Indian Overseas Congress, USA condemns the reenactment of Gandhiji’s assassination by Hindu Mahasabha

“Reenactment of Gandhiji’s assassination by Hindu Mahasabha leadership led by Pooja Shakun Pandey, National Secretary, is not only revolting and unpardonable but also hurts the genuine sentiment of peace-loving people everywhere,” said George Abraham, Vice-Chairman of the Indian Overseas Congress, USA.  “Where is the outrage from all those who talk about anti-nationalism?” Mr. Abraham asked.

 Gandhiji who paid the ultimate sacrifice with his life for promoting peace and harmony in the sub-continent at the time of Independence is revered the world over and remain an icon for his non-violence philosophy.

It is equally disturbing that the group that was reenacting the Gandhiji assassination by shooting into an effigy of Mahatma Gandhi was also chanting praises for Nathuram Godse, the original gunman, who pulled the trigger in 1948.

“It is none other than degenerates with depraved mindsets who could participate in such a despicable act and it ought to be called out for condemnation from the civilized world. We are also waiting and watching to see how authorities who are so eager to bring Sedition charges against students who chant slogans would react to these vile actions by the extremists” the statement said.

From Fake News to Enemy of the People: An Anatomy of Trump’s Tweets

NEW YORK, Jan 31 2019 (IPS) – Since announcing his candidacy in the 2016 presidential elections to the end of his second year in office, U.S. President Donald Trump has sent 1,339 tweets about the media that were critical, insinuating, condemning, or threatening.

In lieu of formal appearances as president, Trump has tweeted over 5,400 times to his more than 55.8 million followers; over 11 percent of these insulted or criticized journalists and outlets, or condemned and denigrated the news media as a whole.

To better monitor this negative rhetoric, CPJ’s North America program created a database to track tweets in which Trump mentioned the mediaindividual journalistsnews outlets, or journalistic sources in a negative tone.

The president’s tweets can have an impact and consequences for the press both at home and abroad. His rhetoric has given cover to autocratic regimes: world leaders from Cambodia to the Philippines have echoed terms like “fake news” in the midst of crackdowns on press freedom.

And the rhetoric has sometimes resulted in harassment of individual journalists in the U.S., where CPJ is aware of several journalists who say they were harassed or threatened online after being singled out on Twitter by Trump.

CPJ’s database of tweets can be viewed here and our methodology can be found here. CPJ found that the focus of the tweets has shifted dramatically. During the campaign, Trump frequently called out specific journalists by name or Twitter handle, accounting for over a third of his negative tweets about the press during that period.

This trend declined in the months leading up to the election and, since taking office, his focus shifted instead to the media as a whole, accounting for 63 percent of his tweets about the press in the first two years of his presidency, compared with 23 percent as a candidate.

The overall number and rate of Trump’s tweeting has also decreased since he took office. However, those targeted at the press constitute a larger percentage of his total tweets during his presidency.

Nine percent of all original tweets during his candidacy contained negative rhetoric about the press, compared with 11 percent in his first two years in office.

His rhetoric–increasingly targeting swaths of the press–appears to be escalating, first from the introduction of “fake news” to “opposition party” and his use of “enemy of the people.”

The term “fake news” did not appear in Trump’s tweets until after he was elected. It was used for the first time in December 2016. It came into more frequent use in January 2017, in reference first to leaked reports on Russian hacking and then to reports on his inauguration and approval ratings.

Overall, in each of the first two years in office the term was used in over half his negative tweets about the press. Trump’s use of the term “enemy of the people” was first used on February 17, 2017, one day after the Trump campaign team distributed a survey urging supporters to “do your part to fight back against the media’s attacks and deceptions.”

Trump uses his tweets to respond and react to critical coverage or investigative reporting. The months where tweets critical of the press accounted for the highest percentage of all original tweets posted were:

  • January 2017 (15 percent): In response to reports on the Intelligence Community Assessment’s confirmation of Russian hacking.
    • February 2017 (19 percent): In response to reports about his election win, emerging news about Russian hacking, and leakers.
    • March 2017 (17 percent): In response to reports about infighting within the Trump administration, the leak of part of his tax returns, and Russian hacking.
    • October 2017 (15 percent): In response to reports on hurricane relief in Puerto Rico, Rex Tillerson allegedly threatening to resign, and a perceived lack of positive economic coverage.
    • December 2017 (16 percent): In response to focusing on reporting on collusion with Russia, the Republican tax reform, and reviews of Trump’s first year in office).

Trump insulted individual journalists via Twitter 280 times as a candidate. CPJ has documented cases of several journalists who said after being targeted by him on Twitter they were harassed or doxxed.

During the first two years of his presidency, Trump has cited specific journalists 48 times. Notable exceptions to this sharp decline took place in January and September 2018, when Trump tweeted about Michael Wolff and Bob Woodward when their books on the president and his administration were released.

The database showed that the outlets targeted the most–either directly or through tweets about their journalists–were the New York Times and CNN, with Fox News coming in third. During the Republican primaries, Fox was a frequent target, cited in 148 tweets.

Of these, Fox broadcaster Megyn Kelly was the primary target in nearly half, cited in 64 tweets, after the first Republican presidential debate in 2016, where she questioned Trump about the derogatory language he uses against women.

In the weeks following the debate, Trump tweeted negative comments about Kelly, including insulting her both personally and professionally. Trump also targeted other conservative-leaning outlets during this period, including The BlazeThe Weekly StandardRedState, and the National Review.

Trump has also used Twitter to accuse the press of falsifying anonymous sources. Trump tweeted about “phony,” “nonexistent,” or “made up” sources on five occasions during his candidacy, all of which were posted in the three months between winning the Republican primary and the election.

This number doubled to 11 instances in his first year in office and then again to 27 in his second year as his administration was plagued with leaks and the investigation being led by Robert Mueller.

In the wake of the Annapolis shooting in June, CPJ, press freedom advocates, and media outlets called on Trump to moderate his rhetoric. However, five days after the shooting Trump called the “Fake News” the “Opposition party,” and 17 days after, he tweeted that “much of our news media is indeed the enemy of the people.”

The moniker “enemy of the people” appeared in only four tweets during his first year in office. In his second year, the number was 21, nearly all after Annapolis.

Will the EVMs decide the elections of 2019?

An Indian Cyber expert identified as Syed Suja, recently told a press conference in London addressing via Skype that 2014 General election in India was “rigged” through Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs). He also claimed that Telecom giant Reliance helped BJP to get low-frequency signals to hack the EVMs.

Whether these claims may be outlandish or not, this is not the first time that someone is raising the issue of reliability of these voting machines in determining the outcome of elections in India. As far back as in 2009,  L. K. Advani, a senior BJP leader expressed serious doubts about the integrity of these machines and called for a return to the paper ballot.

Moreover, powerful new voices added to the chorus now questioning the security and verifiability of the election using these machines. Akhilesh Yadav, a former Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh urged the election commission to provide an alternative to EVMs and even called them a “threat to democracy.” BSP Supremo Mayawati asked for the return of paper ballots. Abhishek Singhvi, a Congress spokesperson, also expressed serious doubts over the credibility of EVMs and stated that 70 percent of the political parties had asked EC to replace EVMs with paper ballots.

Therefore, what is brewing just before the 2019 general election is a crisis of confidence in the election process primarily due to the inability of the Election Commission in convincing political leaders that the procedures and infrastructure they have put in place have transparency and fairness! Instead, EC has taken a belligerent stand dismissing concerns across the political spectrum stating that EVMs are “tamper proof” with the  Chief Election Commissioner even lamenting “EVMs being tossed like a football” in the political discourse.

The Election Commission of India developed the country’s EVMs in partnership with two government-owned companies, the Electronics Corporation of India (ECIL) and Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL). Though the Indian government owns these companies, they are not under the administrative control of the Election Commission. EVMs were first used nationally for the general election in 2004 though they were first used in 1982 in the by-election to North Paravur Assembly constituency in Kerala for a limited number of polling stations.

One of the commonly heard arguments is that EVMs are not connected to the Internet so it cannot be hacked. However, there are so many ways one can break into an electronic device if the dishonest guys have access and are protected. Clever hackers use wireless mechanisms such as radio protocol to break into computing devices. Some would argue that this is not a computer. However, the truth is that it has ROM, RAM, Software, Keyboard and a Display! It is indeed modeled after a computer.

We are living in an age where even sophisticated systems with high levels of security are under attack from cybercriminals. Defense Department in the US believes that 15% of the “specially build for Pentagon” chips that go into aircraft and missiles are counterfeit and they have no way of finding out.  However, EC wants to convince the country that a commodity microcontroller and other electric components in an EVM are beyond any level of threats than the Systems in a technologically advanced country like the US. There may not be a machine in the world that is truly impenetrable!

EVM consists of a Control and Balloting Units, connected by a cable. The centerpiece in this configuration is the CPU. It is custom manufactured, and the code is embedded in a chip to prevent it from being electronically programmed. However, a Security Analysis studies done by American experts points to some of its potential vulnerabilities. For example, firmware can be compromised either at the source or the Chip manufacturer and the real chips could be swapped with dishonest ones in the supply chain by attackers with access to the assembled machines. They have also raised the possibility of using a trigger for an attack between elections and counting using malicious code at a preset interval. The same researchers also argued that a clip-on connector could execute even a vote-stealing program. It is possible that many of these assertions could be challenged and even proven wrong.

Whether we believe in the veracity of the claims in this study or not, EC should not be taking a defensive posture with regard to the allegations of fraud or machine malfunctions. The design of India’s EVMs relies entirely on the physical security of the machines and the integrity of election insiders. There was a story from Madhya Pradesh that CCTV cameras were out at a storage area after electricity was cut-off raising suspicions and creating further innuendos. The tamper-resistant seals they put on the machines after the election is said to be not credible as well. It is also worth noting that in 2009, there were reports of 4000 EVMs missing in Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh.

Some would raise an argument of how it would be impossible to subvert such a large number of independent systems. However, experts point out that in close races an attacker might be able to change the election outcome by tampering with only a few machines. A small number of tightly contested seats often determine which party holds a majority in the parliament, so a national-level attacker could focus on tampering with machines only in those districts.

It is time for an honest debate on this issue and country will be better off in considering how to achieve a secure and transparent voting system that is suitable to its national values and credible before the voting public. One option is to use a voter-verifiable paper audit trail (VVPAT), which combines an electronic record stored in a DRE with a paper vote record that can be audited by hand.  VVPAT has been tested and first used at the election in Goa. One of the remedial measures could be that all EVMs may be configured with VVPAT in the upcoming election.

It is quite possible that even VVPAT may not satisfy all critics of the present setup. The final option is to return to paper ballots. India’s EVM machines are said to be made in Japan. However, Japan still uses the paper ballot. In the US and Western Europe, many States are opting out of electronic voting systems and returning to the paper out of concerns for hacking or worries over glitches. To guarantee the secrecy, security, and verifiability of elections, elections should revert back to human-readable paper ballots, according to a new report from the National Academics of Science, Engineering, and Medicine.

Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, and Chattisgarh victories may have given a ‘false sense of security’ to the Opposition. Election Commission has been created as an independent entity, however, unless it truly exercises its prerogatives and responds to the valid concerns of its citizens, faith in a fair election will not be restored and stories of EVMs fixing elections may become more than mere fables!

(Writer is a former Chief Technology Officer of the United Nations and Vice-Chairman of the Indian Overseas Congress, USA)

After caving in, Trump signs bill ending Govt. shutdown

President Donald Trump signed a bill Friday, January 25th ending the government shutdown, capping off the longest ever US Government shutdown, and reinstating funds until February 15.

After 35 days, Trump backed a deal to fund federal agencies for three weeks, but it includes none of the money he has demanded for a US-Mexico border wall. The Republican president previously vowed to reject any budget unless it included $5.7bn to fund his signature campaign pledge.

But Democrats, who control the House of Representatives, flatly refused. The House and the Senate voted Friday to end the government shutdown, extending funding for three weeks, following a deal being reached between Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

The US economy lost $11 billion during the month-plus hiatus because of lost productivity and business, according to a finance industry estimate – more than the $5.7bn of taxpayer funding the president demanded for his long-promised wall along the US-Mexico border but failed to get Congress to agree to.

The decision marked a significant climb-down by the president. Less than 24 hours before he spoke in the White House Rose Garden, Trump demanded that any solution from Congress should include a “large down payment” for his long-promised wall along the southern border.

On Friday, however, intensifying delays at airports across the north-east and fresh polling that revealed mounting public frustration provided new urgency for efforts to break the impasse.

“We have reached a deal to end the shutdown and reopen the federal government,” Trump said, despite there being no fresh offer from Democratsthat could be termed a “deal”.

But he reminded Americans he had a “powerful alternative”, threatening to declare a national emergency if a deal for wall funding is not reached before the next deadline to fund the government.

“Let me be very clear,” Trump said, “we really have no choice but to build a powerful wall or steel barrier. If we don’t get a fair deal from Congress, the government will either shut down on 15 February again, or I will use the powers afforded to me under the law and the constitution of the US to address this emergency.”

Sen. Kamala Harris, 1st ever Indian American, announces bid for US president

Kamala Harris, 54, the daughter of immigrants from Jamaica and India, has announced her decision to enter the crowded political field of Democratic candidates, seeking to unseat incumbent, President Donald Trump.

Kamala Harris announced Monday, January 21st, that she is running for president in 2020, arguing that the time has come to fight against what she views as the injustices of the past two years of the Trump presidency.

Harris chose to announce on Monday to honor the legacies of two of her heroes. Forty-seven years ago this week, Shirley Chisholm, the first black woman ever to run for president, launched her campaign. And Martin Luther King Jr. has been a role model for Harris throughout her life in what she views as his “aspirational fight for progress.”

In a brief video from her campaign that was released on social media Monday morning at the same time she appeared on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” Harris called on her supporters to join with her to “claim our future.”

“Justice. Decency. Equality. Freedom. Democracy. These aren’t just words. They’re the values we as Americans cherish. And they’re all on the line now,” Harris said in the video, teasing her official kickoff in her birthplace of Oakland next Sunday.

“The future of our country depends on you and millions of others lifting our voices to fight for our American values,” the Democratic California senator said. “That’s why I’m running for president of the United States. “I’m running to lift those voices, to bring our voices together.”

Harris is the first African-American woman and the first Indian American to announce a run for the White House in 2020, and the fourth woman in the field. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, the first Hindu seeking the highest office, also announced earlier this month that she is running, and Democratic Sens. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York have both announced exploratory committees, a step that Harris is skipping.

In a 2020 field that now includes four women, her allies believe that her life’s work as a prosecutor — from her start in Alameda County trying grisly crimes such as sexual assault to felonies including homicide — will help set her apart. The style developed over those years helped her build a national following when she grilled President Donald Trump’s nominees, including Brett Kavanaugh when he was a Supreme Court nominee.

Her book tour earlier this month served as a soft launch for her presidential bid, showcasing her strong appeal among women, minorities and millennials — as well as the criticism she will face over aspects of her long and complex record as a prosecutor, district attorney of San Francisco and attorney general of California.

Harris sought to use the anecdotes in the new book to demonstrate her toughness, including how she took on the big banks as California’s attorney general after the foreclosure crisis and held out for a $20 billion settlement for California homeowners. The clear subtext throughout her appearances was that she would not be bullied by anyone, including Trump.

While avoiding directly engaging Trump, Harris has accused the President of stoking racist and xenophobic rhetoric, while aligning his administration with white supremacists at home, and cozying up to dictators abroad.

She has argued that the needs of the middle class have been ignored, citing the federal shutdown over the President’s “vanity project” — a border wall — as the latest example.

Harris’ campaign will be headquartered in Baltimore — giving aides an East Coast hub in a racially diverse city that has struggled with wide income disparities — and Oakland, where Harris was born to immigrant parents who came to the US to advance their academic careers.

The former prosecutor chose yellow and red for her campaign logo in a nod to Chisholm’s bid for president with its red and yellow campaign buttons. Her signs will carry her campaign theme “Kamala Harris for the people,” the words that she spoke each time she rose in the courtroom as a prosecutor.

Juan Rodriguez, the strategist who managed Harris’ successful campaign for Senate in 2016 and advised California Gov. Gavin Newsom in his recent campaign, will be her campaign manager. Her sister Maya Harris, who advised Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, will serve as her campaign chair. She will continue to be guided by her longtime strategists Sean Clegg and Ace Smith.

Prime Minister to inaugurate 15th Pravasi Bharatiya Diwas Convention in Varanasi on 22 January, 2019

The Prime Minister, Shri Narendra Modi will inaugurate the 15th Pravasi Bharatiya Diwas Convention at Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh tomorrow on 22 January, 2019. 
For the first time, the three day long convention is being organized in Varanasi from 21-23 January, 2019. The theme of PBD Convention 2019 is “Role of Indian Diaspora in building New India”. 
In reverence to the sentiments of the larger diaspora to participate in Kumbh Mela and Republic Day celebrations, the 15th PBD Convention is being organised from 21 to 23 January 2019 instead of 9th January. After the Convention, participants will visit Prayagraj for Kumbh Mela on 24th January. They will then proceed to Delhi on 25th January and witness the Republic Day Parade at New Delhi on 26th January 2019. 
Prime Minister of Mauritius Mr. Pravind Jugnauth will be the chief guest of the PBD convention. Mr. Himanshu Gulati, Member of Parliament of Norway, will be the Special Guest while Mr. Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi, Member of Parliament of New Zealand will be the Guest of Honor at the 15th edition of PBD. 
Key events of this edition include- 
21 January, 2019- Youth Pravasi Bharatiya Diwas. The event will provide opportunities for the young Diaspora to engage with New India. 
22 January 2019 – Inauguration of PBD convention by Prime Minister in presence of Prime Minister of Mauritius, Pravind Jugnauth.
23 January 2019 – Valedictory Session & Pravasi Bharatiya Samman Awards by the President of India. 
Various plenary sessions are also scheduled during the event. The evenings are marked with cultural programs. 
The decision to celebrate Pravasi Bharatiya Diwas (PBD) was taken by the former Indian Prime Minister, late Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee.
The 1st PBD was celebrated on 9th January, 2003 in New Delhi. January 9 was chosen as the day to celebrate PBD as it was on this day in 1915 that Mahatma Gandhi, had returned to India from South Africa.
PBD now celebrated once in every two years, provides a platform to the overseas Indian community to engage with the government and reconnect with their roots.  During the Convention, Pravasi Bharatiya Samman is conferred on the selected overseas Indians for their significant contributions to various fields both in India and abroad. 
14th PBD held during 7–9 January 2017 at Bengaluru, Karnataka was inaugurated by Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The theme for the 14th PBD was “Redefining engagement with the Indian diaspora”.  In his address, Mr. Modi had said that Indian diaspora represents the best of Indian culture, ethos and values and are respected for their contributions. He underlined the importance of a continuous engagement with the overseas Indian community as a key area of priority for the Government.

The longest ever US Government Shutdown

The partial US government shutdown has passed full one month, which makes it the longest gap in American government funding ever. That beats the previous record, under President Bill Clinton in 1995, of 21 days.

In total, there have been 21 gaps in government funding since 1976, though the level of shutdown has varied. The current federal shutdown is a partial one, as many agencies were already funded through this fiscal year, which ends in September.

The roots of today’s dysfunction date back to some critical decisions starting in the 1970s. Here’s a look at why the American government has lurched into crisis over the budget so often since then.

Before the 1970s, the federal government would in some cases spend money without prior congressional approval, said Jim Broussard, the director of the Center for Political History at Lebanon Valley College in Annville, Pa

A 1974 law reorganized the budgeting process, shifting power from the executive branch to Congress. Tense disagreements quickly emerged.

In 1977, the House of Representatives and the Senate fought over whether Medicaid should be used to pay for abortions. That led to three separate instances in which the government could not provide funding for the Departments of Labor and Health, Education and Welfare. The shutdowns added up to a total of 28 days that year.

Another gap in funding the following year, when President Jimmy Carter took issue with a costly public works bill and defense spending, lasted 17 days.

Two legal opinions issued by the United States attorney general, Benjamin R. Civiletti, in 1980 and 1981, made shutdowns much more severe.

Until that point, most agencies could continue to operate even if funding bills hadn’t been passed, with the understanding that money would eventually be approved. But Mr. Civiletti argued that it was illegal for the government to spend money without congressional appropriations. The few exceptions included work by federal employees to protect life and property, he wrote.

That, in turn, prompted an increased frequency of small shutdowns as politicians struggled with deadlines, said Roy T. Meyers, a political science professor at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, who has written about the history of shutdowns.

In November 1981, President Ronald Reagan, in a fight with Congress over $8.5 billion in budget cuts he wanted, ordered the furlough of 241,000 government employees. It was the first time a shutdown of that size was ordered.

congressional subcommittee estimated that the two-day shutdown cost taxpayers between $80 million and $90 million, including administrative costs, such as figuring out who could and couldn’t work and paying workers who didn’t work.

Shutdowns that included furloughs in 1984, 1986 and 1990 cost taxpayers at least $128 million, according to government estimates. The longest previous shutdown came in 1995. At issue was a long-term budget backed by Republicans, who won control of both the House and the Senate halfway through Mr. Clinton’s first term.

Their plan limited spending for Medicare and turned Medicaid and most other welfare programs over to the states. House Republicans, in particular, were keen on using a shutdown to get Mr. Clinton to sign their bill.

A five-day shutdown in November was followed by the record-breaker — 21 days — starting in mid-December. That conflagration helped pave the way for the 2013 shutdown over President Barack Obama’s health care law.

The 2013 shutdown lasted for 16 days and ended amid dire warnings from the Treasury Department that it was about to run out of money. Having failed in their bid to defund Obamacare, Republicans leaders eventually worked with their Democratic counterparts on a plan to reopen the government and raise the debt ceiling. “We’ve got to get out of the habit of governing by crisis,” Mr. Obama said at the time.

