s,” Crocker added, referring to the time when the United States abandoned Afghanistan after the Soviet withdrawal, leaving behind a failed state that became a haven for terrorists. “It’s as if we’re telling the Afghans, ‘We’re tired, we’re going home...’” I agree with Crocker. Yet it’s clear that Americans are fed up with the long and costly war in Afghanistan. Obama hasn’t made the case for a continued troop presence and probably believes there would be little political or strategic cost to a zero option. If so, he is wrong. The importance of a residual military presence (of about 10,000 troops) is more about symbols than numbers. The main function of the troops would be to train and advise Afghans, but they would also symbolise a long-term US commitment to the country’s stability. Toward that end, the United States signed a bilateral strategic partnership accord with Kabul last year, negotiated by Crocker. A zero option would undercut that accord and signal that Washington is ready to abandon its commitments. It would weaken congressional and international pledges to fund Afghan forces and economic development over the next decade. Perhaps this doesn’t matter, you might say. Why should we be helping a corrupt Afghan government that feeds on Western aid? Answer: If that government collapses, the country will plunge into civil war, with all of Afghanistan’s neighbours backing their proxies. Pakistan will support the Taliban, while Iran, Russia, and India will back other factions. Afghanistan would once again become a failed state and potential terrorist haven, as it did in the 1990s. “We have seen this movie before,” said Crocker. Only this time, the movie would have dangerous new actors and far grimmer pyrotechnics than it did two decades ago. The blowback from terrorists within Afghanistan would threaten a highly unstable and nuclear-armed Pakistan next door. And Washington would no longer have Afghan bases from which to carry out its favoured antiterrorism policy: dispatching drones. Administration officials insist that the president is still undecided about the zero option. Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week, James Dobbins, the administration’s special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, said Obama “is still reviewing a range of options” and “has not made a decision about the size of a US military presence after 2014”. But as the old saying goes, not to decide is to decide. Afghans are already making their decisions based on the belief that Obama wants a zero option. “The lack of clarity on this point has led to too much hedging in the region,” said Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat-New Jersey, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. “Afghans who may otherwise be interested in building a fledgling democracy want to know that they will not be abandoned by the United States, as the Taliban claims they will be.” Afghans smell betrayal in the air. US officials insist they won’t negotiate a deal with the Taliban behind the back of the Afghan government. Yet, the Taliban, acting as if it were the real Afghan government, insists it wouldn’t talk with the American “puppet” Karzai. No wonder Karzai is furious. In 1971, Henry Kissinger famously scribbled the phrase “We need a decent interval” in the margin of a briefing book that dealt with the withdrawal of American forces from South Vietnam. The phrase referred to his efforts to ensure there would be sufficient time between a US troop exit and a likely communist takeover in Saigon - so that the Nixon administration wouldn’t be blamed for the defeat. That “decent interval” spanned two years, between the 1973 Paris peace talks with Hanoi and the 1975 fall of Saigon. Unless Obama commits to, and leads, a more coherent diplomatic strategy - with talks that involve all the regional players, not just Washington and the Taliban - there may be no “decent interval” before Afghanistan collapses. It could happen before the end of his second term.   ♦ Trudy Rubin is a columnist and editorial-board member for the Philadelphia Inquirer. Readers may write to her by email at [email protected]

Reuters/Washington Prospects for passage of a US immigration bill with strong bipartisan support brightened on Wednesday when a group of Republican and Democratic negotiators reached a tentative deal on ways to shore up US border security, senators said. After days of intensive negotiations, a small group of senators had hit upon a compromise that was being floated more broadly in order to gauge support, Republican Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee told reporters. “I think we’ve overcome the issues that have separated the group in negotiations. I think we’re together now,” Corker said. It was unclear how the new package might be received by senators who are considered to be undecided and Corker did not want to reveal details of the potential compromise. A positive response could mean that the Senate next week would approve a sweeping immigration bill by a huge margin, giving it greater chances of success in the House of Representatives. This bill, the biggest change in US immigration policy since 1986, would put 11mn undocumented residents on a pathway to citizenship, strengthen border security and update the US visa system. Corker indicated that the tentative deal, which still could fall apart, contains additional money, on top of the more than $6bn already in the bill, for border security operations. Some senators have talked about adding funds for additional border patrol agents and high-tech surveillance, such as unmanned, aerial drones. A Republican demand that the Obama administration