Did Modi come to power by hacking EVMs in 2014?

Syed Shuja of Hyderabad, claiming to be a cyber expert and a former employee of the Electronic Corporation of India Ltd on Monday made a series of unsubstantiated allegations about the vulnerability of electronic voting machines used in India, including in the 2014 general election.

Syed Shuja appeared at a news conference through Skype. He said he was based in the United States, where he got political asylum after fleeing India due to threats to his life and allegedly in a serious medical condition in 2014.

According to Shuja, who said he also went by other names, 200 seats in the 2014 elections that would have been won by the Congress had been rigged in favour of the Bharatiya Janata Party by manipulating data transmission through what he called ‘military-grade modulators’ installed in various parts of the country.

The event, organized by the Indian Journalists Association and the Foreign Press Association, was supposed to witness a live demonstration of EVMs being hacked, but Shuja claimed he had been attacked recently, which explained his absence in London, and individuals who were to bring the EVMs from India had been bought off.

Shuja went on to allege that senior BJP leader and former Union minister Gopinath Munde had been murdered because he was about to expose the malpractice when he did not get what he wanted when the Narendra Modi government was formed. He also alleged that journalist Gauri Lankesh was killed because she was about to publish details of the EVMs being hacked.

The brunt of Shuja’s allegations was pointed at the BJP, but he claimed that he had been approached by various parties, including the Congress, Aam Aadmi Party, Samajwadi Party and regional parties had approached him to help hack EVMs during elections.

Present at the press conference was senior Congress leader Kapil Sibal, but he refused to comment on the claims made. IJA president Ashis Ray said he had invited leaders of all parties to attend the event, but only Sibal had turned up.

According to Shuja, he and his team prevented EVMs being hacked during the 2015 elections to the Delhi assembly, when AAP won a landslide majority. The recent elections in Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh and Telangana were also rigged through the EVMs, he alleged.

In Shuja’s perception, he and his team of unnamed individuals in India were trying to save democracy by intercepting transmissions and preventing EVMs being hacked. The team, he added, did not have money or resources, but were doing their best for the country.

Shuja further alleged that the Election Commission had been ‘100 per cent involved’ in the malpractice over the years. When the possibility of EVMs being hacked is raised, he said the commission invariably presents 14 prototypes that he and his team had built at ECIL. Those specific EVMs, he said, cannot be hacked by bluetooth or wi-fi.

Shuja’s status of being granted political asylum in the US could not be verified from the US embassy in London due to Monday being a holiday on Martin Luther King Day, as well as employees not being at work due to the government shutdown.

Responding to the allegations, the Election Commission in New Delhi rejected the “motivated slugfest” and warned of legal action. “It has come to the notice of Election Commission of India that an event claiming to demonstrate EVMs used by ECI can be tampered with, has been organised in London. Whereas, ECI has been wary of becoming a party to this motivated slugfest, ECI firmly stands by the empirical facts about fool proof nature of ECI EVMs deployed in elections in India,” the poll panel said in a statement.

Holding that these EVMs are manufactured in Bharat Electronics Limited and Electronics Corporation of India Limited “under very strict supervisory and security conditions and there are rigorous Standard Operating Procedures meticulously observed at all stages under the supervision of a Committee of eminent technical experts constituted way back in 2010,” it said that it was “being separately examined as to what legal action can and should be taken in the matter”.

Donald Trump nominates three Indian-Americans to key administration post

U.S. President Donald Trump has nominated three Indian-Americans to key administration positions, as per the latest list of senior nominations sent by the White House to the Senate.

Rita Baranwal has been nominated for the post of Assistant Secretary of Energy (Nuclear Energy), Aditya Bamzai for Member of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, and Bimal Patel as the Assistant Secretary of Treasury.

The intent to nominate Ms. Baranwal, Mr. Bamzai and Mr. Patel was announced by Mr. Trump earlier, but the nomination was sent to the Senate last week. So far, Mr. Trump has nominated or appointed more than three dozen Indian Americans in key positions.

Nikki Haley, the first Cabinet-ranking Indian-American and Raj Shah, the first Indian-American deputy Press Secretary have left the Trump administration. Ms. Baranwal holds the post of Director, Gateway for Accelerated Innovation in Nuclear (GAIN) initiative.

If confirmed by the Senate, as Assistant Secretary of Energy Ms. Baranwal will be heading the powerful Office of Nuclear Energy. She will also be responsible for the department’s nuclear technology research and the development and management of the department’s nuclear technology infrastructure.

Ms. Baranwal previously, she served as director of the Technology Development and Application at Westinghouse and was a manager in Materials Technology at Bechtel Bettis, where she led research and development in nuclear fuel materials for U.S. naval reactors.

A Yale graduate, Mr. Bamzai teaches and writes about civil procedure, administrative law, federal courts, national security law and computer crime. He has earlier served as a law clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia of the U.S. Supreme Court and to Judge Jeffrey Sutton of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

Before entering the academy, Mr. Bamzai served as an attorney-adviser in the Office of legal counsel of the U.S. Department of Justice, and as an appellate attorney in both private practice and for the National Security Division of the justice department.

Patel currently serves as deputy assistant secretary of the Treasury for the Financial Stability Oversight Council. Prior to joining the United States Department of the Treasury, Mr. Patel was a partner and head of the Financial Advisory and Regulation practice in Washington, DC, office of O’Melveny & Myers LLP, the White House said.

Mr. Patel previously served as senior advisor to Director Jeremiah O Norton on the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. He also served as an adjunct associate professor at Stanford University, teaching an undergraduate course on banking regulation.

Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi named to key Congressional panel

Democratic lawmaker Raja Krishnamoorthi has been appointed as a member of a Congressional committee on intelligence, becoming the first South Asian to serve in the powerful body tasked to strengthen U.S.’s national security.

Krishnamoorthi, 45, who represents Illinois’s 8th Congressional District in the House, was chosen along with Congresswoman Val Demings of Florida, Sean Patrick Maloney of New York and Peter Welch of Vermont as the four new Democratic members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) for the 116th Congress. The HPSCI is tasked with overseeing the activities and budget of the 17 intelligence agencies of the U.S.

Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi appointed Mr. Krishnamoorthi on Wednesday. Ms. Pelosi said: “Our new members of the Intelligence Committee bring exceptional judgment, expertise and determination to our mission to honour that oath and, guided by the strong, principled leadership of Chairman Adam Schiff, will restore the long tradition of bipartisanship and integrity of this critical committee.”

‘Very humbling’

Mr. Krishnamoorthi, after Ms. Pelosi announced his appointment, said: “It is very humbling to be chosen to serve on the Intelligence Committee in this Congress, and I am ready to join with my colleagues in preserving the safety and security of our nation“. “The intelligence challenges and international threats facing our country today are vast, ranging from terrorism to cyberwarfare to investigating Russia’s previous and continuing attempts to sabotage our democracy. Mr. Krishnamoorthi, whose family moved to New York when he was three months old, has attended Princeton University, where he earned a Bachelor’s degree in Mechanical Engineering. He also attended Harvard Law School. Early this week, Ms. Pelosi appointed Indian-American Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal to the House Education and Labour Committee.

New Community Civic-Engagement group, the Voice of Indian-American Voters Launches

Chicago IL: VIA Voters is a new community group launched with the goal of increasing the civic engagement of Indian-Americans in Chicagoland & nationally. The founding members of the group are prominent business persons and community members Mr Sanjjeev Singh, Dr. Anuja Gupta & Dr Bharat Barai. “We felt there was a need for a Non-Partisan Platform that promoted the civic engagement of the Indian-Americans at the local and national levels” said the founders. The top goals of the group include seeking a better level of engagement with elected officials, creating a more informed voter base and increasing the participation of Indian-Americans in the election process.

The VIA Voters was officially Launched at the Waterford Banquets, Elmhurst IL on Sunday, January 13th 2019. Several community business persons, leaders and the media attended this event. “In our businesses we often need to interact with elected public officials and a big goal for me to initiate such a cause was to seek a better level of engagement with them” said Dr. Anuja Gupta. Dr. Gupta is a physician and real-estate developer of Verandah Retirement Community. She is also an active community leader, having founded the Womens Empowerment Campaign (WE) Chicago a networking & empowerment platform for Indian women in Chicagoland. “Indian-Americans are the most successful minority in the country, yet currently we do not get the attention we deserve from elected officials because there is no significant powerful group” said Mr Sanjjeev Singh, president of ASAR America, Inc. a technology company based in Naperville, IL.

The participation of Indian-Americans in the election process is sadly much below the national average.  “As a community we need to be more involved in the voting process. The time has come to engage more seriously in our civic responsibility in keeping with our economic & social success” added Dr. Bharat Barai. Dr. Barai is a practicing Oncologist & president of Prime Partners Inc based in Indiana. Dr. Barai is widely regarded as the pillar of the Indian community and played a prominent role in many high-level community events including the World Hindu Congress, the Federation of Indian Associations among others.

The Leadership Council of the group includes prominent citizens & community leaders of local organizations including Gulzar Singh president Pan Oceanic Inc, Nimish Jani trustee Schaumburg Township, Kanti S Patel president Gujarat Cultural Society, Vidya Joshi secretary Bruhan Mumbai Maharashtra, Syed Hussaini vice-president of commercial loans at Wintrust Bank, Khaja Moinuddin trustee Hanover Township, Ulka Nagarkar member Maharashtra Mandal, Girish Kapur member United Punjabi Association, Shree Guruswamy member Chicago Andhra Association, Vandana Jhingan TV Asia, Keerthi Ravoorie member Indian-American Democrat Org, Savi Singh, Deepti Suri, Dr Rahul Deepankar & Dr Kamal Patel,  Sapan Shah, Mr. Gladson Varghese, and Ashfaq Syed. “Being more engaged in the election of public officials is essential to the continued success of our community” said Mr Syed Hussaini. Mr Hussaini also belongs to other boards of Muslim members who are active in the local community.

“As Indians we value certain life-styles of higher education, marriage, family and entrepreneurship. We want to promote those values by electing candidates who represent them” said Mr Sapan Shah, a physician & attorney who recently ran for State Representative from Des Plaines IL. “As a community we can promote the values which led to our success as immigrants to this country” he added. The Leadership Council of the group has 26 active community leaders who feel passionate about the cause.

The group intends to organize seminars & debates of public office candidates to create a more informed voter base, create a national list of Indian-Americans & start local chapters in other cities that have a sizable Indian population like New Jersey, New York, Dallas, Los Angeles. The inaugural event of the group is a reception of the Chicago Mayoral Candidates for the Indian-American community. The event is planned for Sunday February 10th at Taft Highschool in Chicago. The event will be moderated by Mr. Ravi Baichwal, ABC TV Network’s Prime News anchor. Front-running candidates in the Chicago Mayors race have been invited including Toni Preckwinkle, Gery Chico, Garry McCarthy, Susana Mendoza & Paul Vallas. VIA Voters expects 500 guests to attend the event including business persons, community leaders & the media.

Will US Defense Secretary James Mattis’ departure affect Indo-US relations?

US secretary of defense James Mattis, a towering American icon and unparalleled supporter of ties with India, resigned on Thursday, day after the Trump administration abruptly announced the withdrawal of American troops from Syria, and told the president in a resignation letter he deserved someone at the Pentagon “whose views are better aligned with yours”.

Mattis has been the most enthusiastic and influential supporter of ties with India in the Trump administration, according to several Indian and US officials who spoke to Hindustan Times off the record over the past many months.

“His departure is a loss, we lost a champion,” said an Indian official.  “This is through and through a Greek tragedy,” wrote Ashley Tellis, an Asia expert with think tank Carnegie, in an email response to a request for comments. “His departure is a big loss for the country: He was a towering center of sanity and the source of reassurance for America’s friends and allies. With him goes the last great champion of strong US-India ties in this administration.”

Mattis, like many other Trump aides and advisers, had opposed the pullout and tried one last time to persuade the president to reverse his decision at a meeting at the White House in the afternoon. But he failed, as the president was not only in no mood to relent but had dug in and was punching back even at close allies who were opposing him on the pullout.

Mattis had emerged as the strongest supporter of relations with India, specially after he urged lawmakers at a congressional hearing to amend a US law to grant India a waiver from sanctions targeting buyers of significant volumes of Russian military hardware.

The lawmakers agreed and changed the law — Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, better known by acronyms CAATSA — but a decision is still awaited. Not for Secretary Mattis though. It was settled issue for him. “We’ll sort out all those issues here today, and in the days ahead,” he told reporters during defense minister Nirmala Sitharaman’s visit recently and added, later, “We’ll work everything out, trust me.”

Later that day, Secretary Mattis hosted Minister Sitharaman at Smithsonian’s Freer Gallery of Asian Art for dinner that officials said was marked by personal touches from him that bore “testimony to his belief” in the relationship.

It was on Mattis’s watch that the Pacific Command of the US military was rechristened Indo-Pacific Command in a nod to growing ties with India and an acknowledgement of the increasing significance of India on the world stage and in America’s world view, with China as a shared challenge.

Benjamin Schwartz, a former Pentagon official who dealt with ties with India, cautioned, however, against overestimating the impact of Mattis’s exit on ties with India. “Mattis was a strong backer for sure, but the geopolitics of Asia incline most US officials responsible for national security to see India as an important partner,” he wrote in an email response.

“One core belief I have always held is that our strength as a nation is inextricably linked to the strength of our unique and comprehensive system of alliances and partnerships,” Mattis wrote in a letter addressed to Trump. “Because you have the right to have a Secretary of Defense whose views are better aligned with yours on these and other subjects, I believe it is right for me to step down from my position.” That’s a resignation, and over differences.

Indian Overseas Congress, USA, New Jersey Chapter, celebrates Congress victory in States.

As the results of the state elections in India poured in, the New Jersey Chapter of the Indian Overseas Congress Party sprung into its victory celebration at the Royal Albert Palace on Friday Dec.14, 2018.Mr. Harbachan Singh, Secretary-General of Indian Overseas Congress, USA hailed the crowd of over 100 celebrants and cheered on the Congress Party  leader Shri Rahul Gandhi ji and paid a glowing tribute to the Chairman of the Overseas Congress Department of AICC Mr. Sam Pitroda, the Secretary of Indian Overseas Department,  Himanshu Viyas ji as well as Madhu Yaskhiji, Ex.MP.for their great leadership.  He thanked everyone for their phenomenal work which had yielded the positive results.

George Abraham, Vice Chairman of IOC, USA congratulated everyone and thanked them for their efforts and especially the ones who have gone to India and campaigned for the party.  He urged everyone to keep up their good work and encouraged them to work harder for the forthcoming Lok Sabha elections.  He drew attention to the fact that the thin margin of victory in two states called for even greater vigilance and renewed double efforts.

Viru Patel, a prominent local elected official and Mr. Rajeshwar Reddy, a local leader, both of whom are also staunch Congress party leaders, also expressed their sincere appreciation to all the supporters.   They complimented the hard work of all the voters who by their positive vote has been able to address the growing dissatisfaction of the people.  Mr. Harkesh Thakur conveyed the regards of Mr. Ram Gadula who could not be present due to unavoidable circumstances. He and several other leaders who spoke,added that people were now convinced more than ever that only the Congress party under the leadership of Shri Rahul Gandhi ji can lead Congress to victory and save India’s democracy in the upcoming election. The celebration was attended by other prominent leaders Mahesh Patel, Bharath Pij Patel, Dr. Jay Patel, Anil Patel, Ramakant Patel. Bharat Rana and  many others. Thanks to media TV Asia H.R Shah, coverage by cameraman Madan.

Bollywood delegation meets Modi in Mumbai

A delegation representing the Indian film and entertainment industry met Prime Minister Narendra Modi here on Monday, and pitched for lower and uniform rates of GST for the fraternity.

Actors Akshay Kumar and Ajay Devgn, filmmakers Karan Johar and Rakesh Roshan, Censor Board chief Prasoon Joshi and Producers Guild of India President Siddharth Roy Kapur were a part of the delegation that met Modi.

According to a PIB statement, the delegation gave Modi an overview of the vast growth potential of the media and entertainment industry in India, and said that this sector is poised to contribute in a significant way towards the Prime Minister’s vision for making India a five trillion dollar economy in the near future.

The film fraternity members even pitched for lower, and uniform rates of GST, for the entertainment industry in India, apart from calling for the development of Mumbai as the global entertainment capital, through various initiatives and proactive approaches.

Modi said the Indian entertainment industry enjoys immense popularity across the world. It is one of the key elements of India’s rising soft power status, globally, he added.

He assured the delegation that the Union Government is supportive of the media and entertainment industry, and would consider the suggestions positively. This is the second such meeting in the year after a delegation met Modi in Delhi in October.

Kapur, who was a part of the past meeting, had told IANS in a recent conversation: “The main agenda to discuss with the PM was what the entertainment industry in India can contribute as a soft power of the nation around the world and how it would be wonderful if the government could encourage this industry in very tangible ways to be able to grow and thrive.”

He said issues like low screen density in the country need to be taken care of. “We are a very underscreened country. The taxation levels in the country are extremely high (they are in the top bracket when it comes to GST), there is double taxation on the film industry because the local bodies have a right to impose their own tax on the industry. So, if all these impediments to the growth of the film and TV industry can be removed, we see a boom in the quality of content being created and in the reach of that content and in our ability for us to take the India story around the world.

“The PM was very open and forthcoming. He did say he believed that this was the case. So, we are very hopeful about this,” Kapur had told IANS on the sidelines of the International Film Festival of India last month. (IANS)

Kamala Harris ranks No. 2 among 2020 Democrats to run against Trump

As the mid-term elections have come to a close, the official launch of the 2020 Democratic presidential primary season has begun. Over a dozen prospective candidates will start making moves or even launching campaigns to challenge President Donald Trump.
According to a CNN report published recetly, Kamala Harris, the Senator from California ranks 2nd among the 10 potential aspirants to the White House among the Democrats. She comes after Sen. Elizabeth warren of MA among the 10 ranked by CNN. In June this year, The Washington Post ranked the Indian Origin Senator from the Golden State 3rd after Sen. Warren and Sen. Bernie sanders of Vermont.
The popular FiveThirtyEight.com wrote recently, “Sen. Kamala Harris has not officially said she is running in 2020, but she hasn’t denied it, either, and she’s showing many of the signs of someone who is preparing for a run, including campaigning for her Democratic colleagues in key races and signing a deal to write a book.”
Harris recently told MSNBC’s Kasie Hunt that she’s “not ruling out” a 2020 presidential run. But her actions may speak louder than her words. She was the first lawmaker to call for Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen to resign over the Trump administration’s family-separation policy. She has also somewhat recently written off accepting money from corporate PACs.
According to CNN, “ Harris clearly saw the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings as a chance to showcase her prosecutorial mettle. And like Booker, what you took from Harris’ performance during the hearings is likely determined by what you thought of her before the hearings. But if you are looking at what the 2018 primaries have taught us, it’s that a candidate with a profile like Harris’ — liberal record, the first Indian-American in the Senate and first black senator from California — could be just what Democratic primary voters are looking for.”

In 2017, Kamala D. Harris was sworn in as a United States Senator for California, the second African-American woman and first South Asian-American senator in history. She serves on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, the Select Committee on Intelligence, the Committee on the Judiciary, and the Committee on the Budget.
Kamala has spent her life fighting injustice. It’s a passion that was first inspired by her mother, Shyamala, an Indian-American immigrant, activist, and breast cancer researcher.
Growing up in Oakland, Kamala had a stroller-eye view of the Civil Rights movement. Through the example of courageous leaders like Thurgood Marshall, Constance Baker Motley, and Charles Hamilton Houston, Kamala learned the kind of character it requires to stand up to the powerful, and resolved to spend her life advocating for those who could not defend themselves.
After earning an undergraduate degree from Howard University and a law degree from the University of California, Hastings, she began her career in the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office.
In 2003, Kamala became the District Attorney of the City and County of San Francisco. Among her achievements as District Attorney, Harris started a program that gives first-time drug offenders the chance to earn a high school diploma and find employment.
Having completed two terms as the District Attorney of San Francisco, Kamala was elected as the first African-American and first woman to serve as California’s Attorney General. In this role, she worked tirelessly to hold corporations accountable and protect the state’s most vulnerable people.
Over the course of her nearly two terms in office, Kamala won a $25-billion settlement for California homeowners hit by the foreclosure crisis, defended California’s landmark climate change law, protected the Affordable Care Act, helped win marriage equality for all Californians, and prosecuted transnational gangs that trafficked in guns, drugs, and human beings.
In the United States Senate, Kamala’s mission remains unchanged: fighting for the rights of all communities in California. Since taking office, she has introduced and cosponsored legislation to raise wages for working people, reform our broken criminal justice system, make healthcare a right for all Americans, address the epidemic of substance abuse, support veterans and military families, and expand access to childcare for working parents.

Nikki Haley, US Ambassador to United Nations, to leave office end of 2018

United States ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki R. Haley, said on October 9, 2018 that she would resign at the end of the year, marking a high-profile departure of one of the few women in the president’s cabinet.
Ms. Haley, a former governor of South Carolina, had been an early and frequent critic of Mr. Trump; when he named her to the United Nations job weeks after his election in November 2016, the appointment was seen as an olive branch. As ambassador, Ms. Haley has been an outspoken and often forceful envoy — someone whom foreign diplomats looked to for guidance from an administration known for haphazard and inconsistent policy positions.
“It was a blessing to go into the U.N. with body armor every day and defend America,” Ms. Haley, seated next to Mr. Trump in the Oval Office, told reporters. “I’ll never truly step aside from fighting for our country. But I will tell you that I think it’s time.”
“I think you have to be selfless enough to know when you step aside and allow someone else to do the job,” she added.
White House staffers were caught off guard by the announcement, which Ms. Haley and Mr. Trump had kept closely under wraps. But the president said Ms. Haley had informed him roughly six months ago that she wanted to take a break after finishing two years with the administration. He said he hoped Ms. Haley would return in a different role, and would name her successor within the next two or three weeks.
“She’s done a fantastic job and we’ve done a fantastic job together,” Mr. Trump said. “We’re all happy for you in one way, but we hate to lose you.”
Ms. Haley, the first cabinet-level United Nations ambassador for a Republican administration since the end of the Cold War, quickly made clear she saw the position as a steppingstone to a higher political office — a possibility that Mr. Trump may have resented. She became a far more visible face of American foreign policy than her first boss at the State Department, former Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson. Mike Pompeo, Mr. Tillerson’s replacement, has recently reasserted the secretary of state’s traditional role.
Time magazine celebrated Ms. Haley’s ascendance by putting her on a cover as one of the women who are “changing the world.”
But Ms. Haley, who has long been seen as a potential presidential candidate, said on Tuesday she had no intention of running for president in 2020, as has been speculated. Instead, she said, she plans to campaign for Mr. Trump’s re-election.
Stepping away now could be a logical end point if Ms. Haley wants to preserve her own political future. But in the short term, people familiar with her thinking said that she is likely to work in the private sector and make some money.
For the moment, few Republican strategists believe that Ms. Haley is inclined to challenge Mr. Trump in 2020. But those who know her believe that she is likely to run, whether in 2024, or even in 2020 — should the president not run again.
”An open presidential race is a better chance to show off her incredible political skills, rather than some quixotic primary effort,” said Matt Moore, who was the Republican Party chair in South Carolina when Ms. Haley was governor there.
The daughter of immigrants from India, Ms. Haley favored free markets and global trade and earned international attention when she was governor for speaking out against the Confederate battle flag in the aftermath of the 2015 massacre at a black church in Charleston. During Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign, she sharply criticized his demeanor and warned what it might mean for American diplomacy — even suggesting that his tendency to lash out at critics could cause a world war.
As ambassador, Ms. Haley acknowledged her policy disagreements with the president in an op-ed in the Washington Post last month when she criticized an anonymous senior administration official who penned an opinion piece in The New York Times, describing a chaotic administration in which many of the president’s aides disagreed with their boss.
Possible successors include Dina Powell, a former deputy national security adviser to the president, and Richard A. Grenell. Mr. Grenell, the American ambassador to Germany, served as spokesman for John R. Bolton, the national security adviser, when he was ambassador to the United Nation under former President George W. Bush.

Former President George H.W. Bush laid to rest in Texas

Thousands waved and cheered along the route as funeral train 4141 — for the 41st president — carried George H.W. Bush’s remains toward their final resting place in Texas on Thursday, December 6, 2018, his last journey as a week of national remembrance took on a decidedly personal feel in an emotional home state farewell.

Some people laid coins along the tracks that wound through small town Texas so a 420,000-pound locomotive pulling the nation’s first funeral train in nearly half a century could crunch them into souvenirs. Others snapped pictures or crowded for views so close that police helicopters overhead had to warn them back.

Bush’s final resting place is alongside his wife, Barbara, and Robin Bush, the daughter they lost to leukemia at age 3.

The scenes reminiscent of a bygone era were a far cry from a serious and more somber tone at an earlier funeral service at a Houston church, where Bush’s former secretary of state and confidant for decades, James Baker, addressed him as “jefe,” Spanish for “boss.” At times choking back tears, Baker praised Bush as “a beautiful human being” who had “the courage of a warrior. But when the time came for prudence, he maintained the greater courage of a peacemaker.”

Former President George H.W. Bush laid to rest in TexasBaker also provided a contrast with today’s divisive political rhetoric, saying that Bush’s “wish for a kinder, gentler nation was not a cynical political slogan. It came honest and unguarded from his soul.”

“The world became a better place because George Bush occupied the White House for four years,” said Baker.

Bush’s remains were later loaded onto a special train in a car fitted with clear sides so people could catch a glimpse of the casket as it rumbled by. The train traveled about 70 miles in two-plus hours — the first presidential funeral train journey since Dwight D. Eisenhower’s remains went from Washington to his native Kansas 49 years ago — to the family plot on the presidential library grounds at Texas A&M University.

At the funeral service in St. Martin’s Episcopal Church, where Bush and his family regularly worshipped in Houston, the choir sang “This is My Country,” which was also sung at Bush’s presidential inauguration in 1989. Those gathered also heard a prayer stressing the importance of service and selflessness that the president himself offered for the country at the start of his term.

Grandson George P. Bush, the only member of the political dynasty still holding elected office, as Texas land commissioner, used a eulogy to praise the man the younger generations called “gampy.”

“He left a simple, yet profound legacy to his children, to his grandchildren and to his country: service,” George P. Bush said.

Earlier Wednesday, at Washington National Cathedral in the nation’s capital, there was high praise for the last of the presidents to have fought in World War II — and a hefty dose of humor about a man whose speaking delivery was once described as a cross between Mister Rogers and John Wayne. Three other former presidents and Donald Trump watched as George W. Bush eulogized his father as “the brightest of a thousand points of light.”

The cathedral service was a tribute to the patriarch of one of the nation’s most powerful political families — they occupied the White House for a dozen years — and to a faded political era that prized military service and public responsibility. Like Baker’s address Thursday, it included indirect comparisons to Trump but was not consumed by them, as speakers focused on Bush’s public life and character — with plenty of cracks about his goofy side, too.

“He was a man of such great humility,” said Alan Simpson, former Republican senator from Wyoming. Those who travel “the high road of humility in Washington, D.C.,” he added pointedly, “are not bothered by heavy traffic.”

Trump sat Wednesday with his wife, the trio of ex-presidents and their wives, several of them sharp critics of his presidency and one of them, Hillary Clinton, his 2016 Democratic foe. Apart from courteous nods and some handshakes, there was little interaction between Trump and the others.

George W. Bush broke down briefly at the end of his eulogy while invoking the daughter his parents lost in 1953 and his mother, who died in April. He took comfort in knowing “Dad is hugging Robin and holding Mom’s hand again.”

Bush’s death makes Carter, also 94 but more than 100 days younger, the oldest living ex-president.

3 NRIs on Florida Governor-elect Ron DeSantis’ Transition Advisory Team

Prominent entrepreneur Danny Gaekwad and former Florida Department of Transportation secretary Ananth Prasad are among three Indian Americans named by Governor-elect Ron DeSantis to his Transition Advisory Committee on the Economy. The third Indian American on the committee is Kumar Allady, founder of the engineering and IT services firm Radise International.

“I am very pleased to be part of the committee,” said Gaekwad, founder & CEO of the Ocala, FL, -based NDS USA and Danny G Hospitality Management. “I thank the governor-elect for this great trust he has placed in me. I am confident that under his leadership, Florida will continue to be an economic engine of the nation.”

Other members of the transition committee include former House Speaker Allan Bense, JAX Chamber president Daniel Davis, Tampa Bay Buccaneers COO Brian Ford, JAXPORT CEO Eric Green, and Gulf Power executive and retired U.S. Navy Capt. Keith Hoskins, among others.

Gaekwad, an Ocala resident, an influential campaign contributor and Republican fundraiser, was named to the Board of Trustees of the University of Central Florida by Gov. Rick Scott earlier this year.

He is an executive board member of Visit Florida, the official tourism marketing corporation of the state, and a member of the board of director of the Florida Chamber of Commerce, a 100-year-old trade body that promotes a business friendly climate and jobs creations in the state.

Prasad, a 22-year Florida Department of Transportation veteran, served as its secretary from April 2011 to January 2015. He is scheduled to assume charge as the president of the Florida Transportation Builders’ Association early next year.

DeSantis will be sworn in as governor of Florida in January, after he won a hard-fought campaign based on his sterling biography and embrace of Trumpian populism. His victory signals the endurance of Donald Trump’s Republican party in the nation’s most populous swing state, dealing a punishing blow to liberals who were fired up around a potential rebuke of their state’s support of the president almost exactly two years ago. But it was not so.

DeSantis said Trump’s support made all the difference in his defeat of Tallahassee Mayor Andrew Gillum, who was hoping to be Florida’s first black governor and the first Democrat elected governor since 1994. “I’d like to thank our president for standing by me, for standing by me when it wasn’t necessarily the smart thing,” DeSantis said after the vote count gave him the edge. “Mr. President, I look forward to working with you to advance Florida’s priorities.”

Rep. Pramila Jayapal is Co-Chair; Rep. Ro Khanna is First-Vice Chair of Congressional Progressive Caucus

U.S. Representatives Pramila Jayapal and Ro Khanna, both Democrats representing Washington state and California respectively, who were recently re-elected to their second terms with thumping majorities, to leadership positions in the Congressional Progressive Caucus, the largest caucus within the House Democratic Caucus.

On November 29th, members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) chose their leadership for the 116th Congress and re-elected Rep. Mark Pocan (WI-02) and elected Rep. Pramila Jayapal (WA-07) as Co-Chairs. Additionally, the CPC elected Rep. Ro Khanna (CA-17) as First-Vice Chair.

In the House, where the Democrats regained their majority with several new members elected, comprised a diverse group of left-of-center progressives, the CPC is expected to exercise significant influence within the Democratic Caucus.

The new CPC, established in 1991, with a mission to “reflect the diversity and strength,” of the U.S. and “to give voice to the needs and aspirations of all Americans” and to “build a more just and humane” society, will have more than 90 members in the new Congress.

Its four core principles are fighting for “economic justice and security for all; protecting and preserving civil rights and civil liberties, promoting global peace and security; and advancing environmental protection and energy independence.”

“I’m excited to welcome Rep. Jayapal as a Co-Chair of the Caucus and with progressives in Democratic leadership, we will continue to advance our ideas and shape policies that make a lasting and positive difference on the lives of the American people,” Pocan said in a press statement. He said that “the American people sent a Blue Wave powered by progressives to Capitol Hill and we fully intend to respect the electorate’s decision by presenting a bold, forward-looking agenda.

Jayapal, the first Indian American woman elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, declaring that she “is humbled and honored” to be elected co-chair, said she was “committed to ensuring our caucus is as bold and strategic as possible, and that our members have the resources and the ability to stand up for the chance for every American to have real opportunity, to take on the largest corporations and special interests who have corrupted our democracy and to bring real power to workers, women, immigrants and all of those most vulnerable and marginalized.”

Meanwhile, Khanna, who has worked closely with Jayapal in the last Congress on progressive issues, said, “I’m proud to be elected by colleagues today as the next CPC vice chair. I look forward to working with Co-Chairs Pocan, Jayapal and all my colleagues to advance a progressive agenda in Congress.”

In a recent interview, Khanna when asked how often he interacts with the rest of the ‘Samosa Caucus,’ as Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D.-Ill.) affectionately refers to the four Indian American members in the House that also includes the senior-most Indian American Rep. Ami Bera (D.-Calif.), re-elected for a fourth term, said, “She’s the leader of the Progressive Caucus. I would say that she is one of the people in the Caucus I would call my closest friend and ally. We have a lot of similarities.”

‘Time to back PM Modi on trying to maintain peace’: US in message to Pak

In a sign of growing collaboration and partnership between India and the US, the US Defense Secretary Jim Mattis has said it is time for everyone to support the efforts of the UN, Prime Minister Narendra Modi and all those who are trying to maintain peace in South Asia.

In a strong message to Pakistan, US Defense Secretary Jim Mattis has said it is time for everyone to support the efforts of the UN, Prime Minister Narendra Modi and all those who are trying to maintain peace in South Asia. Pakistan must take on a substantive role in peace talks with the Taliban if the war in neighbouring Afghanistan is to be ended, he said.

Mattis was responding to a question from reporters about the letter written by President Donald Trump to Pakistan prime minister Imran Khan, seeking his support in the peace process in Afghanistan. In his letter, Trump has made it clear that Pakistan’s full support over the issue “is fundamental” to building an enduring US-Pakistan partnership.

“We’re looking for every responsible nation to support peace in the sub-continent and across this war in Afghanistan that’s gone on now for 40 years,” he told reporters at the Pentagon on Monday as he welcomed Union Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman for talks.

“It’s time for everyone to get on board, support the United Nations; support Prime Minister Modi’s, (Afghan) President (Ashraf) Ghani and all those who are trying to maintain peace and make for a better world here,” Mattis said. “We are on that track. It is diplomatically led as it should be, and we’ll do our best to protect the Afghan people,” he added.

Indian Defense Minister Nirmala Sitharaman was on an official visit to the United States  from 2-7 December 2018, at the invitation of US Secretary of Defence James N. Mattis.

In Washington DC on Monday, she had a meeting with Secretary Mattis, who also hosted a dinner in her honor. Prior to the meeting, on her arrival at the Pentagon, she was received by Secretary Mattis and was accorded the Armed Forces Enhanced Honours Cordon welcome.

During their meeting, discussions were held on the growing partnership between India and US in the defence sphere. Views were also exchanged on a broad range of bilateral and international issues of mutual interest. The Ministers reviewed ongoing initiatives to further strengthen bilateral defence cooperation, as a key pillar of the strategic partnership between India and USA.

Both sides agreed to further strengthen bilateral defence cooperation, building on the discussions and outcomes of the 2 plus 2 Dialogue held in September 2018. The Indian Minister highlighted the steps taken by Government of India to promote defence sector manufacturing, under Prime Minister Modi’s “Make in India” flag-ship programme.

Earlier in the day, RM visited the U.S. Department of State, where she signed condolence book for former U.S. President George H.W. Bush. She also paid respects at the ‘Tomb of the Unknown Soldier’ by placing a wreath at the Arlington National Cemetery Memorial.

Following her engagements in Washington DC, Sitharaman will be visiting Reno on 4 December, where she will hold interactions with select leaders of Indian community in the US. Later, she will visit San Francisco where she would address a roundtable meeting at Stanford. She will also visit the Defence Innovation Unit [DiU] of the US Department of Defence and interact with start-ups and venture capitalists associated with this Unit.

From 5-7 December, Sitharaman will visit Honolulu, which is the headquarters of the US Pacific Command (PACOM), recently renamed as INDO-PACOM. During the visit, she will hold meetings with Commander of INDO-PACOM, Admiral Philip S. Davidson. She will also visit Joint Base Pearl Harbour Hickam, where she would board a US Guided Missile Destroyer and will be briefed on INDO-PACOM activities.

IOC Leaders are in India and Campaigning!

New Delhi:  At separate meetings with Congress Party leaders, Mohinder Singh Gilzian, President of Indian Overseas Congress, USA debriefed some of the senior Congress Party Leaders in New Delhi on the IOC team effort on behalf of the Party candidates in their respective election bids in Rajasthan and Telangana.  He along with many IOC leaders from the United States has already spent weeks accompanying the Congress candidates in these election-bound states, conducting meetings, holding press conferences and meeting with individual voters on the ground.

Mohinder Singh Gilzian visited Anand Sharma, Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Department of the AICC, Ashok Gehlot, Ex-Chief Minister of Rajasthan and General Secretary of the AICC, Ahmed Patel, and Treasurer of the AICC  and gave an account on the work Overseas Congress members have done during the current campaign.  He informed them that the Congress party expectations of victory are very high and the party apparatus is very much in top gear throughout the campaign period.  He was very encouraged and pleased with the great response they received from the voters who recalled the significant advancement in education, employment, industries and infrastructure by Congress Party when they were in power.  Voters desperately wanted a change from the present regime, and they were pleased that the Congress Party offered better options dealing with pressing issues of the day.

The IOC delegation was guided and directed by Mr. Himanshu Vyas, AICC Secretary in charge of the Overseas Congress Department of AICC. The delegation included Rajeswar Gangasani Reddy (Chairman, NRI Telangana election committee Chair), Pradeep Samala (Co-Chair), Rajender Dichpally (General Secretary), Zameel Roydass and a number of others from various States in the U.S.

U.S. Groups Condemn PM Modi for Failure to Stop Attacks on Religious Minorities

Religious freedom activists from across the U.S. have criticized Prime Minister Narendra Modi for his failure to stop the violence carried out by Hindutva groups against religious minorities, including Muslims and Christians.

At an event titled “Religious Freedom in India: A Briefing on Capitol Hill”, organized by the Indian American Muslim Council (IAMC) on the Capitol Hill in Washington D.C., the activists urged the Indian prime minister to condemn such violence against religious minorities as well as take all necessary measures to curb the rise of Hindutva extremism and punish the Hindutva groups involved in violence.

“The failure of Prime Minister Modi to definitively condemn and to definitively distance himself from the extreme elements of his party has played a substantial and significant role in bringing about the situation that we see today,” said Dr. Katrina Lantos Swett, former Chair of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), an independent bipartisan federal commission tasked with defending religious freedom outside the U.S.

“Inflammatory rhetoric and a conception of India’s national identity increasingly based on religion have contributed to an atmosphere of intimidation, exclusion, and even violence directed at non-Hindus,” she added, saying Muslims and Christians are the “primary victims”.

Dr. Lantos Swett, who is the daughter of Tom Lantos, the only Holocaust survivor to have ever been elected to U.S. Congress and who founded the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, said India’s religious freedom violation had a “long-standing pattern of impunity and immunity”.

“We see it in the lack of accountability for large-scale communal violence such as the horrors we know took place in Uttar Pradesh and Gujarat, and in the more individualized crimes committed against members of minorities faiths,” she said.

The briefing was held in a Senate Building before an audience that also included Congressional staffs, officials from the Department of State and USCIRF, and civil society members.

Jeff King, President of International Christian Concern (ICC), quoted a survey saying 82% of Indian Christians were “very concerned” for their safety, 73% experienced discrimination “at least once” last year, 85% saw an “increase in aggression” by Hindu nationalists, and 84% said minorities were “less protected” under Modi.

“If the prime minister were to condemn acts of aggression and violence and push for prosecution, this [violence] would fairly quickly dry up,” King said. “But it’s not happening.” He asked Modi to “use the bully pulpit and condemn acts of aggression and violence.” King urged the Indian Government to allow a team of USCIRF to visit India on a fact-finding mission.

Matthew Bulger, Legislative Director of the American Humanist Association, a U.S. organization promoting theism and agnosticism since 1941, said that compared to global religious freedom standards, “India is failing”. Several Indian laws and policies “restrict religious freedom rights” and have led to arrests and prosecution of individuals, “which is just unacceptable”.

He criticized Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code as a “relic” of British colonial law and “essentially a blasphemy and anti-religious incitement law “inconsistent with the pluralistic and democratic values India publicly accepts. Laws which restrict religious freedom can serve as a catalyst for vigilante violence, such as that seen in India recently regarding the lynchings by Hindu nationalists of people, most often Muslims, suspected of smuggling or killing cows.”

Bulger noted that although Pehlu Khan, a Muslim dairy farmer murdered by cow vigilantes in April 2017, named six suspects in his “death-bed statement” criminal charges against them were dismissed. “Sadly, this is not an isolated case, as over a dozen similar murders have happened in the last two years alone.”

Rev. Sarah C. Anderson-Rajarigam, a Dalit Christian Lutheran church priest from Philadelphia, said the status of Dalits had worsened under the Modi government. “Modi’s government has deliberately and openly made violence against Dalits a non-issue by offering impunity.”

The perpetrators of violence against Dalits were not only free but “elevated to the status of a hero”, she said, adding: “The patter of violence continues unabated But there is no shame experienced either by the perpetrators or by Prime Minister Modi and other ministers.”

Pawan Singh, a Sikh representing the Organization for Minorities of India, said the “fascist ideology” of the RSS that “a small group of people are born superior to others needs to be checked.” He said: “There is the curtain of democracy that they use, and then go on with their business of killing individuals of dissenting opinion, or because they do not like them.”

Singh said the “pseudo institutions” connected with the RSS, such as the Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh, the Bajrang Dal and the Hindu American Foundation “were a threat to our freedom”.

Citing the World Hindu Congress organized in Chicago in September, Singh said the spread of Hindutva was “not just India’s problem any more That is what gives me the shivers: these rightwing saffron terrorists [are] roaming in the free world, threatening our free institutions.”

He criticized the U.S. government for giving a visa to RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat, who, he said, “should be tried for crimes against humanity”, and slammed Democratic Congressman Raja Krishnamurthy for speaking at the Hindu Congress. “These people are wearing facades, while they carry big knives to kill us, to kill the dissenting opinion, to kill anybody and everybody who will speak for equality, for justice and freedom for all.”

Sunita Viswanath, Co-founder of Sadhana: Coalition of Progressive Hindus, a New York-based nonprofit, said the “chilling repression of open debate and political expression” in India and the violence against Muslims and Christians was alarming. “This repression and violence is taking place in the name of Hinduism, one that we do not recognize and cannot accept,” she said.

Viswanath noted that the police had named the Sanatan Sanstha, an extremist right-wing Hindutva organization, for the September 2017 killing of Gauri Lankesh, a Bangalore-based activist and journalist. “The Sanatan Sanstha was also involved in the killing of other activists,” she said. “Despite this, it has not yet been banned or classified as a terrorist organization.”

Vishavjit Singh, a cartoonist and performance artist from New York, and a survivor of the mass violence against Sikhs in the aftermath of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s assassination in 1984, said that violence targeting Sikhs “set the stage for the powers to be – doesn’t matter, BJP, Congress, anybody else – to know [that] you can kill with impunity, as many people as you like, in a democracy, and get away with it.”

Indian American Muslim Council is the largest advocacy organization of Indian Muslims in the United States with chapters across the nation. For more information, please visit our website at: http://iamc.com/

Kamala Harris is ‘Glamour Woman of the Year 2018’

When Kamala Harris took the stage at Glamour‘s 2018 Women of the Year Awards on Monday, November 12th in New York City, she stressed the importance of one thing: truth. In what’s proven to be a categorically challenging year for women in the U.S.