achieve a 90% success rate in stopping illegal border crossings as a condition for the pathway to citizenship was “not a sticking point anymore”, Corker said. He would not elaborate. Democrats have pressed hard to prevent such a link. Republican Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona, who also has been involved in the negotiations, told reporters that he was “hopeful” about the progress made. Some Democratic senators already were buoyed by Tuesday’s Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report, which concluded that the Senate immigration bill would reduce federal budget deficits by nearly $900bn over 20 years and boost the US economy. The economic projection is “a big game-changer”, New Jersey Democratic Senator Robert Menendez, a member of the bi-partisan “Gang of Eight” that wrote the bill, told Reuters. Menendez said the CBO report undermined Republican arguments that the measure would cost the governmenttns of dollars over the long term, mainly in federal benefit payouts to illegal immigrants who are put on a path to citizenship. Meanwhile, Corker said the CBO’s projection that the bill would reduce illegal border crossing by only 25% “added some momentum to our discussions about doing something very substantial on border security.” Brian Fallon, a spokesman for Democratic Senator Charles Schumer, a member of the “Gang of Eight”, said the CBO report “assumes that some immigrants who enter the country legally will overstay their visas” under new programmes for temporary workers. “The bill creates a system to track people who overstay their visas and prevents employers from hiring them, so the number is likely to be much lower than CBO projects,” he said. The bill faces an uncertain fate in the Republican-led House, where Speaker John Boehner declared on Tuesday that he would only bring immigration measures to the full chamber that enjoy the support of most of his fellow Republicans. Many House Republicans have vowed to oppose a bill like the Senate’s, voicing objections to the pathway to citizenship, which they argue would reward lawbreakers. Yesterday, Congressional sources said that a flood of new federal agents and high-tech surveillance devices would be dispatched to the southwestern US border with Mexico under the deal. The proposal, which could be formally offered as an amendment to the sprawling immigration bill as early as today, would double the overall number of US border patrol agents, according to senior Senate Democratic aides. That would mean assigning 21,000 new officers to the southwestern border in an attempt to shut down future illegal crossings by foreigners. The bipartisan bill also calls for building an additional 50 miles (80km) of fencing to complete a 700-mile (1,130km) border barrier, Senate aides said. At a price tag of around $40bn to $50bn, the amendment, if passed, would represent a potentially massive investment of federal resources in securing the border. While the legislation would authorise these security programmes, it would be up to Congress in the future to actually appropriate the money for them. The deal represents a significant win for Republicans who have been clamoring for tougher border security measures. But Democrats could also claim a victory in fending off Republican attempts to delay legalising 11mn undocumented residents until new border security measures were in place. However, one of the aides said that the newly legalised residents would not get “green cards” allowing permanent resident status until the border security measures were in place. Gaining permanent resident status would take 10 years under the bill, giving the federal government a decade to install the added border manpower and equipment. During debate of the bill by the Senate Judiciary Committee last month, some lawmakers were sceptical that such a huge investment would be a smart use of federal dollars and they questioned whether 700 miles of new fencing was even practical. But supporters of the legislation are hoping to capture the votes of more undecided Republican senators with this deal, improving chances of a major rewrite of immigration law in the more conservative House of Representatives, which is controlled by Republicans. The Senate, controlled by Democrats, 54-46, is expected to vote on passage of the measure by the end of next week, just before Congress begins its Fourth of July holiday recess. Bill backers have long voiced confidence that they will have the 60 votes needed to clear Republican procedural roadblocks. Menendez voiced confidence that all 54 members of the Senate Democratic caucus will support the bill, along with a number of Republicans. Backers have long hoped they could get 70 or more votes for passage in the Senate. Besides the additional agents and fencing, the measure also calls for employing large amounts of unmanned aerial drones, radars and other surveillance devices to catch or deter illegal crossings. The plan brought a harsh reaction from at least one civil liberties and human right group. Christian Ramirez, director of the Southern Border Communities Coalition, said the huge build-up in agents, surveillance hardware and fencing “is expensive and extreme”. In a telephone interview with Reuters, Ramirez expressed fears that adding so many more armed officers would compound problems already being experienced involving fatal shootings of bystanders on either side of the border. “The current force on the US-Mexico border is already excessive. What makes matters worse is that there are no checks and balances” on border patrol activities, Ramirez said. Border patrol officials were not immediately available for comment.      