Senator Harris (D-Calif.) directed her acceptance speech at the women in the room, explaining the importance of speaking up in a nation that’s becoming increasingly divided in the face of political polarization. In her address, Harris pleaded with those watching to take their frustration to the polls, inspiring the room to take action and ultimately leaving the ball in the voters’ court.

“The truth and speaking it is a powerful thing. And speaking truth can often make people quite uncomfortable. But if we are going to be a country that engages in honest conversations with the point of getting beyond where we are and seeing what we can be unburdened by what we have been, we must speak truth—and speak the truth uncomfortable and difficult though it may be to hear,” Glamour quoted her as saying.

“You speak the truth, the honorees tonight, about the need for women—particularly women of color—to be seen and heard and for their stories to be told, from the Senate floor to movie sets to concert stages…You speak the truth about gun violence… (about what) tears our communities apart and takes away our children, from Parkland to Chicago to South Los Angeles…You speak the truth about America’s history—in all of its greatness and in all of its complexity.”

Harris said that this is an “inflection” moment in the history of America. “This is a moment where there are powerful forces trying to sew hate and division among us. And if we’re going to deal with where we are in this inflection moment, we must speak all these truths,” she said. “…And years from now, people are going to look in our eyes, each one of us, and they will ask us, ‘Where were you at that inflection moment?’ And what we’re all going to be able to say is we were here together and we were fighting for the best of who we are.”

According to Glamour magazine, these women, which include actress Viola Davis, 97-year-old National Park Service Ranger Betty Reid Soskin, model-author Chrissy Teigen, Judge Rosemarie Aquilina, young female activists of March for Our Lives, the women who took down Larry Nassar, Saudi Arabian women’s rights activist Manal al-Sharif, and singer-songwriter Janelle Monáe, “aren’t waiting for the world to change; they’re getting the job done themselves.”

US stands with India in its ‘quest for justice:’ Donald Trump

On the 10th anniversary of the Mumbai terrorist attack, President Donald Trump on Monday said that the United States stands with the people of India in their quest for justice. In the attack unleashed on November 26, 2008 by 10 LeT fedayeen, 166 people, six of whom were U.S. nationals, were killed.

“On the ten-year anniversary of the Mumbai terror attack, the U.S. stands with the people of India in their quest for justice. The attack killed 166 innocents, including six Americans. We will never let terrorists win, or even come close to winning!,” Trump tweeted.

Donald Trump did not name Pakistan in the tweet he posted last week, but the Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has in his statement earlier and Nathan Sales, the counterterrorism czar at the state department had, stressing the need for Pakistan to punish the guilty.

President Donald Trump added his voice to the outpouring of support for India and the condemnation of the terrorist attacks in Mumbai 10 years ago saying the US “stands with the people of India in their quest for justice”, which has meant prosecuting and punishing those who planned and executed it from Pakistan.

The president did not name Pakistan in the tweet he posted late Monday afternoon, but the Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has in his statement earlier and Nathan Sales, the counterterrorism czar at the state department had, stressing the need for Pakistan to punish the guilty.

President Trump, who has been tough on Pakistan, pointed in that direction. “On the ten-year anniversary of the Mumbai terror attack, the US stands with the people of India in their quest for justice,” he wrote on Twitter. “We will never let terrorists win, or even come close to winning!”

The president has suspended $1.66 billion in security aid to Pakistan in 2018 after accusing the one-time close ally of giving only “lies and deceit” in return for American assistance and steered it on watch-list of a world watchdog, the Financial Action Task Force, that combats money laundering and terrorist financing.

Just the previous week Trump fulminated in an interview to the news TV channel that Pakistan has “not done a damn thing” for the United State despite all the aid it has received.

On Monday, two Trump White House officials and Ambassador Sales attended an event hosted by Indian ambassador to the US Navtej Sarna at the Indian Embassy to observe the 10th anniversary of the attack. Sarna said, “bilateral cooperation between India and the US in the field of counter-terrorism has perhaps never been more intense and at a higher level that it is.”

Israel has asked Pakistan to “ensure full justice” to the 26/11 terror attack victims.

Michael Ronen, director, South & South East Asia Division at the ministry of foreign affairs of Israel said it was important for the international community, especially Pakistan, to ensure that the perpetrators of the attacks do not go scott free. “It is important to provide justice…,” he said, urging “all governments, including the Pakistan, to ensure that the perpetrators are brought to justice.”

Bill to prevent NRI husbands from abandoning their wives

The government would bring a bill in the coming winter session of the Parliament as part of its efforts to check the menace of NRI husbands abandoning their wives, external affairs minister Sushma Swaraj said last week.
 
“We have already launched an institutional mechanism, where you must have seen that 25 passports of such NRI husbands have been revoked. We are also bringing a bill in this session where some more measures are being taken against those husbands,” she told reporters in Hyderabad.
Swaraj, who was in Hyderabad in connection with the Bharatiya Janata Party’s campaign for the December 7 Telangana assembly elections was replying to a query about Non-Resident Indian (NRI) husbands abandoning their wives.
On November 13, the Supreme Court has also sought response from the Centre on a plea seeking mandatory arrest of NRIs deserting their wives and harassing them for dowry.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices S K Kaul and K M Joseph issued notices to the Centre on the plea seeking that the deserted women be accorded legal, financial help and their estranged NRI husbands be arrested after the filing of FIRs.
A group women, who have allegedly been deserted by their NRI husbands and subjected to dowry harassment, have moved the apex court seeking reliefs including mandatory arrest of their estranged spouses and consular help in fighting cases in foreign land.

Dr. Sampat Shivangi calls Tulsi Gabbard as “the most promising and inspiring leader in the Democratic Party” as Rep. Gabbard announces her intention to run for US President’s Office in 2020

“I am honored to introduce to you, Tulsi Gabbard, a good friend and one of the most promising and inspiring leaders in the Democratic Party, “ said Dr. Dr. Sampat Shivangi, a leading Indian American, dedicated physician and philanthropist, while introducing Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, as she announced her candidacy for US Presidency in 2020.

Tulsi was the first Hindu ever elected to the US Congress and the first member to take her oath on the Bhagavad Gita, Dr. Shivangi told a select guest of audience, who were invited to the event in Los Angeles, CA last week. “She was also one of the two first female war veterans elected to Congress.”

Tulsi was elected to the Hawaii State legislature in 2002 at the age of 21, making her the youngest woman in the country to be elected to the state legislature. She sacrificed her state house seat in 2004 to voluntarily serve in the army as a Captain in the US army and has served on 2 deployments in the Middle East. She continues to serve as a Major in the Army National Guard.

A veteran and with multiple prestigious awards, Tulsi is the recipient of several awards, including the John F. Kennedy New Frontier Award from the Institute of Politics at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government,

Dr. Sampat Shivangi calls Tulsi Gabbard as “the most promising and inspiring leader in the Democratic Party” as Rep. Gabbard announces her intention to run for US President’s Office in 2020A 37-year-old Iraq War veteran, Tulsi has been a United States Representative for Hawaii’s 2nd Congressional District since 2013 and is now in her 3rd term. She has won all 3 elections by a whopping 80% of the votes polled.

A former vice chairman of the Democratic National Committee, she currently serves on the Armed Services Committee and Committee on Foreign Affairs and is vice chair of the Congressional India Caucus. She has been a fresh voice in the Democratic Party with her support for US-India relations, her opposition to the war in Iraq, her opposition to arms sales to Saudi Arabia and her more recent vigorous opposition to arming the rebels in Syria.

In addition to national security and international issues she has been active on Environmental, Medicare and social issues in Congress.  Amid the clamor of Trump headlines and focus on higher-profile candidates, Tulsi Gabbard has been quietly making the traditional moves of a presidential candidate. She recently visited Iowa, where locals urged her to run for president, according to the Iowa City Press-Citizen. She keynoted a progressive gathering in New Hampshire in September. And she’s writing a book due out this spring titled, “Is Today the Day?: Not Another Political Memoir.”

Tulsi has distinguished herself with an anti-interventionist approach to foreign policy and the Middle East, and a progressive populist economic policy that has earned her praise from the likes of Sanders and former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon. She was one of the first members of Congress to endorse Sanders. “There’s a very clear contrast and clear difference when it comes to our two Democratic candidates,” Gabbard said at the time, “and who will exercise good judgment” in matters of war.

Dr. Sampat S. Shivangi is a conservative life long member of the Republican Party and hails from the state of Mississippi. Dr. Shivangi is the National President of the Indian American Forum for Political Education, one the oldest Indian American associations. For the last three decades, he has advocated for Bills in the US congress on behalf of India through his close relationships with US Senators and members of the Congress. Dr. Shivangi has worked enthusiastically in promoting the India Civil Nuclear Treaty and the US-India defense treaty that was passed in the US Congress.

Dr. Shivangi has held high offices in USA including as an advisor to US Health & Human Services appointed by the President George W. Bush, a member of the Mississippi State Board of Health by Governor Haley Barbour, then a Chair of the State Board of Mental Health, now by Governor Phil Bryant. For his significant contributions to strengthening India-US relations, Dr. Shivangi was honored with India’s highest civilian award by the President of India, with the Pravasi Bharathiya Sanman award in 2017. Dr. Shivangi was also honored with Ellis Island Medal of Honor in New York in 2008.

As an admirer and strong supporter of Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, Dr. Shivangi told the audience in LA last week, “You may be looking at the next President of the United States in 2010; the fiorst woman ever elected to the Highest Office in the world.”

Dr. Shivangi, who was one of the very first to support and donate to her campaign when Tulsi had made her initial bid to the US Congress in 2012, described Tulsi as “truly a breath of fresh air in politics.”

BJP Beats Netflix And Amazon To Become The Top Advertiser On Indian Television: Report

The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is the top advertiser on Indian television, placing ahead of Netflix and Trivago, in the weeks and months leading up the crucial state polls and the 2019 general election.
Citing the latest data from the Broadcast Audience Research Council (BARC), The Economic Times reported today that BJP beat Vimal Pan Masala in the week ending 16 November, and is ahead of major companies like Amazon and Hindustan Lever.
BJP, which was in the second position in the preceding week, is now ranked number one across all channels, according to the report. The Congress Party does not feature among the top 10 advertisers.
While Chhattisgarh has already voted in November, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Telangana and Mizoram are heading to the polls.
The BJP’s ad aired on television 22,099 times from November 10-16 followed by Netflix, a distant second at 12,951 times, the report said.
The top ten advertisers, according to the report, are: BJP, Netflix, Trivago, Santoor Sandal, Dettol Liquid, Soap, Wipe, Colgate Dental Cream, Dettol Toilet Soaps, Amazon Prime Video and Roop Mantra Ayur Face Cream.

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard intends to run for US presidency in 2020

Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, the first ever Hindu Congresswoman, is considering running for president in 2020, POLITICO reported here last week.

Rania Batrice, an adviser to the progressive congresswoman and deputy campaign manager on Bernie Sanders’ 2016 presidential campaign, has been putting out feelers for digital and speechwriting staff for Gabbard, POPLITICO reported. “One person approached about the positions say that 2020 wasn’t mentioned explicitly, but it was heavily implied.”

Batrice reportedly denied that the staffers are being hired for a presidential campaign. She did not dispute, however, that Gabbard is considering joining what’s expected to be a crowded field of Democratic presidential contenders.

“I think everybody is focused on 2018, but we will see what happens after that,” Batrice said in an interview. “Someone like Tulsi, with her experience, is an important voice in the party and the country.” Top aides to Gabbard did not respond to multiple requests for comment, POLITICO wrote.

Amid the clamor of Trump headlines and focus on higher-profile candidates, Gabbard has been quietly making the traditional moves of a presidential candidate. She recently visited Iowa, where locals urged her to run for president, according to the Iowa City Press-Citizen. She keynoted a progressive gathering in New Hampshire in September. And she’s writing a book due out this spring titled, “Is Today the Day?: Not Another Political Memoir.”

A 37-year-old Iraq War veteran, Gabbard won her House seat in 2012 and became the first Hindu to serve in Congress. She has distinguished herself with an anti-interventionist approach to foreign policy and the Middle East, and a progressive populist economic policy that has earned her praise from the likes of Sanders and former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon.

Gabbard has also drawn controversy, which would surely become a factor in any presidential race. In 2017, she came under heavy criticism for meeting with Syrian dictator Bashar Assad and expressing skepticism that he was behind chemical attacks, urging caution over the use of military force. She also raised suspicion among progressives for meeting with president-elect Donald Trump during the presidential transition in 2016.

Gabbard, the first Hindu lawmaker to serve in Congress, was first elected in 2012 and later became a vice-chair of the Democratic National Committee. She resigned that position in 2016 amid her endorsement of Sanders’s presidential campaign.

She was one of the first members of Congress to endorse Sanders. “There’s a very clear contrast and clear difference when it comes to our two Democratic candidates,” Gabbard said at the time, “and who will exercise good judgment” in matters of war.

Kevin Thomas elected to New York Senate

“I want to be a good role model to the emerging Indian-Americans who want to make a difference in their communities.”

Democrats dominated New York state Senate races last week, ending up winning as many as six of the chamber’s nine seats on Long Island while decimating the Republican’s historic control of the region – known as the “Long Island Nine.” One of the more unexpected results was attorney Kevin Thomas’ narrow victory over state Sen. Kemp Hannon.

Democrat Kevin Thomas has become the first Indian American to be elected to the New York Senate, from New York’s 6th district. Thomas is an attorney and an appointee of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights to the New York State Advisory Committee.

“It’s a huge burden on my shoulders right now because since I’m the first,” the newly elected Indian American told the media. “I have to be a good role model to the younger generation that I’m hoping will come out and run for office from the community. Parents usually kind of push their kids into going into math, science and the legal profession. They don’t tell them go into a political career where I’m hoping with my election that’s going to change. I want to be a good role model to the emerging Indian-Americans who want to make a difference in their communities.”

Thomas’ top priorities, according to his campaign website, are education; women’s rights – as he supports the Reproductive Health Act and the Comprehensive Contraception Coverage Act, healthcare – in which he supports the Safe Staffing for Hospitals Act as well as the NY Health Act; fighting the opioid crisis; taxes; infrastructure; protecting the working class with the passing the Public Works Definition Act and Protecting the Prevailing Wage; gun control; immigration; protecting environment; civil rights and consumer protection.

On his campaign website, Thomas explains his reasoning and approach to solving issues as a Senator. Some of the issues he emphasizes on are ongoing while others have been brought up again and again through recent events such as immigration, gun control, the opioid epidemic and healthcare.

As to the reasons for his unexpected victory, he had this to say: “there were of course a number of reasons for it. One is the current political climate with Trump in office. And second, we as a state needed to be more progressive and I believe the voters in District 6 really believed that they needed change because my opponent never stepped foot in communities in the Democratic base, like in Hempstead and in Uniondale. He never touched foot there and they lost connection with him. And this is what happens when you’re comfortable being somewhere for 42 years, you forget who your constituents are.”

This is what he had to say about immigration: “As an Indian American who first emigrated to the United States as a 10-year-old, I believe every American immigrant should have the same opportunities I had. Under the current federal administration, it has never been more important to protect the rights of immigrants and ensure that all New Yorkers can pursue the promise of the American dream.”

He added: “For me, this is personal and as a State Senator, I will fight to pass the NY Liberty Act, which would protect our community from the repressive immigration enforcement and prevent cooperation between our state agencies and ICE, as well as pass the NY Dream Act, which would allow every New Yorker to get a quality college education, regardless of citizenship status.”

With the recent shootings that occurred in Pennsylvania and California, Thomas said that he is going to “support a bump-stock ban, which would prevent ordinary guns from being transformed into weapons capable of mass murder,” as well as the “passage of the Red Flag Law, which would allow police and family to petition state courts to remove firearms from persons who present a danger to others or themselves.”

He also plans to strengthen the SAFE Act, which is New York’s landmark gun control legislation that requires universal background checks, imposes tougher assault weapon bans and creates a statewide ammunitions registry. Thomas also mentions how he is concerned about the opioid epidemic in the country as “the number of opioid deaths in Long Island has skyrocketed.” He currently lives in Levittown with his wife, Rincy, who is a pharmacist, and their dog, Sirius.

Over a Dozen Indian Diplomats Collaborate With RSS’s International Wing

Diplomats in at least nine countries speak at Hindu paramilitary group’s events Following news that the Consul General of India’s Toronto consulate recently keynoted a Hindu nationalist event, evidence is emerging that over a dozen Indian diplomats in nine countries have participated in similar events over the past few years.

Consul General Dinesh Bhatia sparked outrage in some sections for sharing the stage with garlanded pictures of K.B. Hedgewar and M.S. Golwalkar, the first leaders of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). Known as Sarsanghchalaks (Supreme Leaders), Hedgewar and Golwalkar wanted India to be a Hindu nation and formed the RSS into a paramilitary to propagate Hindu nationalism. However, an investigation by Organization for Minorities of India (OFMI) reveals that a number of other consular officials have also recently participated in their official capacity in similar Hindu nationalist events.

“From North America to Europe and Asia to South America, Indian ambassadors and consuls have appeared as honored guests, keynote speakers, and even co-hosts of events organized by the Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh — the international wing of the RSS — as well as events organized by the RSS’s religious wing, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, and occasionally even by the international wing of the Bharatiya Janata Party,” reports OFMI spokesperson Arvin Valmuci. “We have compiled evidence that 15 Indian diplomats in nine countries have spoken at 24 different Sangh Parivar events since 2013, most in just the last two years. On at least two occasions, a diplomat joined a top RSS executive at an event — on another two occasions, a diplomat joined a top executive of the VHP. Our data is not comprehensive and we are certain that Indian diplomats are collaborating with the RSS on a far larger scale than even what we’ve uncovered so far.”

Most recently, on November 4, 2018, High Commissioner Venkatachalam Mahalingam of India’s Guyana commission spoke at an event organized by the HSS in Georgetown. He shared the stage with HSS Sanghchalak (President) Ravi Dev.

On October 27, 2018, Consul General Swati Kulkarni of India’s Atlanta consulate was the chief guest at an HSS-organized event commemorating Hedgewar’s founding of the RSS. She shared the stage with keynote speaker HSS International Coordinator Saumitra Gokhale. According to a biographical sketch of Gokhale, “He worked as a Pracharak (full-time worker) of RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh) for 4+ years in India. Since 1999 onwards, he has been working as a Pracharak of HSS (Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh) in Caribbean countries, Canada, and the United States of America. Based currently in the USA, he is the global coordinator for HSS activities.”

Undoing Nehru’s legacy by the BJP: Are we better off?

Ever since the ascendance of BJP to the pinnacle of power in India, a visible campaign against one of the most influential leaders India had ever seen – Jawaharlal Nehru – is underway. One may wonder about this vitriolic campaign waged against a man who has contributed so much to the development of a nation and may ask why now?

As Shashi Tharoor has pointed out in his biography of Nehru “Nehru’s legacy is ours, whether we agree with everything he stood for or not. What we are today, both for good or for ill, we owe in great measure to one man”. He was a true visionary who has not only built many of India’s venerable institutions but also laid the foundation for a pluralistic India. However, many in the opposition today are afraid that Prime Minister Modi’s plan may include dismantling the legacy of Nehru while appropriating the legacy of Sardar Vallabhai Patel, another great leader of the Congress Party.

As Indians, we do take pride in the age-old civilization and culture and its lasting imprint on our lives. However, when the nation gained its independence, India was an impoverished country with 80 percent of the people who could not afford two meals a day. The average life span of an Indian was 31 years with only 20% of people who could read or write.

From that Nehru built a country that is democratic and inclusive uplifting the masses that previously held no hopes of redemption from feudalism and Casteism that plagued the land. He was a great advocate for equity and justice in an unequal society used his superb influence to incorporate those protective provisions into the Constitution.

The constitution of India was amongst the largest in the world with 395 Articles and 9 Schedules. The preamble spells out the underlying philosophy and the solemn resolve of the people of India to secure justice, liberty, equality and fraternity for all its citizens. What Nehru has accomplished through this document with significant help and support from B.R. Ambedkar also is part of his vision to empower marginalized sections of the society.

Nehru was a strong proponent of self-reliance, apparently recognizing that underdevelopment was the result of a lack of technological progress. Consequently, a new Industrial policy was enacted to develop critical industries. While Independent India was in its infancy, he identified the production of power and steel for self-sufficiency and planning. In collaboration with other countries, India built steel plants in Rourkela (Orissa), Bhilai (M.P.) and Durgapur (W. Bengal). Dam projects were undertaken in various places to produce hydro-electric power, including the flagship Dam at Bhakra Nangal, Punjab. The first oil refinery was inaugurated in Noonmati, Assam in 1962 as another leap forward towards industrialization. Nehru called them ‘the temples of modern India’.

He built IITs, IIMs, and AIIMS for higher level education and thousands of Primary, Secondary and higher-secondary schools that have transformed the lives of millions of its citizens and many of those graduates from these prestigious institutions are heading multi-national corporations across the globe today  and it is a matter of great pride and joy to India.

Nehru belonged to the privileged class, and he could have carried on while protecting the status-quo, yet he did not. He was a true visionary who saw the dire need to change the direction of the country in order to have a real transformation in the social order. Seventy years later, many of his dreams have come to fruition and at the uppermost; thanks to his stewardship, India remains a vibrant democracy and a beacon to many nations particularly in the developing world.

However, BJP and the RSS are carrying on a campaign to place blame on Nehru and criticize him for his failure on the partition and the current stalemate in Kashmir. They have not forgiven him either for pursuing a policy of non-alignment globally or upholding the values of secularism at home. For the hardcore Sangh Parivar forces, Nehru has become anathema, a legacy that has to be erased.

Since 2014, the status of Nehru Memorial and library has been diminished, and an earnest effort is underway to change the character and focus of the Museum. The Culture Minister in the BJP government not only approves discussions and seminars opposing Nehruvian ideology within its four walls but openly boasts about the place that it is no longer confined to Nehru. To add insult to injury, Mr. Arnab Goswami, a strident critic of Nehru family, has been added as a member of the Board to oversee the museum. According to some sources, the long-term plan may include converting the Nehru Memorial library into a Museum that houses the memory of all Prime Ministers.

The right-wing bodies including Rashtriya Swayamsevak Samaj (RSS) have been on an overdrive to erase Nehru’s name from history books after the BJP government unveiled a new education policy in 2015. In Rajasthan, a BJP-ruled state, references to Nehru has been already removed from textbooks. Students of Class VIII will no longer learn that Jawaharlal Nehru was India’s first Prime Minister. Asked about this serious omission, Education Minister Vasudev Devnani said the following” it was the decision of an autonomous body and the government and I have nothing to do with it.”

Prime Minister Modi, in his first Independence Day address to the nation, although he invoked great leaders like Mahatma Gandhi, Sardar Patel, and Jayaprakash Narayan but omitted any reference to Nehru. He also used the occasion to sentence the planning commission as the relics of the past, the signature machinery, Nehru promoted for making five-year plans for the effective use of the resources for development. The new President of India, Ramnath Kovind did not mention Nehru’s name either in his maiden address to the nation.

Times have changed indeed, and some of the policies Nehru has pursued may have become irrelevant.  However, critics would be deluding themselves if they are to deny his extraordinary legacy and his outstanding contribution in building a modern India in a traditional society. Nehru’s wisdom was the wisdom of the time, and we may be able to draw many lessons from that today. Our lives are not merely self-made instead we stand on the shoulders of those who have preceded us. Jawaharlal Nehru may have made his share of mistakes as any other human being, and yet, if we are to deny his rightful place in history, we will be doing it at our peril!

(Writer is a former Chief Technology Officer of the United Nations and Vice-Chairman of the Indian Overseas Congress, USA)

4 NRI Congressmen re-elected to US Congress

Over a dozen others elected to state and local bodies in US 2018 Mid-Term Elections

The four Indian-American Congressmen from the Democratic Party have been re-elected to the US House of Representatives and more than a dozen others won various other races across the country in the highly polarized 2018 midterm elections held on November 6th.

Dr. Ami Bera, a three-term Congressman, was re-elected for a record fourth consecutive term from the 7th Congressional District of California. Unlike the previous three elections, Bera did not have to wait for weeks for recounting of votes. He defeated Andrew Grant of the Republican Party by a 5% margin.

In the Silicon Valley, Indian-American Ro Khanna defeated Ron Cohen of the Republican Party with a massive 44 percentage point in the 17th Congressional District of California. “Tonight was a great night for our campaign and for Democrats across the country. I’m grateful to the voters of #CA17 for giving me the opportunity to continue to represent you in Congress. This has been the honor of my life,” Khanna said. “With Democrats in control of the House, we will push for economic and foreign policy populism,” he said.

In the 8th Congressional District of Illinois, Raja Krishnamoorthi was re-elected for the second term by a comfortable margin of more than 30 percentage points. He defeated his Indian American Republican opponent J D Diganvker.

4 NRI Congressmen re-elected to US CongressCongresswoman Pramila Jayapal, the only Indian-American woman lawmaker in the House of Representatives, defeated her GOP rival Craig Keller by a massive 66 percentage points. “The American people voted to put the Democrats back in control of the US House of Representatives. Now, we are primed to restore the balance of power between the branches of government and push back even more strongly against the Trump administration’s deeply destructive policies. Our communities are sick and tired of the corruption and injustice,” Jayapal said in her victory speech in Seattle.

While nearly two dozen Indian American won elections to state and local bodies across the nation, several candidates seeking to be elected to the US Congress did not make it to the US Congress. For the first time, more than 100 Indian-Americans had entered the race in this mid-term elections, of which over 50 were on the ballot on Tuesday. Among them 12, including four incumbents, were running for the House and one for the Senate – a record in itself.

None of the more than half a dozen new Indian Americans candidates, many of whom caught national attention by giving tough fight to their opponents and outraising them in the fund raisers, could make it to the House of Representatives.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) had high hopes in Aftab Pureval in Ohio, Sri Preston Kulkarni in Texas and Dr. Hiral Tipirneni in Arizona by including them in its “Red to Blue” list – and additional boosts had come from major endorsements and results of recent polls. Democratic Party activists had hoped for seven Indian-Americans in Congress.

The Indian American Impact Project and its affiliate the Indian American Impact Fund have been raising funds for the candidates and also getting out high profile party members like Sen. Kamala Devi Harris and former U.S. Ambassador to India Rich Verma. Volunteers and other supporters were on the ground in the districts in Ohio, Texas, and Arizona where Pureval, Kulkarni and Tipirneni were running.

Raj Goyle, co-founder of the Indian American Impact Project, and a former Kansas state legislator, had stated, “Between the high stakes atmosphere and the sheer numbers of candidates who ran for office, this is perhaps the most competitive election cycle we’ve seen in decades. He said that more than 100 Indian-American candidates were on the ballot throughout the year and more than half are on the Nov. 6 ballot. We will see many new elected officials who are fresh faces and represent the best of our community,” he had said.

The Impact Project’s executive director, Gautam Raghavan, an ex-senior Obama administration official, said, “For the first time in history, three Indian-Americans are on the DCCC ‘Red to Blue’ list. Just ask Congressman Ami Bera — that designation can be a game-changer. We were happy when Aftab Pureval was named to the list earlier this year, and thrilled when Sri Kulkarni and Hiral Tipirneni were added earlier this month.”

“Impact Fund is proud to have contributed directly to these candidates, help them raise funds, raise their visibility nationally, and arrange for community leaders like Senator Kamala Harris and Ambassador Rich Verma to hit the campaign trail for them,” Raghavan said.

On Oct. 12, Sen. Kamala Devi Harris (D-Calif.) traveled to Arizona to keynote a joint event for Tipirneni and Malik,and continued to send emails encouraging supporters and donors on their behalf.

“I believe in these two talented Indian-American women,” she said. “I need these women in Congress with me. My constituents in California, and Indian Americans across the country, need these women in Congress. What happens in these races on Election Day will affect not only Arizona, but the entire nation.”

Indian-American of Tibetan descent Aftab Pureval, 35, lost to GOP incumbent Steve Chabot. He was the first Democrat to get elected as the Hamilton County Clerk of Courts in more than 100 years.  Indian-American woman Anita Malik lost to her Republican incumbent in the sixth District of Arizona, while Hiral Tipirneni was defeated by GOP rival Debbie Lesko.

Indian-Americans picked up more seats in the State assemblies. The community sent its member Ram Villivalam for the first time to the Illinois Senate and also elected a Muslim Indian-American Mujtaba Mohammed to the North Carolina State Senate. Chicago-born Villivalam, elected unopposed, became the first Asian-American State Senator and the first South Asian-American member of Illinois General Assembly ever.

Former state department diplomat Sri Preston Kulkarni lost to his GOP incumbent Pete Olson from the 22nd Congressional District of Texas. A five-time incumbent, Rep Olson defeated his Indian-American Democratic challenger in the most heated 22nd Congressional District that the opposition had hoped to flip due to a large Asian-American population.

The 40-year-old relied heavily on his ability to connect with the district’s diverse population to give Democrats hope that he could pull off an upset in the district. About 20 per cent of the population in the district is of Asian heritage – more than any other district in Texas.

Sanjay Patel, who runs a successful consulting business, lost to Republican Congressman Bill Posey, who has been winning the eighth Congressional District of Florida continuously since 2009.

In the first Congressional District of Arkansas, Democratic Chintan Desai lost to Republican incumbent Rick Crawford, while Republican Harry Arora lost to incumbent Jim Himes in the fourth Congressional District of Connecticut.

Shiva Ayyadurai, a successful entrepreneur, who fought the Massachusetts Senate race as an independent, came a distant third. Democratic leader Elizabeth Warren registered a comprehensive win over her Republican rival Geoff Diehl to re-enter the US Senate.

Democratic Nima Kulkarni defeated Joshua Neubert from the GOP to make her maiden entry into the Kentucky Assembly from State District 40. A practicing and recognized lawyer, she owns Indus Law Firm specialising in immigration, employment and business law.

Mujtaba Mohammed entered the North Carolina State Senate from the Senate District 38. A former staff attorney at the Council for Children’s Rights and assistant public defender, Mohammed defeated Richard Rivette.

Incumbent Jay Chaudhuri, an accomplished entrepreneur, was re-elected to North Carolina Senate from the State Senate District 15. Republican Niraj Atani, 27, registered his third consecutive electoral victory from Ohio House 42nd District. He is the youngest Indian-American elected official in the US. He is also the second Indian-American state elected official in Ohio history, and the first Indian-American Republican.

“Representing the community in which I was born and raised is an incredible honor. I work hard every day to make it achievable for all Ohioans to have the opportunity to make their American Dream a reality,” Atani said in a statement.

In Washington State, Manka Dhingra and Vandana Slatter were re-elected for the State Senate. Among others re-elected at the State level are Sabi Kumar in Tennessee and Ash Kalra (California).

Sayu Bhojwani, the executive director of New American Leaders and author of “People Like Us: The New Wave of Candidates Knocking at Democracy’s Door,” stated, “Indian-American women across the country are donating money, writing texts and postcards, making calls and knocking on doors. We, Indian American women are leading the way in this groundbreaking election,” she said. “We have only begun to witness the power and energy we have together.”

The emergence of a large number of young Indian-Americans candidates reflects the growing desire of this small ethnic community comprising just one per cent of the US population of 325 million people in the greatest democracy in the world.

“It is time we come to recognize fully the contributions of the Indian-American community. Indian-Americans are tremendously important and we hope they would be increasingly visible not only in the government, but also in all parts of American life,” said Maya Kassandra Soetoro-Ng, maternal half-sister of President Obama, adding that President Obama was very proud of the community. “It is certainly a reflection of how important India is and how important Indian-Americans are to the fabric of the nation. I would just like to celebrate all of the contribution artistic, political and so much more of the community.”

To quote former Congressman and Co-Chair of the Congressional India Caucus,  Joe Crowley, “I think it is wonderful for the Indian-American community. It is coming of age, politically for them.”

Democrats win back the House of Representatives, Lose seats in US Senate

In a closely watched midterm election, Democrats gained control of the House of Representatives, effectively ending one-party rule in Washington — although the GOP increased its advantage in the Senate.

Democrats earned sweeping victories across the map, easily picking up the 23 seats they needed to regain control. With a number of races too close to call, Democrats could win up to 35 seats and open a significant margin in the chamber, setting up a two-year period that will likely feature multiple clashes between President Donald Trump and the House.

Democrats win back the House of Representatives, Lose seats in US SenateProgressive candidates won House seats in a number of districts that voted for Trump in 2016. Abigail Spanberger defeated incumbent U.S. Rep Dave Brat in the historically conservative Virginia 7th district and Lauren Underwood earned an upset win in Illinois’ 14th district.

The comeback of the Democrats to power is expected to end President Trump’s legislative agenda, while giving them the power to investigate his corruption. Democrats did so with a runaway win in the national popular vote — likely by about seven percentage points.

India’s Statue of Unity signifies ‘Lohpati’ Sardar Patel’s herculean effort to build a democratic nation from disparate principalities

The unveiling of the Statue of Unity, representing one of India’s most revered leaders, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, in Kevadia, Gujarat, Oct. 31, has drawn worldwide attention to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s quintessential mix of national pride and grassroots politics, including from Indian-Americans. Nevertheless, as expected or even predictable in a democracy, it has become subject to acrimonious party politics inside a country looking to hold general elections in mid-2019,

The unveiling of the 182 meter statue on Sadhu Bet Island in the Narmada river, nearly double the size of the Statue of Liberty (93 meters), and for now considered the highest such monument in the world, surpassing China’s Spring Temple Buddha (153 meters), is not only a fete of engineering but also one that the government of India expects will enhance the tourism potential of the country.

More than 70,000 tons of cement, 18,500 tons of reinforced steel, 6,000 tons of structural steel and 1,700 tons of bronze, were used to build the structure, according to the Indian government.

The video of the impressive yet solemn and simple inauguration ceremony circulating on the Web, shows Modi alighting to the first level (where Sardar Patel’s feet rest) via an impressive escalator, in the middle of a vast open landscape, and conducting a Hindu prayer ceremony, casting flowers in all directions. Helicopters flew over the statue showering petals like confetti from the sky.

The statue is reached by a 17-km-long Valley of Flowers, and also includes a Tent City for tourists, and a museum recounting Sardar Patel’s life and contributions. A viewing gallery at 153 meters allows a panoramic view of the surrounding area including the Sardar Sarovar Dam, and the Satpura and Vindhya mountain ranges.

Dedicating the Statue of Unity to the nation, Modi called on citizens to remain united despite forces of disunity, and hit out at the politicization of a leader who was instrumental in bringing hundreds of princely states together to make the new India a reality back in 1948 as the former Deputy Prime Minister and Union Home Minister.

“Statue of Unity is to remind all those who question India’s existence and its integrity. This country was, is and will always be eternal,” Modi said in Hindi (as translated by Indo Asian News Service), contending that the enormous height of the statue was a reminder to youth of how high their aspirations could go.

“The only mantra to fulfill these aspirations are ‘Ek Bharat-Shresth Bharat’ (One India, Best India). Statue of Unity is also symbolic of our engineering and technological affordability,” Modi said.

Keeping the nation’s unity, diversity and sovereignty intact is one such responsibility which Patel has given to the countrymen, Modi said. “It’s our responsibility to give reply to every effort of dividing the country. We will have to remain vigilant and united as a society,” he said.

“They considered our diversity our biggest weakness but Sardar Patel converted this into our biggest strength. India is moving ahead on the path shown by him,” Modi is quoted saying said.

“If today we are connected from Rajasthan’s Kutch to Nagaland’s Kohima and Jammu and Kashmir’s Kargil to Tamil Nadu’s Kanyakumari, it is because of Patel’s strong resolve and determination. “Had Sardar Patel not done it, the country would have needed visas for offering prayers at Somnath and visiting Charminar in Hyderabad,” Modi said referencing the late Indian leader’s work in bringing some 550 princely states into the Indian Union after the Partition of 1947.

Neomi Rao interviewed by Trump to replace Kavanaugh in D.C. Appeals Court

President Donald Trump has interviewed Neomi Rao, administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, as a potential candidate to replace Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh on the federal appeals court bench in Washington, D.C., according to a media report.

Rao, 44, currently heads up the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget at the White House. She was confirmed to OIRA by the Senate on July 10, 2017. The New York Times reported that OIRA – a somewhat obscure agency created by former President Jimmy Carter’s administration to approve government data collections and determine whether agencies have sufficiently addressed problems during rule-making – is at the heart of Trump’s politically-charged agenda to overhaul government regulations.

If Rao, who had once clerked for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, is nominated to the D. C. Appeals court and confirmed by the Senate, she would join another Indian-American judge, Srikanth Srinivasan, in the same court.

Srinivasan, an appointee of President Barack Obama, was confirmed by the Senate in a 97-0 vote in 2013 and was widely reported to be a leading candidate for the Supreme Court if Hillary Clinton had won the presidency and a vacancy had occurred.

Rao’s current job also required Senate confirmation and she was confirmed by a vote of 54-41 in July 2017, with opposition coming from the Democrats. They had warned that Rao was being appointed to carry out Trump’s plans to eliminate more than 75 percent of the regulations instituted during the Obama administration under the guise of spurring economic growth.

Trump’s meeting with Rao was first reported by the online news site Axios. The DC Circuit Court is often referred to as the most powerful court in the nation, second only to the U.S. Supreme Court, because of its proximity to federal agencies.

Axios reported that – post interview – sources briefed on the meeting said Trump was not impressed by Rao. However, she may still be appointed to the court, as Trump has stated his intent to nominate a minority woman to fill the role, and a potential “feeder” to the Supreme Court. A source told Axios that Trump is reconsidering his initial impression of Rao.

“Rao’s advantages: She’s well respected at the OMB, knows regulatory law back to front, has the advantage of already being Senate-confirmed and is well-liked by several key Democratic senators,” opined the publication.

The Washington Times reported that former White House counsel Don McGahn recommended Rao to Trump for the open DC circuit court seat. The White House has declined to comment on the report, but an official told India Abroad “it is only to be expected that the president will be speaking to qualified people to fill this position now that there’s a vacancy on the D.C. court bench after the Senate confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh — now Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh.” The official had no further comment when asked specifically if Rao had been among potential candidates.

Axios, quoting unnamed sources, reported that Trump was interested in Rao so he could appoint a minority woman to Kavanaugh’s old job. But it added that while once source said Rao did not leave Trump with a good first impression, another said the president had not ruled her out.

Much of the reviews of the executive branch regulations, including that of the OIRA, is also a task the D.C. Circuit often addresses. As a nominee, Rao could expect some questioning by Democrats in the Senate Judiciary Committee. But if the Republicans hold the Senate in the mid-terms, her confirmation — like that of any other nominee — would be a formality.

As OIRA administrator, Rao is based in the White House. The agency is a statutory part of the Office of Management and Budget, which falls within the executive office of the president. Its mandate includes reviewing regulations from federal agencies and has the authority to reject rules that do not fall in line with the president’s goals as well as doing away with regulations already in place.

At George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia, Rao founded and directed the Center for the Study of the Administrative State, created with pursuing the critical study of the constitutional and legal foundations of the administrative state. She was also a professor at the Antonin Scalia Law School and focused her research and teaching on constitutional and administrative law.

Rao has served in all three branches of the government. During the Bush administration, she was associate counsel to the president and then worked as counsel for nominations and constitutional law to Senate Judiciary Committee, followed by a clerkship with Thomas and Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit.

Rao is the founding director of the Center for the Study of the Administrative State at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School. In an op-ed for The Washington Post last year, as the Senate was considering Rao’s confirmation to OIRA, GMU law professor Jonathan Adler termed Rao “a well-respected administrative law expert” who was a “superlative pick” for the post.

Adler noted that Rao has clerked for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, has served in the Bush administration, and as a staffer on the Senate Judiciary Committee, effectively serving in all three branches of the federal government.

Rao is the daughter of Zerin Rao and Jehangir Narioshang Rao, both Parsi physicians from India; she was raised in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, and graduated from Yale. Rao then attended the University of Chicago Law School. She is married to attorney Alan Lefkowitz and has two children.

India expresses concerns over politicization of human rights as foreign policy tool

The United Nations Member States advised caution against the “politicization” of human rights issues today in the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural), even as some delegates found themselves embroiled in a political discussion on the human rights situations in particular countries — in some cases, calling for an end to juvenile executions, and in other cases urging greater freedom of expression and religious belief.

As part of the general discussion on the promotion of human rights, the representative of New Zealand urged those few countries that continued to execute juvenile offenders to take steps to prohibit that practice.  She also addressed the human rights situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, where extrajudicial executions and torture were reported to be widespread.  That country was believed to have imposed severe restrictions on the fundamental freedoms of belief, expression, peaceful assembly, association and religion.

India’s Deputy Permanent Representative to the UN said the work of the Human Rights Council is getting more contentious. The representative of France, speaking on behalf of the European Union, remarked that human rights in the Sudan continued to be flouted, leading him to urge the Government to implement the decisions made by the judges of the International Criminal Court with immediate effect.  He also said that it should step up deployment of the African Union-United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur.  In Belarus, he noted that the legislative elections in September 2008 had not met the democratic standards of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), leading him to call on national authorities to address those shortcomings.

The representative of India, expressing a view that was echoed by several other speakers, noted that there had been regular attempts to subject individual countries to intrusive monitoring, so as to point out the failure of the State mechanisms to promote and protect human rights.  The international community needed to reflect on whether such action had genuinely improved the human rights situation, she said, adding that instances of gross and systematic violations of human rights anywhere must be addressed collectively by the international community, based on dialogue.

India’s Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Ambassador Tanmaya Lal, said that even as the Human Rights Council continues to expand with a growing number of resolutions, frequent meetings and special sessions, the effectiveness of its work is not always clear. He was speaking at the UN General Assembly session on the Report of the Human Rights Council on Friday. “While a very comprehensive normative framework of human rights treaties and covenants has evolved, the work of the Human Rights Council and its associated procedures and mandates is, regrettably, getting more contentious and difficult,” Lal said.

Lal said the ineffectiveness of the global governance mechanisms to find commonly acceptable solutions has posed challenges to the “spirit of multilateralism”. “The reasons for many of the difficulties surrounding the discussions on the human rights agenda are not hard to find​​,” Lal said. “They flow from the often very divergent priorities and concerns of member states in terms of their levels of development, social and cultural contexts and governance systems.​”

He said country-specific procedures have largely been counter-productive. “Instances of such mechanisms and offices operating on their own without any mandate and producing clearly biased documents only further harm the credibility of United Nations,” Lal said.

He also raised concerns regarding the human rights situation in Sri Lanka, which he described as having “deteriorated”.  All concerned parties should be held responsible for taking concrete measures to guarantee the safety and freedom of movement of civilians and to enable humanitarian organizations to safely carry out their work.  Turning to the situation in Zimbabwe, which he said had worsened since the first round of presidential elections, he called on national authorities to re-establish the rule of law.  Noting that humanitarian aid to that country had been suspended at around that time, and as the European Union was the largest donor to Zimbabwe, he stressed the importance of maintaining unrestricted humanitarian access.