AFP/Washington   The United States has said it will soon decide whether to suspend Bangladesh from a duty-free accord as it urged action by Dhaka to improve labour rights following a massive factory collapse. After a call by US unions, President Barack Obama’s administration in January launched a review on whether to keep Bangladesh in the Generalized System of Preferences, or GSP, which provides duty-free access for thousands of goods. The review was under way when Rana Plaza, a nine-story garment factory on the outskirts of Dhaka, crumbled on April 24 and killed 1,129 people despite concerns expressed previously by workers over the building’s integrity. “The administration will announce a decision on next steps in the GSP review of Bangladesh by the end of June,” said Lewis Karesh on Thursday, who handles labour issues for the US Trade Representative’s office. “All options remain under consideration, including possible suspension, limitation or withdrawal of GSP benefits,” he told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Senator Robert Menendez, chairman of the committee, sounded supportive on the suspension of Bangladesh. He noted that the GSP does not cover textiles, which are by far the South Asian nation’s largest export to the United States. “While only a small fraction of Bangladesh’s exports would be affected, given ongoing violations of the GSP workers’ right criteria, GSP suspension would send a strong signal that the United States is serious about protecting workers and improving workplace safety,” Menendez said. But Robert Blake, the assistant secretary of state for South Asia, said that Bangladesh has been responsive to appeals by the United States, saying that the country has allowed the registration of 27 trade unions since September. “Our hope is that Bangladesh will seize the current moment to strengthen labor rights and improve working conditions. This administration wants to see Bangladesh succeed,” Blake said. Since the Rana Plaza disaster, more than 40 companies — most from Europe — have signed on to an agreement that would include independent monitoring of factory conditions and a stronger role for labour unions. But only three US companies have joined, with US retail giants Walmart and Gap opposed. Blake said that the decision to enter the accord was up to each company but that the US government has asked firms “to carefully examine what they can do to support improved working conditions in Bangladesh.”

Reuters/Washington   US Secretary of State John Kerry is likely to renew waivers on Iran oil sanctions for India, China and several other countries as soon as today, in exchange for their reducing purchases of crude from the Islamic Republic, two government sources said. The 180-day exceptions to the oil sanctions would be the third round since President Barack Obama signed the bill in late 2011. The Obama administration issued waivers on the sanctions to Japan and 10 European Union countries in March. US and EU sanctions last year helped to cut Iran’s oil exports in half, depriving the government of revenues worth billions of dollars, helping to devalue the Iranian rial, the country’s currency, and driving up inflation. Critics of the sanctions say that more diplomatic efforts are necessary to avoid pushing Iran’s leaders to continue funding the nuclear programme. India has led reductions in Iranian oil purchases, cutting imports by nearly a fifth since December. China’s reductions have been more modest. China’s cuts could end up being about 5% to 10% for all of this year, according to trade officials familiar with China’s state refiner. The State Department delayed granting China an exception in June last year for a few weeks, but that is not expected this round. The government sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said all of the countries, including China, India, South Korea Turkey and Singapore are expected to get exceptions today. At a hearing yesterday Robert Menendez, the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, pushed Wendy Sherman, undersecretary for political affairs at the State Department, to say which countries would get an exception this week. Sherman would not be drawn on the prospects of waivers for individual countries, saying Kerry was still reviewing final documents.  “I can assure you that every country that gets an exception tomorrow, they will have made a significant reduction, because that is what is required by law,” she said. While Menendez and other sanctions backers in Congress have pushed for even stronger oil sanctions on Tehran, Sherman said Iranian oil has to be withdrawn from the market in phases that do not spike global oil prices or risk hurting the economies of oil consuming countries. Obama will meet with China’s President Xi Jinping later this week in California, and is likely to talk about ways to help China quickly move away from oil “so that they can further reduce their dependence on Iranian oil,” Sherman said. Mark Dubowitz, the director of Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a proponent of stronger sanctions on Iran, said he expected China to get a waiver. But the modest cuts by China could push Congress to intensify pressure in coming weeks and months to make sure Iran’s exports keep falling, he added. Asian consuming countries have mainly turned to Iraq, Libya and Central and South American exporters as the sanctions have forced down Iran’s oil sales. The oil sanctions are one of the main tools Washington has for its strategy of trying to choke off funding to Tehran’s nuclear programme. Countries in the West suspect its purpose is to seek the capability to make nuclear weapons. Iran says the programme is for generating power and medical devices.

HH the Emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani and HE the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jabor al-Thani with CIA chief John Brennan. QNA/Agencies/Washington HH the Emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani met the US Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano here yesterday. During the meeting, they reviewed scopes of co-operation and other issues of mutual concern. HE the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jabor al-Thani and the members of the delegation accompanying the Emir also attended the meeting. The Emir also met US Secretary of the Treasury Jack Lew yesterday. They reviewed bilateral relations, particularly in the economic and financial fields. He also held talks with Speaker of the US House of Representative John Boehner,  Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and the chairman of the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations Robert Menendez. On Tuesday evening the Emir met US President Barack Obama. They discussed a range of issues including Syria, Egypt, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Afghanistan. Meeting with reporters in the Oval Office, Obama said the two leaders talked about ending the “slaughter” in Syria, while touching upon Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s disregard for his own people and his eventual “removal.” Speaking through an interpreter, the Emir called the Syrian situation “a horrific tragedy” and suggested that Assad’s government “leave power” to staunch the bloodshed. Both leaders said they wanted to see Egypt succeed economically and politically. The Emir said the stability of Egypt was important “to the whole Arab world,” and also key to maintaining peace with Israel. “For Qatar, it’s very important for us to see peace between Israel and the Palestinians, and to see also a good relationship between Arab countries and Israel once a Palestinian-Israeli peace agreement is reached,” said the Emir. Obama said he urged Qatar to provide support for Palestinian Authority President Abbas in his negotiations with Israel.” The president also thanked the Emir for personally helping bring about a dialogue between the Taliban and the Afghan government. “These are all very difficult issues and neither of us are under any illusions that they will be solved overnight, but what we agree with is that if our two countries are communicating frankly ... and pursuing common strategies that we can be a force for good for the entire region,” Obama said.         BELOW; 1)HH the Emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani with US Secretary of the Treasury Jack Lew.   2) The Emir with Democratic leader of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi.  