Ngonlardje Mbaidjol, Director of the New York Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, who introduced several reports of the Secretary-General on the promotion and protection of human rights earlier in the day, was prompted by a few delegates to defend the accuracy of figures used in some reports, which had come from non-governmental sources.  As pointed out by the representative of the Sudan, the Secretary-General’s mandate required him to submit a report based on information provided by Member States and, if information was meant to come from other sources, the mandate would have explicitly asked for “other stakeholders” to be included.  Even if other sources were going to be included, it would be necessary to have standard criteria under which the authenticity and credibility of the information would be checked.

Throughout the discussion, delegates from all parts of the world called for better dialogue between States, as well as between States and United Nations human rights procedures mandate holders.  The representative of Pakistan, for example, remarked that the Committee had listened to different Special Rapporteurs, but noted that many reports had been presented in a selective manner.  There had also been a failure to discuss the criteria on which countries were selected for visits, with the Special Rapporteurs often only selecting invitations to developing countries.

Why we American immigrants should vote – By Dr. Mathew Joys and Anil Augustine

It’s so relieving that in the US there are only two political parties with real federal representation, although independent candidacy is a sure possibility in the North American electoral system. Not that we are ignoring the existence of other political thought streams; however they all are limited to State representations as of now.
The limited choice of electoral selection ideology has its merits and demerits.
When compared to the election process back home in India where there are so many national/federal political parties, comparatively the American election process is very simple. At large these days it is a process of choosing between the lesser evil, it appears!
It’s well said that in the US presidential election, the Ohio or the Florida states gets the final say, courtesy to the interesting “electoral college” voting system of The USA.   Although the 2018 ongoing election is a midterm election, it is of considerable impact. The results of this year’s elections will be enormously important – not just in shaping the future of Donald Trump’s presidency, but in shaping the American political landscape for a great many years to come. There is so much at stake for both the political isles.
Our diaspora is infamously considered to be of less representation and participation in the domestic political process. However there certainly is hope as we are seeing people of Indian origin as candidates being blessed with increased success recently. Republican Governors Nikki Nimrata Haley and Bobby Piyush Jindal as well Democrats Pramila Jaypal and Raja Krishnamurthy Members of the U.S House of Representatives are among the prominent representatives of Indian origin, who successfully achieved political offices in The USA.
With the otherwise default insecurities of an immigrant social mindset, our diaspora generally but unfortunately ignores our voting power. We ignorantly assume that “It doesn’t count for us who ever happens to be in political office” as we are busy and focused earning for our daily bread and footing the bills. In fact, only when in need of a political connection/representation do we realize the precious value of participation in the domestic voting process.
As America has a very well documented electoral process, it is very easy for any politicians to find out our voting history. They may not be able to find whom we have voted directly, but certainly can make out whether you/me have voted in the past.
Our friend. K. P. George, who has been on the county School board and is currently contesting for the position of County Judge in Fort Bend, Houston, TX passionately shared his experience and reason to stand for the public office.
KPG said, as a businessman he was very much involved in society; however, there were times he experienced that he was not treated fairly. He could find out the reason that US politicians are of the knowledge/assumption that we Indians do not go and vote, then what is the point of helping us at the peril of incurring the displeasure of participating folks/herd.  Unless we as a community exercise our vote it is impossible to quantify the political impact and value of our community. He says it doesn’t matter whom you are voting for, but what matters and will make an impact is the registration of your vote. When we happen to go to a Senator’s or Councilman’s office after speaking with you they will ask for a day’s time to respond to our need, the one thing their office certainly look into is into your voting history, for sure.
On a personal note, our 2nd generation children might feel that they are American enough in the inside comforts of their respective homes, however the reality is such that we are neither white enough before the Caucasians nor black enough for the African Americans and not wheatish enough for Latinos either. Hence unless we and our children get out and vote, our community will not be counted in the political system either! It is estimated that there are about 3 million Indians in US, and many have US citizenship. But how many really intend to vote nor interested in the national politics remain a vague situation.
On a large picture, at a time when federal programs such as Social Security that will impact Health programs such as Medicaid, Medicare and the other retirement financial benefits and its uncertainties of future funding, as well issues such as immigration, National debt or Federal deficit is at its alarming status, not participating in the election process is the worst injustice one can injure oneself with as a citizen of this nation.
Especially when 35 out of the 100 in the Federal Senate seats, all 435 of the House of Representatives and 36 out of 50 State governors’ seats are out for grabs, the 2018 midterms is of very much importance!
Further selection of 71 Supreme Court Justices, 6070 State legislature seats, Mayors of about 25 major cities such as Phoenix, AZ, San Francisco, CA and Austin, TX too are facing elections this current midterm elections denotes the importance of this peculiar voting occasion.
Health insurance certainly is one of the major issues bothering Americans. The unsuccessful attempt by the 2017 senate to repeal The Affordable care act (better known as Obama Care) is a burning issue for the current administration. It is essential to prevent the denial of healthcare for senior citizens reasoning the excuse of preexisting condition.
With respect to Social security, reports are alarmingly disclosing that by 2034 the reserves are going to be exhausted and thereby benefits are to be reduced by 20%. It’s hopefully assumed that provided republicans are successful to attain majority in the Senate, the Social Security program benefits that is directly influenced by the Cost of living index shall be improved upon.
As well it is essential that the medicine formulation prices are alarmingly increasing than the inflation rate in the country and is to be kept in check. The announcements of President Trump promising to deploy price cuts through the Medicare is enabling a bit ease is a hopeful perspective.
It’s essential that more measures are to be ensured towards Cyber security. Concerns are more to the volatility of exploiting the Senior citizens in these regards. The need of having more effective programs nationally favoring the aged is a real alarming concern of the times. The ideas of Medicare vouchers and Medicaid block grants are blamed to be of helping the big healthcare Corporates to benefit.
Increased allegations of inequality and racial discrimination are the visible signs of the times. Problems of opium drugs and marijuana abuse is on the increase. The slow but steady increase in utility prices of Gas and Electricity too are not good signs of a promising economy for sure.
We hope the newly elected representatives from the November 2018 elections will responsibly act upon these very worries of our people. Hence voicing our concern through responsible representation of our causes through voting is the correct thing to do.
(Dr. Mathew Joys and Anil Augustine are US based journalists.)

Mikhail Gorbachev warns of a new Nuclear Arms Race – President Trump says he plans to withdraw from a nonproliferation treaty that I signed with Ronald Reagan. It’s just the latest victim in the militarization of world affairs.

By Mikhail Gorbachev, former president of the Soviet Union

Over 30 years ago, President Ronald Reagan and I signed in Washington the United States-Soviet Treaty on the elimination of intermediate- and shorter-range missiles. For the first time in history, two classes of nuclear weapons were to be eliminated and destroyed.

This was a first step. It was followed in 1991 by the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, which the Soviet Union signed with President George H.W. Bush, our agreement on radical cuts in tactical nuclear arms, and the New Start Treaty, signed by the presidents of Russia and the United States in 2010.

There are still too many nuclear weapons in the world, but the American and Russian arsenals are now a fraction of what they were during the Cold War. At the Nuclear Nonproliferation Review Conference in 2015, Russia and the United States reported to the international community that 85 percent of those arsenals had been decommissioned and, for the most part, destroyed.

Today, this tremendous accomplishment, of which our two nations can be rightfully proud, is in jeopardy. President Trump announced last week the United States’ plan to withdraw from the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty and his country’s intention to build up nuclear arms.

ADVERTISEMENT

I am being asked whether I feel bitter watching the demise of what I worked so hard to achieve. But this is not a personal matter. Much more is at stake.

A new arms race has been announced. The I.N.F. Treaty is not the first victim of the militarization of world affairs. In 2002, the United States withdrew from the Antiballistic Missile Treaty; this year, from the Iran nuclear deal. Military expenditures have soared to astronomical levels and keep rising.

As a pretext for the withdrawal from the I.N.F. Treaty, the United States invoked Russia’s alleged violations of some of the treaty’s provisions. Russia has raised similar concerns regarding American compliance, at the same time proposing to discuss the issues at the negotiating table to find a mutually acceptable solution. But over the past few years, the United States has been avoiding such discussion. I think it is now clear why.

With enough political will, any problems of compliance with the existing treaties could be resolved. But as we have seen during the past two years, the president of the United States has a very different purpose in mind. It is to release the United States from any obligations, any constraints, and not just regarding nuclear missiles.

The United States has in effect taken the initiative in destroying the entire system of international treaties and accords that served as the underlying foundation for peace and security following World War II.

Yet I am convinced that those who hope to benefit from a global free-for-all are deeply mistaken. There will be no winner in a “war of all against all” — particularly if it ends in a nuclear war. And that is a possibility that cannot be ruled out. An unrelenting arms race, international tensions, hostility and universal mistrust will only increase the risk.

Is it too late to return to dialogue and negotiations? I don’t want to lose hope. I hope that Russia will take a firm but balanced stand. I hope that America’s allies will, upon sober reflection, refuse to be launchpads for new American missiles. I hope the United Nations, and particularly members of its Security Council, vested by the United Nations Charter with primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security, will take responsible action. Faced with this dire threat to peace, we are not helpless. We must not resign, we must not surrender.

(Mikhail Gorbachev is the former president of the Soviet Union. This article was translated by Pavel Palazhchenko from the Russian.)

US Senator Roger Wicker of Mississippi introduces Bill to expedite H-1B Visas to Doctors

“It is gratifying to inform you that the US Senator Roger Wicker from Mississippi (R), in response to AAPI’s request, has introduced a Bill, S.281, in the US Senate with dozens of his colleagues in the Senate,” said Dr. Sampat Shivangi, Co-Chair AAPI Legislative Committee. “AAPI leadership had met Sen. Roger Wicker in April 2018 and urged him to introduce a Bill in the US Senate expediting the H-1B visa process for Physicians of Indian origin, who are waiting for their Green Card for years and decades. We, at AAPI are grateful to Senator Wicker for heeding to our request and introducing the legislation.”

Dr. Naresh Parikh, President of American Association of Physicians of Indian Origin (AAPI), pointed out that in order to meet the growth in demand and shortage of physicians, the US has looked up to the highly trained and qualified physicians from other countries to meet our growing demand for physicians to meet our nation’s healthcare needs. In this context, AAPI has joined other Medical Association in the country in urging the US to expedite and reduce/eliminate the hurdles for speedy process of the applicants seeking H-1B visa. The J-1 visa to qualified physicians, enabling these foreign-trained physicians to serve our nation’s healthcare needs.

“As the rapidly approaching start date for all GME programs, we at AAPI want to urge the US administration to expedite review of pending H-1B/J-1 Visa applications by non-U.S. International Medical Graduates (IMGs), who have been accepted to postgraduate training programs in order to avoid unnecessary delays,” Dr. Naresh Parikh, President of AAPI, had said in August this year, urging the Trump administration to expedite the visa process for physicians.

American Medical Association (AMA) is in full support of such a bill and has highlighted the plight of such physicians who are struck in the green card backlog.

US Senator Roger Wicker of Mississippi introduces Bill to expedite H-1B Visas to DoctorsDr. Naresh Parikh, joined by the senior leadership of AAPI, presented a Memorandum to the Consul General of India in New York, Ambassador Sandeep Chakravorty. While acknowledging that there is a projected increase in the total number of office visits to primary care physicians from a base of 462 million in 2008 to 565 million in 2025, due to aging of the US population as well as the average number of visits to primary care physicians projected to increase, resulting in higher demands and reduced supply of physicians, pointing that the US will be short by more than 90,000 physicians by 2020 and 130,000 physicians by 2025, AAPI leaders urged the Trump administration to expedite the process for Visas to physicians, enabling them to work for the greater health of the people of this adopted land of theirs.

Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act of 2017 co-sponsored by Sen. Wicker amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to: (1) eliminate the per country numerical limitation for employment-based immigrants, and (2) increase the per country numerical limitation for family-based immigrants from 7% to 15% of the total number of family-sponsored visas.

“Indian-Americans constitute less than one percent of the country’s population, but they account for nine percent of the American doctors and physicians,” Dr. Vinod Shah, President of AAPI’s Legislative Committee, pointed out. “The overrepresentation of Indians in these fields (engineering, IT and medicine) is striking – in practical terms, one out of seven doctors is likely to be of Indian Heritage. They provide medical care to over 40 million of US population,” he added.

“We are much grateful for Senator Roger Wicker for his leadership on this issue where our community of high skilled workers may be engineers or Physicians who are serving in under-served regions in the nation, providing outstanding services to millions of Americans,” he added.

 “Senator Roger Wicker not only has introduced this bill, but has become the Champion and our voice in the US Senate. This US bill S 281 will bring fairness for high skilled, specially our young Physician group and so also to I.T engineers across USA. This is a fairness bill, we all welcome,” Dr. Shivangi added. “Thanks to AAPI and AAPI leadership acting promptly on this issue. I feel this a major achievement for AAPi in the Legislative wing. Of course, the work is only half done as bill has to be moved and voted by entire US Senate and the US Congress,” he added.

American Association of Physicians of Indian Origin (AAPI), the largest ethnic Medical Association in the nation, representing the interests of over 100,000 physicians, Fellows and Residents in the United States, while working closely with the Lawmakers individually, regionally and nationally through our AAPI Legislative Day on Capitol Hill, have consistently supported a comprehensive immigration reform.

Dr. Parikh lauded the efforts of AAPI’s Legislative Wing, in leading the initiatives of AAPI, in bringing to the forefront the issue of expedited Visa process for physicians from abroad, who want to serve in this country. For more information, please visit: www.aapiusa.org

Voter suppression: Republicans are engaged in an aggressive effort to prevent Americans from voting

With less than a week to go to mid term polls, Republican party and its candidates and state run governments by Republicans across the nation, while sensing heavy losses, are resorting to voter repression and false propaganda.

After the 2010 election, state lawmakers nationwide started introducing hundreds of harsh measures making it harder to vote. The new laws range from strict photo ID requirements to early voting cutbacks to registration restrictions.

The restrictions range from requiring government-issued photo identification to vote, to delaying voter registration if application information differs from government databases, to limiting voting times and locations. What remains unclear is how much they actually deter voting.

After the 2008 election, when Republicans gained control of a number of really important states in 2010, they began to introduce a wave of new restrictions to tighten access to the ballot. Then those efforts were basically given a green light by the Supreme Court when it removed a critical part of the Voting Rights Act in 2013 in the Shelby County v. Holder decision and said that those states with the longest histories of discrimination no longer had to approve their voting changes with the federal government. That allowed states in the South that previously had to prove their voting changes with the federal government – places like Texas and Georgia and North Carolina and Alabama – to implement these new restrictions on voting.

Overall, 24 states have put in place new restrictions since then — 13 states have more restrictive voter ID laws in place (and six states have strict photo ID requirements), 11 have laws making it harder for citizens to register, seven cut back on early voting opportunities, and three made it harder to restore voting rights for people with past criminal convictions.

In 2016, 14 states had new voting restrictions in place for the first time in a presidential election. Those 14 states were: Alabama, Arizona, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin.

In 2017, legislatures in Arkansas and in North Dakota passed voter ID bills, which governors in each state signed, and Missouri implemented a restrictive law that was passed by ballot initiative in 2016. Georgia, Iowa, Indiana, and New Hampshire also enacted restrictions last year, in addition to laws that were on the books for previous elections.

In 2018, New Hampshire and North Carolina have enacted new restrictions. In 2013, a bare majority of the US supreme court gave the green light to North Carolina by striking down a provision of the Voting Rights Act that required states, such as North Carolina, that had a history of discrimination to preclear electoral law changes with the Department of Justice.

In addition to a requirement that voters show particular forms of ID, the state eliminated Sunday voting, narrowed the window for early voting and eliminated same-day vote registration and early registration for 16- and 17-year olds. Voter ID requirements at least have the superficial appearance of addressing the integrity of elections, although in practice the justification is bogus.

In Georgia, Ohio and elsewhere, Republican officials are purging the voter rolls — taking away people’s registration, often for no good reason.

In Arizona, North Carolina, Texas and elsewhere, Republicans have closed polling places.

In Arkansas, Iowa and North Dakota, Republicans have added onerous new identification requirements.

And in Florida, Iowa and Kentucky, Republicans have tried to make it even harder for people previously convicted of felonies to vote.

These efforts and many others across the nation, in the nation that boasts of it being called the greatest democracy in the world, are anti-voter campaign to be an outrageous injustice. And now, President Trump wants to take away the birthright citizenship that has been granted by the 14th amendment to the constitution. President Donald Trump said he’s considering an executive order removing the right to citizenship for babies born in the U.S. to parents who aren’t citizens.

To energize his base, President Trump has lasered in on immigration ahead of next week’s midterm elections, stoking fear about the caravan of migrants heading toward the U.S.-Mexico border from Central America.

According to analysts, there’s so little evidence voter fraud exists at all that Trump’s appointed voter-fraud commission collapsed. Backed by independent experts, Democrats say the GOP’s principal goal is limiting ballots cast by Democratic-leaning black, Latino, young and low-income voters.

“These laws have been pushed in recent years by Republicans, and the hardest hit have been people of color and young people and poor people,” says Michael Waldman, president of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law School. “Restricting the vote appears to be strategic.”

Two political scientists found that Wisconsin’s voter ID law deterred thousands of voters, disproportionately poor and African-Americans from casting ballots in a state Trump narrowly carried in 2016. Another study found similar effects nationally, especially among Hispanics.

Donald Trump has tweeted about voter fraud. He repeatedly claimed without any evidence that millions of people voted illegally in the 2016 elections. In fact, voter fraud is a very rare problem in American elections. It’s not like it never happens, but it’s not nearly as widespread as many people, including the president, would have you believe.

The GOP’s voter suppression efforts have continued to be well-executed and disenfranchised too many Americans from casting a ballot. That’s where organizations like Let America Vote, Flippable, and When We All Vote come into play. Extreme voter suppression laws that disproportionately impact people based on race, gender, age, income, and sexual orientation have multiplied all over the country.

Voting rights organizations are fighting back against proposals that make it harder for eligible voters to exercise their constitutional right to vote. Whether it’s extreme identification requirements, questionable purges of voter rolls, or voter intimidation – Republicans know how difficult it is to get certain communities to vote for them, so better they can’t vote at all.

Suspicious package sent to Sen. Kamala Harris discovered

A suspicious package addressed to California Senator Kamala Harris was intercepted Friday morning in Sacramento, Senator Harris’s office confirmed to CBS13. The package is similar to 13 others addressed to other elected officials and political figures this week.

Sen. Kamala Harris’ office said Oct. 26 that authorities in Sacramento, California, are investigating a suspicious package mailed to her.  The office of the Indian American U.S. senator says the package was similar to those that have been sent to other prominent Democrats.

The senator’s office says it was informed that the package was identified at a Sacramento mail facility. The FBI responded to the facility in a South Sacramento neighborhood that’s been blocked off by caution tape.

News of the package comes as authorities arrested a Florida man suspected of sending more than 10 mail bombs in recent days. Harris is a Democrat serving her first term in the U.S. Senate.

“Our understanding is a trained postal employee identified the package at a Sacramento mail facility and reported it to the authorities,” a statement from Sen. Harris’ office read. A heavy law enforcement presence, including FBI, US Postal Inspector, postal police, and the sheriff’s department personnel was visible at the facility throughout the morning. Firefighters from Sacramento Metro Fire Department also responded to the report. CNN first reported the incident.

FBI special agents have arrested Cesar Altieri Sayoc, 56, in connection with the packages. Federal officials say these were “improvised explosive devices” made with PVC pipe, clocks, batteries, wiring, and explosive material. None of the bombs detonated.

The Sacramento Sheriff’s office says the package addressed to Harris resembled the other suspicious packages sent this week. A postal employee at a Sacramento mail facility identified the package and reported it to authorities. No one was injured.

Justice Department officials revealed that a latent fingerprint found on one package helped them identify their suspect as Sayoc, 56, of Aventura, Florida. The criminal complaint charges Sayoc with illegally mailing explosives, illegally transporting explosives across state lines, making threats against former presidents, assaulting federal officers and threatening interstate commerce.

Court records show Sayoc, an amateur body builder with social media accounts that denigrate Democrats and praise Trump, has a history of arrests for theft, illegal steroids possession and a 2002 charge of making a bomb threat.

The development came amid a nationwide manhunt for the person responsible for at least 13 explosive devices addressed to prominent Democrats including former President Barack Obama, former Vice President Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton. The case continued widening Oct. 26 even as Sayoc was detained.

In Washington, Attorney General Jeff Sessions cautioned that Sayoc had only been charged, not convicted. But he said, “Let this be a lesson to anyone regardless of their political beliefs that we will bring the full force of law against anyone who attempts to use threats, intimidation and outright violence to further an agenda. We will find you, we will prosecute you to the fullest extent of the law.”

In Florida, law enforcement officers were seen on television examining a white van, its windows covered with an assortment of stickers, outside the Plantation auto parts store. Authorities covered the vehicle with a blue tarp and took it away on the back of a flatbed truck.

The stickers included images of Trump, American flags and what appeared to be logos of the Republican National Committee and CNN, though the writing surrounding those images was unclear.

Trump, while calling to take strict actions against political violence, complained that “this ‘bomb’ stuff” was taking attention away from the upcoming election and said critics were wrongly blaming him and his heated rhetoric.

Law enforcement officials said they had intercepted a dozen packages in states across the country. None had exploded, and it wasn’t immediately clear if they were intended to cause physical harm or simply sow fear and anxiety.

Earlier in the day, authorities said suspicious packages addressed to New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker and former National Intelligence Director James Clapper — both similar to those containing pipe bombs sent to other prominent critics of Trump— had been intercepted.

Investigators believe the mailings were staggered. The U.S. Postal Service searched their facilities 48 hours ago and the most recent packages didn’t turn up. Officials don’t think they were sitting in the system without being spotted. They were working to determine for sure. The officials spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation.

Online court records show that Sayoc in 2002 was arrested and served a year of probation for a felony charge of threatening to throw or place a bomb. No further details were available about the case.

Most of those targeted were past or present U.S. officials, but one was sent to actor Robert De Niro and billionaire George Soros. The bombs have been sent across the country – from New York, Delaware and Washington, D.C., to Florida and California, where Rep. Maxine Waters was targeted. They bore the return address of Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the former chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee.

The common thread among the bomb targets was obvious: their critical words for Trump and his frequent, harsher criticism in return.

Indian American Political Candidates Raise $26M Ahead of November Midterm Elections

Federal Election Commission figures show that a dozen Indian American political candidates running for Congress in the midterm election next month have raised more than $26 million for their respective campaigns.

Six of those candidates have outraised their opponents, according to the FEC filings. Incumbent U.S. Reps. Raja Krishnamoorthi, Ro Khanna, Pramila Jayapal and Ami Bera have all outraised their opponents, while challengers Hiral Tipirneni and Aftab Pureval have outraised the incumbents in Arizona’s 8th Congressional District and Ohio’s 1st Congressional District, respectively.

If those who outraised win, the number of Indian Americans in the House would jump from the current four to six.  Krishnamoorthi, D-Ill., has raised more than $5 million, topping the list, according to the FEC. His opponent, Jitender Diganvker, also an Indian American, has raised $35,817, which is the lowest fund-raising figure among the dozen Indian Americans in the race for the Congress this time.

Shiva Ayyadurai, who is running for a Senate seat in Massachusetts against veteran incumbent Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren, has raised $5 million. But political pundits give him very little chance against Warren, who has raised $20 million so far, the Press Trust of India reported.

Indian American physician Tipirneni has raised over $3.76 million. Tipirneni lost to incumbent Republican incumbent Rep. Debbie Lesko ($1.8 million raised) during the special elections early this year.

Pureval is seeking to enter the U.S. House of Representatives from the first Congressional District of Ohio. The only Indian American to be endorsed by former U.S. President Barack Obama, Pureval has raised $3.1 million, as against his Republican opponent and incumbent Steve Chabot of about $1 million. Chabot’s latest figures with FEC are only till June 30, the PTI report noted.

Three-time Congressman from California’s 7th Congressional District Bera has raised $2.69 million compared to the $373,000 by his Republican opponent Andrew Grant.  Representing Silicon Valley, Khanna from the 17th Congressional District of California is pretty close with $2.62 million. He virtually has no contest at all, PTI said.

Jayapal, the first Indian American woman to be elected to the House, has raised $1.66 million, according to the FEC figures till July 18. Her opponent Craig Keller has raised about $3,000 till the same period.

Former diplomat Sri Preston Kulkarni is running a spirited campaign against Republican incumbent Peter H Olson, who has raised $1.38 million, the report said. Kulkarni, who is running from the 22nd Congressional District of Texas, has raised $1.02 million so far as per the latest FEC figures.

Anita Malik is the third Indian American woman in the race to the Congress this mid-term. She has raised $128,826 in the race for the 6th Congressional District of Arizona. Incumbent David Schweikert has raised $1.4 million.

Democratic Sanjay Patel, who is seeking a seat in Florida’s 8th Congressional District, has raised $231,381 while his Republican opponent Bill Posey has raised $782,469. Patel’s fund-raising figures are only till Aug. 8, according to the FEC, the PTI report said.

Also running for seats are Jitender Diganvker and Harry Arora. Contesting from the 4th Congressional District, Arora has raised $729,405 compared to Democrat Jim Himes’ $1.57 million, the report said.

Bob Menendez names several Indian Americans to NJ Leadership Council

U.S. Senator Bob Menendez and the Menendez for Senate Campaign in New Jersey have named several Indian Americans to the NJ Leadership Council.

According to a press release, the Indian Americans were assigned to different councils including a Muslim council, a Progressive council and a Veterans council.

These include:

Senator Vin Gopal of the 11thLegislative District

Burlington County Freeholder Balvir Singh

Hoboken Mayor Ravi Bhalla

Passaic County Freeholder Assad Akhter

East Orange Mayor Ted Green

Teaneck Mayor Mohammed Hameeduddin

Prospect Park Mayor Mohamed T. Khairullah

Paterson Councilman Al Abdelaziz

Edison Democrat Shariq Ahmed

Edison Democrat Nadia Kahf

Analia Mejia of Working Families

33th Legislative District Assemblyman Raj Mukherji

It is their job to ensure that the senator is re-elected on November 6.

Modi a paradoxical Prime Minister who failed electorate: Manmohan Singh

Narendra Modi is a “paradoxical Prime Minister” who has failed the electorate and eroded the voters’ faith in his promises over four and a half years, former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said on Friday.

Speaking after releasing Lok Sabha MP Shashi Tharoor’s book on PM Modi, Singh said that the Modi government has remained silent in the face of widespread communal violence, mob lynching and cow vigilantism despite promising to be Prime Minister for all of India. The government, he said, has sought to curb academic freedom and the “environment in our universities and national institutions like the CBI is being vitiated and dissent stifled”.

“A fearful population, an economy that has been set back by foolhardy initiatives, a painful lack of jobs, growing distrust among India’s farming communities, a devastating number of farmer suicides, insecure borders, instability in Kashmir and the palpable failure in implementation of even laudable initiatives like Swachh Bharat, skill development, Make in India and Beti Bachao Beti Padhao… this is (what) the Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi presides over, not secular, plural, free and equal society that our founding fathers had envisaged and envisioned and was built in its first six and a half decades as a free nation,” Singh said.

He said Modi had come to power on the back of many “lofty promises”, but “failed the electorate and eroded the voters’ faith in his words and promises”. Referring to Tharoor’s book The Paradoxical Prime Minister, Singh said, “Modi is a paradoxical Prime Minister.” On the economic front, he said that nothing concrete was done to bring back black money allegedly stashed abroad. While a hastily implemented demonetisation and GST proved to be disastrous, petrol and diesel prices are at a historic high, he said.

“Modi’s rule has not been good for India… Much of what the Modi government is all about has turned out to be a little more than a series of empty gestures and marketing gimmick with very little of substance having been achieved on the ground,” he said, adding that Tharoor’s book is a reminder that the idea of India is under threat today from those who seek to change India’s very heart and soul.

Participating in a panel discussion later, former Union minister P Chidambaram said that Modi is the “embodiment of an illiberal democracy”. Former Union minister Arun Shourie said that Modi’s bad days have begun. “People have begun to understand… I believe he (Modi) has completely lost control over even the administration… what you are seeing in the CBI today… there is an absolute civil war…”

JD(U) leader Pavan Varma said the opposition despite all its criticism could not project an alternative and produce a leader who can be a challenge to Modi. “Why is the opposition in so much disarray?” he said.

Varma said the JD(U), a BJP ally, has no hesitation criticising the BJP government for things it does not approve of. He said that if Modi is an obstacle to the “idea of a composite, plural, united India”, the JD(U) will fight him.

A FAKE NEWS DATABASE – By CRISTIANO LIMA and ANDREW BRIZ

The “fake news” phenomenon has gone global, but the full extent of its reach remains largely a mystery. To shed light on the spread of disinformation in U.S. politics, we’re fielding, collecting and verifying instances of “fake news.” Use this database to check whether items you’ve read online are real or to get a sense of the breadth of political disinformation out there.

What is “fake news,” really?

Popularized by President Donald Trump, the term “fake news” has become ubiquitous in political discourse as an insult or to dismiss certain information. POLITICO, however, is focused on intentional disinformation – false political content created explicitly to deceive or misinform.

Collect, debunk and chronicle: By both crowd-sourcing information and scouring the internet ourselves, POLITICO will identify potential pieces of disinformation, which will be vetted by our staff. If the items fit our parameters for fakes, we will report on our findings.

How you can help: Send us any reports, websites or social media posts that you suspect may be disseminating disinformation. These reports flagged by users, along with those identified by POLITICO staffers, will be vetted and, if deemed appropriate, added and categorized into our public database of disinformation. https://www.politico.com/interactives/2018/is-this-true/about/

Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Supreme Court of India Sabarimala rulings

At the outset, one may wonder what Brett Kavanaugh appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court has anything to do with the recent rulings by India’s Supreme Court allowing women between ages of 10 and 50 entries into the Sabarimala temple. It may not have a direct linkage concerning geography or jurisprudence. However, it speaks volume on how the underlying principles involved in these dramas could evoke these spectacles of emotions of raw anger in countries that are separated by Oceans.

As we all have learned throughout the history, elections have its consequences, and President Trump has indeed followed through his pledge of appointing judges to the courts that he termed as ‘strict constructionists.’ The judicial philosophy of the conservatives in this country is that courts should not make laws but to uphold the constitution and laws of the land and interpret them. On the contrary, liberals and progressives love an activist court that creates laws especially in the social arena that may have a transformational impact on the society.

Mark Levin, a conservative author makes a good case for a strict constructionist in his book titled “Liberty and Tyranny’. He has defended the importance of original intent when interpreting or adjudicating the constitution. Levin appeared to have made a genuine effort in illustrating the fine points in the ongoing debate between the strict constructionists and those who want the Constitution to be a “living, breathing evolving” document.

Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 78, stated that judges have a duty to “guard the Constitution and rights of individuals,” and above all, to be impartial. He was known to have argued that in cases where laws and statutes clash with the Constitution, it is the constitution that must prevail and the Supreme Court has to side with the Constitution.

Liberals and many moderates sincerely believe that the Court’s swing to the right might jeopardize decades of landmark gains on issues from abortion to affirmative action and same-sex marriage. To some legal experts, the addition of Justice Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court could have profound consequences on issues ranging from Women’s reproductive health to LGBT rights.

In today’s high-octane environment, it has become increasingly difficult to reconcile these differing points of view. However, to an independent observer, the Supreme Court relies greatly on precedent that is a principle or rule established in a previous legal case that becomes a basis or reasons for future decisions. Therefore, the Court may yet find it difficult in overturning many of those landmark decisions that have long become the laws of the land.

While the Kavanaugh Saga was unfolding in Washington, the Supreme Court of India has made some historical rulings that may have upended some traditional beliefs and customs. According to a new ruling led by the Chief Justice Dipak Misra, women of all ages will be allowed to enter India’s Sabarimala Temple, one of Hinduism’s holiest sites, overturning a centuries-old ban.

The five-member constitutional bench struck down the religious ban on women aged 10 to 50 from entering the temple, ruling it to be discriminatory and arguing that women should be able to pray at the place of their choice. “It is the constitutional morality that is supreme. Prohibition can’t be regarded as an essential component of religion” said the Judge’s ruling. Sabarimala temple is thought to be 800 years old and is considered spiritual home of Lord Ayyappa.

This issue is very complex and multi-layered, however, touches the very core of faith and tradition. That is the reason why this verdict has invoked so much anger and resentment pitting one community against another often inflaming the communal passion waiting to be exploited by the political parties and their narrow interests. For a democratic country that has Secularism written on its preamble of the constitution, India should accord autonomy to religious orders and religious groupings and prevent state interference. It is a matter of pure faith, and the State has a responsibility to stay neutral unless it violates the fundamental rights or causes injury to its citizenry.

If we carefully examine, a severe crisis was created when the Supreme Court took up this issue, and its subsequent ruling has indeed challenged an age-old tradition. Although it is embarrassing to argue about the merit of this tradition in these modern days, the purity of women in their menstrual years, it was a dormant issue for so long that people paid only scant attention. The question then is should the court give rulings on issues that have profound social implications as well as a transformational impact on society?

In a democratic process, it is the people through their representatives in the Legislature who make laws mostly reflecting the will of the majority. That is often done with debating the merit of the legislation with utmost scrutiny from all opposing sides. If the country has followed such a course, we could have avoided this tragic turn of events unfolding before our eyes today.  As much as we value the Supreme Court as a vanguard to protect our rights, it would have been prudent to leave these sensitive issues of faith and tradition to the legislatures rather than to the judiciary.

Many Indian Americans, who abhor several of the progressive decisions of India’s Supreme Court in the last few weeks often overturning their beloved traditions, beliefs, and customs, may need to reconsider their stand on an activist court. They generally cheer on legislating from the bench in the U.S. by activist judges and have long enjoyed common ground with progressive forces opposing the appointment of Judges whose philosophy of judicial restraint that is similar to that of Justice Kavanaugh.

As the adage goes, ‘we cannot have the cake and eat it too’! It is time to take a consistent stand in opposing legislating from the bench that often fails to take into account the sentiment of the local people whose tradition, faith and religious practices they hold dear to their heart and supporting the strict constructionist view of the constitution and laws of the land. We have long learned from history that it is judicious to have limited interventions in these matters by the courts given the inexorable relationship in India between religion and public life.

(Writer is a former Chief Technology Officer of the United Nations)

Congressional candidates Tipirneni, Kulkarni expected to turn ‘Red to Blue’ seats

Two Indian-American candidates have increased their winning chances in the November 6 mid-term elections as the Democratic committee has added them to the ‘Red to Blue’ programme which is for the most viable and high-impact campaigns.
Indian American Congressional candidates Hiral Tipirneni and Sri Kulkarni have been named to the “Red to Blue” program by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee on October 17thHiral Tipirneni is running for the US House of Representatives from Arizona’s 8th Congressional District and Sri Kulkarni is fighting to be elected from Texas’ 22nd Congressional District. Previously, the DCCC recognized Aftab Pureval, a candidate in Ohio’s 1st Congressional District, with the same designation.
 
The Impact Fund, founded in 2016 by Raj Goyle and Deepak Raj to endorse and support Indian American candidates running for office throughout the country, had supported Tipirneni and Kulkarni’s races in March.
At the time, Raj said the fund endorsed the two because “we were confident they have the passion, tenacity and drive it takes to run, win and lead. We’re thrilled that the DCCC agrees with our analysis and grateful for their strong support for our candidates,” Raj said in a statement.
“Hiral and Sri are both highly qualified and passionate candidates who will bring fresh energy and ideas to Congress,” added Goyle, co-founder of Impact and a former member of the Kansas House of Representatives. “With just 20 days to go, it’s critical that Indian American voters, volunteers, and donors do their part to get them across the finish line.”
On November 6, Americans will vote for members of both chambers of Congress—the US House of Representatives and the Senate, as well as for governors in 36 out of the 50 states. All 435 seats in the House are up for election while 35 out of the 100 seats are being contested in the Senate. Republicans currently control the House and the Senate.
‘Red to Blue’ designation by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC)’s is for the most viable and high-impact campaigns.

Majority Indian Americans disapprove of Trump: new research finds

President Donald Trump continues to receive poor marks from a majority of Americans on his overall job performance, even as he enjoys relatively good assessments of his handling of the economy. However, among the Indian American voters, his approval ratings are overwhelmingly low.
 
A new study jointly conducted by AAPI Data and APIA Vote says, two out of three Indian American voters disapproved of the way Trump was handling his role as president; 28 percent said they approved of the president’s performance, while 4 percent said they did not know, according to the survey.
According to 2016 data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, there are over 3.4 million people of Indian origin in the United States. Indian Americans are part of the wider Asian-American community, which is the fastest growing ethnic group in the United States.
The 10 states with the largest Indian-American communities are California, New York, New Jersey, Texas, Illinois, Florida, Virginia, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. These states account for 73% of our nation’s Indian American population.
Indian Americans are expected to play key role in crucial elections around the country to the Congress and Senate races. Indian American voters could play decisive roles in these races and others around the nation that are similarly tight, and so it would behoove political candidates to engage more substantively with this vibrant and diverse community.
According to a 2014 Pew Research Center study, nearly two-thirds of Indian Americans surveyed identified with the Democratic Party. A post-2016 survey by researchers in California and Maryland found that 77% of Indian American respondents supported Hillary Clinton.
The Asian American Voter Survey was released Oct. 9, as voters in 34 states — including California, Florida, Texas, and New Jersey, home to large populations of Indian Americans — began receiving ‘no-excuse’ early voting ballots. Election Day is Nov. 6; several states, including California and New York, mandate that employers must provide at least two hours of paid time off for employees to go vote.
Senate races in Arizona, Florida, Indiana, Missouri, and Nevada are ranked as toss-ups, and candidates there cannot afford to leave votes on the table. The Indian origin populations in these states range from 11,121 in Nevada to 143,020 in Florida. (Speaking of Florida, I voted there in 2000, when George W. Bush’s official margin of victory over Al Gore was 537 votes.)
Among House races considered competitive, several congressional districts are located in counties with substantial Indian American populations. In California alone, these include San Joaquin (17,797), Los Angeles (88,505), Ventura (12,342), and Orange (50,286) counties. Beyond California, Indian Americans are heavily represented in the toss-up 32nd congressional district of Texas, which encompasses Dallas (49,975) and Collin (47,673) counties, and they comprise nearly eight percent of the total population of Loudoun County, Virginia, which sits in that state’s potentially flippable 10th congressional district.
Asian Americans could be the margin of victory in several significant races, stated Indian Americans Karthick Ramakrishnan, founder of AAPI Data, and Shekar Narasimhan, chairman and founder of the AAPI Victory Fund. According to survey results, almost two-thirds of Indian Americans will vote for Democratic candidates in House and Senate races.
 
“Trump has galvanized the mid-term election,” said Ramakrishnan, professor of public policy and political science at the University of California, Riverside, and founding director of the Center for Social Innovation He noted that the president’s rhetoric on a range of issues collide with the views of most Asian American voters. Many view the mid-term election as a referendum on the Trump administration and a possible opportunity for Democrats to take back their majority in the Senate.
Narasimhan said both Democratic and Republican parties have been slow to recognize the impact of the Asian American vote, and have not significantly reached out to the community. Ramakrishnan noted that Indian Americans emerged as the most progressive Asian American community on a range of social issues, including access to health care, quality education, and gun control. “The Indian American agenda goes well beyond immigration,” he said, adding that few respondents listed immigration in their top three issues of concern, though they are likely to factor in a candidate’s views of immigration policy in their voting decisions.
The study surveyed 1,316 Asian American voters from Aug. 23 to Oct. 4, critically before Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation process gripped the nation. A total of 227 Indian American registered voters responded to the poll, which also included Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, Vietnamese, and Korean American voters. The full report and slide deck can be viewed at http://aapidata.com/2018-survey/

Indian Overseas Congress, USA Protests in New York against BJP Govt’s Involvement in Rafale Loot

Indian Overseas Congress, USA staged a protest in Richmond Hill, New York on September 30th to highlight the corruption by the Modi Government in the purchase of Rafale jets in the biggest defence scam in history. This protest also expressed grave discontent amongst NRIs who are of the opinion that Hindustan Aeronautical Limited should have been the building partner of the Dassault Aviation rather than Modi’s handpicked friend Anil Ambani who stands to gain 30,000 Crores Rupees in this scam at the expense of the tax-paying public.

Dr. Amee Yajnik, member of the Rajya Sabha while addressing the crowd, expressed grave discontentment with lack of transparency and accountability in this whole affair. “While our farmers are suffering and many of them are on the verge of despair, the Modi Government’s focus is only to increase the coffers of their crony capitalist friends. The money that is supposed to be used for economic and social development is stolen from the people of India” Dr. Yajnik added.

‘Corrupt role played by the Minister of Defense, Nirmala Sitaraman is also of great concern to us, and we are also concerned that she has converted the ministry of defense into a puppet institution which dancing to the tunes of crony capitalists without any concern being shown to the defense establishment of the country along with national security” said Mr. Mohinder Singh Gilzian, President of the Indian Overseas Congress, USA. “The secrecy by which Modi has dealt with this deal tantamount to organized loot, and we are asking for the resignation of the Prime Minister and the Defence Minister’,  Mr. Gilzian added.

George Abraham, Vice-Chairman of IOC, urged the Diaspora to become cognizant of the growing number of scandals plaguing the Modi regime and the secrecy with which Rafale Deal has been conceptualized. United Progressive Alliance first conceptualized the deal in the year 2012 when Government of India had agreed with Dassault Aviation, France to purchase a total of 126 Rafale fighter jet aircraft. This agreement was clinched with a cost of Rs. 526 for each aircraft.

Initial 18 aircrafts were to be purchased on an immediate fly-away condition, and remaining 108 were agreed to bse manufactured in India. Aircraft which were to be manufactured in India were agreed to be manufactured in association with Hindustan Aeronautics Limited under the transfer of technology agreement. However, altering the terms of the contract to benefit the Ambanis may result in the lost employment opportunities which could have benefited the unemployed youth of Karnataka.

Crowd held placards and chanted that “Modi is corrupt – Stop Deception and Corruption”, “End all Corruption – Down with BJP and Crony Capitalism”, “IOC condemns Corruption”, “Rafale, biggest Defense scam”, and “Vigilance should investigate Modi” .

Ravi Chopra, the chairman of the Finance Committee, John Joseph, Vice-President, Mr. Satish Sharma, Chairman of Punjab Chapter, Mr. Charan Singh, President of Haryana Chapter, Mrs. Shalu Chopra, chairperson of the Women’s forum also spoke. Mr. Devendra Vora of the Maharashtra Chapter honored the Chief Guest Dr. Yajnik with a Shawl.

Rep. Pramila Jayapal initiates efforts to establish new liberal think tank

Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal, D-Washington, has been credited with the efforts to in setting  up a new liberal think tank for policy development and outreach to voters. She is on the board of the Congressional Progressive Caucus Center (CPCC), announced Oct. 10, which describes itself as “an outside entity” aimed at leveraging the power of the existing Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC).