Reuters/Washington The top Senate Democrat yesterday predicted that Congress will pass and send to President Barack Obama legislation overhauling the US immigration system, saying “things are looking really good.” Obama last week expressed hope Congress can get a deal done on immigration, possibly in the first half of the year. The president is proposing to give the roughly 11mn US illegal immigrants - most of whom are Hispanics - a pathway to citizenship, a step that many Republicans have long fought. Obama’s fellow Democrats control the Senate, but Republicans control the House of Representatives. Appearing on the ABC programme This Week, Harry Reid was asked whether immigration legislation can win House passage. “Well, it’s certainly going to pass the Senate. And it would be a bad day for our country and a bad day for the Republican Party if they continue standing in the way of this. So the answer is yes,” Reid said. Obama choose Reid’s home state of Nevada, with a sizable Hispanic population, as the site for a major speech last Tuesday pushing Congress to pass an immigration bill. Hispanic voters were crucial in helping Obama beat Republican nominee Mitt Romney - who advocated “self-deportation” of illegal immigrants - in Nevada in November. “It has to get done,” Reid said of immigration legislation. “It’s really easy to write principles. To write legislation is much harder. And once we write the legislation, then you have to get it passed. But I think things are looking really good,” Reid added. After years on the back burner, immigration reform has suddenly looked possible as Republicans, chastened by the fact that more than 70% of Hispanic voters backed Obama in the November election, appear more willing to accept an overhaul. Obama has pushed for a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants already in the US that is faster than one proposed by a bipartisan group of eight influential senators. Rather than emphasise border security first, Obama would let illegal immigrants get on a path to citizenship if they undergo national security and criminal background checks, pay penalties, learn English and get in line behind those foreigners seeking to immigrate legally. The bipartisan Senate plan envisions taking steps to toughen security along the US-Mexican border before setting in motion the steps illegal immigrants must take to gain legal status. “Every time I’ve talked about this, I say there are a few things we need,” Reid said. “Number one is border security, southern and northern border security. We have to do that. We have to have a pathway to legalisation. We have to make sure that the employer sanctions work.” On another matter, Reid expressed “utmost confidence” in New Jersey Democratic Senator Bob Menendez, incoming chairman of the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee who last week denied allegations that he had engaged in sex with prostitutes during free trips to the Dominican Republic provided by a political donor. “Oh, I have confidence he did nothing wrong, but that’s what investigations are all about,” Reid said. Menendez is one of the members of the bipartisan Senate group working on immigration.  

Reuters/Washington John Kerry’s nomination as President Barack Obama’s new secretary of state sailed through the US Senate on Tuesday, as his fellow senators voted overwhelmingly to confirm him to replace Hillary Clinton as the country’s top diplomat. The vote was 94-3 in favour. The two senators from Texas, John Cornyn and Ted Cruz, and Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe, all Republicans, were the only no votes. Kerry, the senior Democratic senator from Massachusetts, voted “present.” Kerry’s confirmation as the first new member of Obama’s second-term national security team had been expected. The Senate agreed to vote five days after his hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. That panel, which he has chaired for the past four years, voted unanimously by voice vote earlier on Tuesday to back his nomination. Kerry, 69, a five-term senator and losing presidential candidate in 2004, is expected to be sworn in as secretary of state this week. Clinton’s last day at the State Department is tomorrow. Democratic Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey said before the roll call that a heavy vote for Kerry would send a “strong message” to the rest of the world that he had the firm backing of the entire US. Tennessee Senator Bob Corker, the top Republican on the committee, praised Kerry’s testimony. “I thought that Senator Kerry acquitted himself exceptionally well in the hearings that we had last week,” he said on the Senate floor. Obama has named two other nominees for his second-term national security team: former Senator Chuck Hagel as secretary of defence and John Brennan, his counterterrorism adviser, as CIA director. But both are expected to face much tougher questioning than Kerry. Hagel’s confirmation hearing is today, and Brennan’s is set for Feb 7. Kerry, beaming, was warmly congratulated by his fellow senators after the vote. As the son of a diplomat and decorated Vietnam War veteran, they said, he has been preparing to be secretary of state all of his life. At the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, Kerry was visibly moved by applause and praise from his fellow senators. “I’m honoured beyond words,” he said, before making brief remarks about the importance of the committee moving forward on issues like Middle East peace. Kerry, who has been in the Senate since 1985, said he will make a final speech in the chamber on Wednesday. “What a privilege to work with you and now to work with you in a different way. I thank you very, very much,” Kerry said.  

Reuters/Washington Senator John Kerry won the unanimous support of the chamber’s Foreign Relations Committee yesterday to replace Hillary Clinton as President Barack Obama’s new secretary of state. The full Senate was expected to confirm Kerry later yesterday, setting in motion a special election for his Massachusetts Senate seat. The five-term senator and losing presidential candidate in 2004 has broad support from fellow Democrats as well as Republicans in the Senate. He is expected to be sworn in as the top US diplomat later this week. In a signal of the strong support for Kerry, committee members signed a resolution praising Kerry’s work in the Senate before their unanimous voice vote to support his confirmation. “It is a lengthy recitation of an incredible career here in the Senate, some tremendous accomplishments on behalf of the nation and a recognition of how you are going to be an incredible secretary of state,” said Senator Robert Menendez, of New Jersey, who will replace Kerry as committee chairman. A smiling Kerry came into the room shortly after the vote, to enthusiastic applause from the committee. Moved by their support, he said, “I’m honoured beyond words,” before making brief remarks about the importance of the committee going forward on issues like Middle East peace. Kerry, who became a US senator 28 years ago, told the committee he would make a final speech on the Senate floor today. “What a privilege to work with you and now to work with you in a different way. I thank you very, very much,” Kerry said. Transportation chief to step down US Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood said yesterday he planned to resign, marking the latest departure from President Barack Obama’s Cabinet. “I have let President Obama know that I will not serve a second term as secretary of the US Department of Transportation,” LaHood said. LaHood, a Republican and former Illinois congressman, brought a bipartisan element to the Democratic president’s team. LaHood said he would stay on until his successor is confirmed by the Senate. Obama has been under pressure to bring more women and minorities into his Cabinet.  

Seattle Police Department Sgt. Paul Gracy (left) seizes a missile launcher from Mason Vranish which Vranish had purchased outside a gun buyback programme in Seattle on Saturday. Police said they would determine if the weapon can be legally owned by the public, in which case the weapon would be returned. If possession of the launcher is illegal, police said, Vranish will receive a gun buyback voucher. Reuters/Washington A bipartisan group of US Senators has agreed on an immigration reform plan that would provide a path to citizenship for the 11mn illegal immigrants in the US but only after borders are better secured. The plan, unveiled a day before President Barack Obama is to give a policy speech on immigration in Nevada, tackles the most explosive issue - how to deal with the millions of foreigners living in the US illegally. Under the group’s proposal, undocumented immigrants would be allowed to register with the government, pay a fine, and then be given probationary legal status allowing them to work. Ultimately, they would have to “go to the end of the line” and apply for permanent status, according to the document by eight Senators including Republicans Marco Rubio of Florida, John McCain and Jeff Flake of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, and Democrats Charles Schumer of New York, Dick Durbin of Illinois, Michael Bennet of Colorado and Robert Menendez of New Jersey. The White House praised the group’s efforts but warned that Obama would not be satisfied until there was meaningful reform. The president “will continue to urge Congress to act until that is achieved,” a White House spokesman said. Under the plan, no one would be given more permanent legal status until new measures were implemented to stem the flow of immigrants across US borders, a critical concession to conservatives and border state members of congress. The path to citizenship would also be contingent on a new enforcement measure to track the status of immigrants who may have overstayed visas, the document said. The proposal resembles previous immigration bills - including a 2007 measure that died in Congress in part because of disagreement over the timing and balance of border-enforcement measures versus granting citizenship to the millions of undocumented immigrants. But advocates noted that this time, the climate was ripe for immigration reform. “Conservatives, law enforcers and businesses are calling for immigration reform. You did not see that in 2007,” said Ali Noorani, the executive director with the National Immigration Forum advocacy group. Democrats have considered future citizenship for undocumented immigrants a “bottom line” for a bill, as Schumer said on Sunday at a news conference. Republicans, in turn, have tended to stress border security. While the framework released yesterday includes something for all these groups, translating the four-page outline into legislation with a chance of passing is likely to prove challenging, notwithstanding the bi-partisan makeup of the group and support that came early yesterday from US Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Rubio’s involvement has helped give the plan credibility among some Republicans. His proposals have attracted support from influential conservatives, including former vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan and TV commentator Bill O’Reilly. Last year, Rubio had a hard time getting conservatives on board for allowing “dreamers” to stay here - children of illegals, many of whom have spent most of their lives in the US, are in the country through no fault of their own and attend US schools. Rubio is a Cuban-American who is often mentioned as a presidential contender. He is a favourite of the Tea Party conservative movement.