“The Center will be the bridge that links the CPC with progressive stakeholders and will provide cutting edge policy analysis and message guidance to the broader progressive community to help drive progressive ideas and reforms into the public debate,” says the website.

Currently, there is another major liberal think tank, Center for American Progress, set up by former Obama supporters and advisors and headed by an Indian-American, Neera Tanden,.

“This is a critical piece that I think has been missing,” Rep. Jayapal was quoted saying in a news report from Rollcall.com, adding, “The goal here is to leverage the power of the progressive movement to enact strong progressive legislation and really build our movement for change across the country.”

Jayapal listed a string of issues that the CPCC will work on, among them, “Medicare for all, protecting women’s health, developing a demilitarized foreign policy, making college without debt a reality, making sure that we are fostering and advancing workplace democracy and collective bargaining rights, humane immigration reform, gender equality, addressing climate change,” Rollcall reported.

“By working with outside partners – advocacy groups, labor unions, and think tanks – we will provide resources outlining the interests of the American people,” the organization says on its website. It has put out an ad to recruit an Executive Director for the Center.

“The CPCC will convene different progressive stakeholders to advance cutting-edge, independent policy analysis and most importantly, work to realize the enactment of progressive policies – which are overwhelmingly supported by the American people,” the organization says on its website.

Last month, she along with others introduced a bill making college tuition free. The College for All Act now in Congress aims to change that, making tuition for a four-year college free for students whose parents make less than $125,000 a year, and free for anyone attending a two-year community college.

India elected to UN Human Rights Council for 3 years, gets highest number of votes – India received 188 votes, the highest polled by any of the 18 countries elected so far

India was elected with the highest number of votes by the General Assembly to the influential Human Rights Council on Friday with a pledge to combat intolerance. India received 188 votes, the highest polled by any of the 18 countries elected in the voting. This is the fifth time India is elected to the Geneva-based Council, the main body of the UN charged with promoting and monitoring human rights.

India’s presence on the Council will be important because the previous UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Raad Al Hussein asked the body to facilitate an international commission of inquiry into allegations of human rights violation in Kashmir.

His successor Michelle Bachelet and Secretary-General Antonio Guterres have backed Zeid’s recommendation, which Pakistan – a member of the Council – is campaigning for. So far, no other country has backed Zeid’s call for the investigation.

Bangladesh, which is at the frontlines of dealing with the Rohingya crisis, was also elected with 178 votes to the Council to fill one of the five vacancies for three year terms from the Asia-Pacific region.

The regional group endorsed five countries, which matched the number of seats open for election this year, and they were the only countries on the ballot. The other regional candidates were Bahrain, Fiji and the Philippines. Thirteen other countries representing the other four regions were also elected to the Council.

In January India will join China and Nepal, besides Pakistan, which were elected to the 47-member Council in previous years to serve three-year terms. When it nominated itself for the Council, India showcased its position as “the world’s largest democracy (and) India’s secular polity.”

It pledged that it will continue to support international efforts to combat racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. In the nomination pledge, India also presented a broader approach to human rights, emphasising climate justice, health and poverty alleviation.

India was among the first batch of 47 countries elected to the Council in 2006 soon after it was set up and received an initial one-year term instead of three to facilitate a rotating roster of vacancies each year. It was again elected in 2007, 2011 and 2014 to three-year-terms.

Countries can be elected for only two consecutive terms and India took a year’s break when its term ended in 2017. Elections were held by secret ballot in the 193-member General Assembly on Friday, although the number of candidates for all the five regions matched the vacancies making it a formality.

On the 47-member Council the seats are allocated based on “equitable regional distribution” giving the Asia-Pacific region a total of 13 seats, with some coming up for election every year. The African region also has 13 seats, while East European region has six, West European and others seven, and Latin American and Caribbean eight.

The United States withdrew from the Council earlier this year after its Permanent Representative Nikki Haley questioned its legitimacy because of the presence of several dictatorial regimes violating human rights on it.

Shashi Tharoor’s new book on Narendra Modi is not just ‘floccinaucinihilipilification’

My new book, THE PARADOXICAL PRIME MINISTER, is more than just a 400-page exercise in floccinaucinihilipilification, Congress leader Shashi Tharoor said in a Twitter post that had everybody reaching for the dictionary.

Congress leader Shashi Tharoor on Wednesday once again introduced Twitterati and the literati to a difficult, near unpronounceable word, describing his new book on Prime Minister Narendra Modi as “more than just a 400-page exercise in floccinaucinihilipilification”. According to the Oxford dictionary, the word is a noun and means “the action or habit of estimating something as worthless”.

Discussing the usage of the word, the dictionary adds, “Floccinaucinihilipilification is one of a number of very long words that occur very rarely in genuine use.” “My new book, THE PARADOXICAL PRIME MINISTER, is more than just a 400-page exercise in floccinaucinihilipilification. Pre-order it to find out why!” Tharoor said in a Twitter post that had everybody reaching for the dictionary.

The book itself was relegated to the background as the word got Twitterati talking.

“I get a feeling of floccinaucinihilipilification when I don’t know the meaning of floccinaucinihilipilification,” tweeted one of Tharoor’s followers.

“What my English teachers taught was a lie. Won’t order it as I cannot take out the dictionary everytime,” said another person in reply to Tharoor’s tweet.

The book is currently available for pre-order on Amazon.

According to the description of the book on Amazon, “Shashi Tharoor has stitched together a compelling portrait of this paradoxical figure (Narendra Modi). Never before has there been such a superbly written and devastatingly accurate account of the most controversial prime minister India has ever had.”

Tharoor’s love for the language and propensity for little heard and little used words is well known.

In May 2017, the MP from Thiruvananthapuram and author of 17 books got netizens talking when he described the coverage of the death of his wife Sunanda Pushkar by a news channel as an “Exasperating farrago of distortions, misrepresentations and outright lies being broadcast by an unprincipled showman masquerading as a journalist”.

In December last year, he used the word ‘rodomontade’, meaning boastful or inflated talk or behaviour. “I choose my words because they are the best ones for the idea I want to convey, not the most obscure or rodomontade ones!” he tweeted. And in February this year, he introduced ‘troglodytes’ to the Twitter world in a response to Vinay Katiyar’s comment on the Taj Mahal.

“We can’t let these troglodytes destroy our country & everything beautiful in it,” he tweeted.

Trump’s International Ratings Remain Low, Especially Among Key Allies

By Richard WikeBruce StokesJacob PoushterLaura SilverJanell Fetterolf and Kat Devlin

America’s global image plummeted following the election of President Donald Trump, amid widespread opposition to his administration’s policies and a widely shared lack of confidence in his leadership. Now, as the second anniversary of Trump’s election approaches, a new 25-nation Pew Research Center survey finds that Trump’s international image remains poor, while ratings for the United States are much lower than during Barack Obama’s presidency.

The poll also finds that international publics express significant concerns about America’s role in world affairs. Large majorities say the U.S. doesn’t take into account the interests of countries like theirs when making foreign policy decisions. Many believe the U.S. is doing less to help solve major global challenges than it used to. And there are signs that American soft power is waning as well, including the fact that, while the U.S. maintains its reputation for respecting individual liberty, fewer believe this than a decade ago.

Even though America’s image has declined since Trump’s election, on balance the U.S. still receives positive marks – across the 25 nations polled, a median of 50% have a favorable opinion of the U.S., while 43% offer an unfavorable rating. However, a median of only 27% say they have confidence in President Trump to do the right thing in world affairs; 70% lack confidence in him.

Frustrations with the U.S. in the Trump era are particularly common among some of America’s closest allies and partners. In Germany, where just 10% have confidence in Trump, three-in-four people say the U.S. is doing less these days to address global problems, and the share of the public who believe the U.S. respects personal freedoms is down 35 percentage points since 2008. In France, only 9% have confidence in Trump, while 81% think the U.S. doesn’t consider the interests of countries like France when making foreign policy decisions.

Critical views are also widespread among America’s closest neighbors. Only 25% of Canadians rate Trump positively, more than six-in-ten (63%) say the U.S. is doing less than in the past to address global problems, and 82% think the U.S. ignores Canada’s interests when making policy. Meanwhile, Trump’s lowest ratings on the survey are found in Mexico, where just 6% express confidence in his leadership.

One exception to this pattern is Israel. After a year in which the Trump administration generated international controversy by moving the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, his positive rating jumped to 69%, up from 56% in 2017.

Around the world, publics are divided about the direction of American power: Across the 25 nations surveyed, a median of 31% say the U.S. plays a more important role in the world today than it did ten years ago; 25% say it plays a less important role; and 35% believe the U.S. is as important as it was a decade ago.

In contrast, views about Chinese power are clear: A median of 70% say China’s role on the world stage has grown over the past 10 years. Still, by a slim margin, more people name the U.S. as the world’s leading economic power (a median of 39% say the U.S., 34% say China).

And despite the unease many feel about the U.S. at the moment, the idea of a U.S.-led world order is still attractive to most. When asked which would be better for the world, having China or the U.S. as the top global power, people in nearly every country tend to select the U.S., and this is particularly common among some of China’s Asia-Pacific neighbors, such as Japan, the Philippines, South Korea and Australia.

These are among the major findings from a new Pew Research Center survey conducted among 26,112 respondents in 25 countries from May 20 to Aug. 12, 2018. Chapters 3, 4 and 5 use additional data from a Pew Research Center survey of 1,500 U.S. adults conducted from May 14 to June 15, 2018.

U.S. receives some of its most negative ratings in Europe

Although perceptions of the U.S. are on balance positive, they vary considerably among the nations surveyed. Ten of the 25 countries in this year’s survey are European Union member states, and across these EU nations a median of just 43% offer a favorable opinion of the U.S. Meanwhile, majorities in four of the five Asia-Pacific nations polled give the U.S. a positive rating, including 83% in the Philippines, one of the highest ratings in the survey. The U.S. also gets high marks in South Korea, where 80% have a positive view of the U.S. and confidence in President Trump has increased over the past year from 17% to 44%.

As has largely been the case since Pew Research Center’s first Global Attitudes survey in 2002, attitudes toward the U.S. in sub-Saharan Africa are largely positive, with Kenyans, Nigerians and South Africans expressing mostly favorable opinions in this year’s poll. The three Latin American nations polled offer differing views about the U.S., with Brazilians voicing mostly favorable reviews, while Argentines and Mexicans are mostly negative. And the two Middle Eastern nations in the study – Israel and Tunisia – offer strikingly different assessments.

The country giving the U.S. its lowest rating in the survey, and the place where the biggest drop in U.S. favorability has taken place over the past year, is Russia. Just 26% of Russians have a favorable opinion of the U.S., compared with 41% in 2017. A 55% majority of Russians say relations have gotten worse in the past year, and the share of the public with a positive view of Trump has dropped from 53% to 19%.

Good reviews for Merkel and Macron, poor marks for Xi, Putin, Trump

The survey examined attitudes toward five world leaders, and overall Donald Trump receives the most negative ratings among the five. A median of 70% across the 25 nations polled lack confidence in the American leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping also receive mostly negative reviews.

In contrast, opinions about German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron are generally positive. Both leaders are mostly popular in the EU, although there are regional divides within Europe, with Merkel and Macron receiving favorable ratings in the Northern European nations surveyed and less stellar reviews in Eastern and Southern Europe.

European attitudes toward Trump are strikingly negative, especially when compared with the ratings his predecessor received while in office. Looking at four European nations Pew Research Center has surveyed consistently since 2003 reveals a clear pattern regarding perceptions of American presidents. George W. Bush, whose foreign policies were broadly unpopular in Europe, got low ratings during his presidency, while the opposite was true for Barack Obama, who enjoyed strong approval in these four nations during his time in office. Following the 2016 election, confidence in the president plunged, with Trump’s ratings resembling what Bush received near the end of his second term (although Trump’s numbers are up slightly in the United Kingdom this year).

In several European nations, Trump receives higher ratings from supporters of right-wing populist parties. For example, among people in the UK who have a favorable view of the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), 53% express confidence in Trump, compared with only 21% among those with an unfavorable view of UKIP. Similar divides exist among supporters and detractors of right-wing populist parties in Sweden, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Germany. However, it is worth noting that, other than in the UK, there is no European country in which more than half of right-wing populist party supporters say they have confidence in Trump.

Few think the U.S. takes their interests into account

A common criticism about American foreign policy over the past decade and a half has been that the U.S. only looks after its own interests in world affairs, ignoring the interests of other nations. As Pew Research Center surveys showed, this belief was especially prevalent during George W. Bush’s presidency, when many around the world thought the U.S. was pursuing unilateralist, and unpopular, policies. Strong opposition to the Iraq War and other elements of Bush’s foreign policy led to rising complaints about the U.S. acting alone and ignoring the interests and concerns of other nations.

Opinions shifted following Barack Obama’s election, with more people saying the U.S. considers their country’s interest, although even during the Obama years the prevailing global sentiment was that the U.S. doesn’t necessarily consider other countries. Now, the Trump presidency has brought an increase in the number of people in many nations saying the U.S. essentially doesn’t listen to countries like theirs when making foreign policy.

This pattern is especially pronounced among some of America’s top allies and partners. For instance, while the share of the French public who believe the U.S. considers their national interest has not been very high at any point over the past decade and a half, it reached a low point near the end of Bush’s second term (11% in 2007), rose somewhat during Obama’s presidency (35% in 2013) and has declined once more under Trump. Today, just 18% in France say the U.S. considers the interests of countries like theirs when making policy.

Fewer, especially in Europe, say U.S. respects individual liberty

America’s reputation as a defender of individual liberty has generally been strong in Pew Research Center surveys since we first started asking about it in 2008. The prevailing view among the publics surveyed has typically been that the U.S. government respects the personal liberties of its people, and that is true again in this year’s poll. However, this opinion has become less common over time, and the decline has been particularly sharp among key U.S. partners in Europe, North America and Asia.

The decline began during the Obama administration following revelations about the National Security Agency’s electronic eavesdropping on communications around the world, and it has continued during the first two years of the Trump presidency. The drop is especially prominent in Western Europe, where the share of the public saying Washington respects personal freedom has declined sharply since 2013.

The same pattern is found among several other U.S. allies as well, including Canada, where the percentage saying the U.S. respects individual freedom has dropped from 75% to 38% since 2013, and Australia, where it has gone from 72% to 45%.

China seen as a rising power

Respondents to the survey were read a list of seven major nations, and for each one, were asked whether they think it is playing a more important, less important, or as important of a role in the world compared with 10 years ago. Among the seven countries tested, China stands apart: A median of 70% across the nations polled say Beijing plays a more important role today than a decade ago. Half or more in 23 of 25 countries express this view.

Many also say this about Russia. A median of 41% believe Moscow’s role on the world stage has grown over the past decade, and majorities hold this view in Greece, Israel, Tunisia and Russia itself. Overall, people are split on whether Germany’s role is greater than it was 10 years ago or about the same, but many in Europe see Germany’s role as more influential. On the other hand, Europeans are particularly likely to think the UK is less important now.

There is no real consensus in views of America’s prominence in world affairs. A median of 35% believe it is as important as it was 10 years ago, while 31% say it is more important and 25% say less. Japan is the only country with a majority saying that Washington plays a less important role. Meanwhile, Israelis, Nigerians and Kenyans are particularly likely to think the U.S. is more important than it used to be.

Most still want U.S., not China, as top power

In addition to being asked about whether major powers are rising, falling or staying about the same, respondents were asked the following question about whether they would prefer the U.S. or China to be the top global power: “Thinking about the future, if you had to choose, which of the following scenarios would be better for the world: the U.S. is the world’s leading power or China is the world’s leading power?” Results show that the U.S. is overwhelmingly the top choice.

The U.S. is named more often than China in every country surveyed except three: Argentina, Tunisia and Russia, although in many nations significant numbers volunteer that it would be good for the world if both or neither were the leading power.

Some of America’s allies in Asia and elsewhere are particularly likely to prefer a future in which the U.S. is the top global power. Two-thirds or more hold this opinion in Japan, the Philippines, Sweden, South Korea, Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, Poland and the UK.

Nikki Haley, US Ambassador to United nations, resigns

United States ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki R. Haley, said on October 9, 2018 that she would resign at the end of the year, marking a high-profile departure of one of the few women in the president’s cabinet.

Ms. Haley, a former governor of South Carolina, had been an early and frequent critic of Mr. Trump; when he named her to the United Nations job weeks after his election in November 2016, the appointment was seen as an olive branch. As ambassador, Ms. Haley has been an outspoken and often forceful envoy — someone whom foreign diplomats looked to for guidance from an administration known for haphazard and inconsistent policy positions.

“It was a blessing to go into the U.N. with body armor every day and defend America,” Ms. Haley, seated next to Mr. Trump in the Oval Office, told reporters. “I’ll never truly step aside from fighting for our country. But I will tell you that I think it’s time.”

“I think you have to be selfless enough to know when you step aside and allow someone else to do the job,” she added.

White House staffers were caught off guard by the announcement, which Ms. Haley and Mr. Trump had kept closely under wraps. But the president said Ms. Haley had informed him roughly six months ago that she wanted to take a break after finishing two years with the administration. He said he hoped Ms. Haley would return in a different role, and would name her successor within the next two or three weeks.

“She’s done a fantastic job and we’ve done a fantastic job together,” Mr. Trump said. “We’re all happy for you in one way, but we hate to lose you.”

Ms. Haley, the first cabinet-level United Nations ambassador for a Republican administration since the end of the Cold War, quickly made clear she saw the position as a steppingstone to a higher political office — a possibility that Mr. Trump may have resented.She became a far more visible face of American foreign policy than her first boss at the State Department, former Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson. Mike Pompeo, Mr. Tillerson’s replacement, has recently reasserted the secretary of state’s traditional role.

Time magazine celebrated Ms. Haley’s ascendance by putting her on a cover as one of the women who are “changing the world.”

But Ms. Haley, who has long been seen as a potential presidential candidate, said on Tuesday she had no intention of running for president in 2020, as has been speculated. Instead, she said, she plans to campaign for Mr. Trump’s re-election.

Stepping away now could be a logical end point if Ms. Haley wants to preserve her own political future. But in the short term, people familiar with her thinking said that she is likely to work in the private sector and make some money.

For the moment, few Republican strategists believe that Ms. Haley is inclined to challenge Mr. Trump in 2020. But those who know her believe that she is likely to run, whether in 2024, or even in 2020 — should the president not run again.

”An open presidential race is a better chance to show off her incredible political skills, rather than some quixotic primary effort,” said Matt Moore, who was the Republican Party chair in South Carolina when Ms. Haley was governor there.

The daughter of immigrants from India, Ms. Haley favored free markets and global trade and earned international attention when she was governor for speaking out against the Confederate battle flag in the aftermath of the 2015 massacre at a black church in Charleston. During Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign, she sharply criticized his demeanor and warned what it might mean for American diplomacy — even suggesting that his tendency to lash out at critics could cause a world war.

As ambassador, Ms. Haley acknowledged her policy disagreements with the president in an op-ed in the Washington Post last month when she criticized an anonymous senior administration official who penned an opinion piece in The New York Times, describing a chaotic administration in which many of the president’s aides disagreed with their boss.

Possible successors include Dina Powell, a former deputy national security adviser to the president, and Richard A. Grenell. Mr. Grenell, the American ambassador to Germany, served as spokesman for John R. Bolton, the national security adviser, when he was ambassador to the United Nation under former President George W. Bush.

Brett Kavanaugh hears cases after being sworn in as US Supreme Court justice

Brett Kavanaugh was sworn in Saturday as US Supreme Court justice following the closest Senate confirmation vote in more than a century, marking a major win for President Donald Trump’s drive to move the country’s political institutions to the right.

The Senate voted 50-48 to approve Kavanaugh as protesters rallied across the country against a nominee who has been plagued by allegations of sexual misconduct as a young man and had questions raised over his candor and partisan rhetoric.

The prolonged nomination battle has roiled American politics and passions — the vote was disrupted on several occasions by angry protests from the gallery — but handed Trump one of the biggest victories of his presidency.

It drew the line under a bruising nomination process defined by harrowing testimony from a woman who says Kavanaugh tried to rape her when they were teenagers — and by his fiery rebuttal.

The two-vote margin of victory made it the closest Supreme Court confirmation vote since 1881 — and by far the most contentious since Clarence Thomas in 1991.

As Chief Justice John Roberts swore in Kavanaugh during a private Supreme Court ceremony, protesters demonstrated loudly outside, at one point rushing the steps of the court and banging on its ornate bronze doors while some sat on a Lady Justice statue.

The confirmation means Trump has succeeded in having his two picks seated on the court — tilting it decidedly to the right in a major coup for the Republican leader less than halfway through his term.

During an evening rally in Topeka, Kansas, Trump was greeted by prolonged cheers on what he called a “truly historic night.”

“I stand before you today on the heels of a tremendous victory for our nation, our people and our beloved Constitution,” he told supporters after signing Kavanaugh’s commission aboard Air Force One.

A separate, public swearing-in ceremony is planned for 7:00 pm (2300 GMT) Monday in the White House’s East Room.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who has railed against Kavanaugh’s critics, said he was “proud” of his colleagues while Vice President Mike Pence, who presided in the Senate during the vote, called it a “historic day for our country.”

It reflects a high water mark of the Trump presidency: Republican control of the White House, the Senate, the House of Representatives and the judiciary’s top court.

But the Kavanaugh spectacle, fueled by extraordinary accusations and counter-claims in nationally televised hearings, and tense battles over an 11th-hour FBI investigation to address the assault allegations, has inflamed political passions.

‘Shame!’

Hours before the vote, scores of protesters broke through barricades and staged a raucous sit-in protest on the US Capitol steps.

As protesters chanted “Shame!” and “November is coming!” police took several dozen demonstrators down the steps and put them in plastic flex-cuffs.

With tensions simmering, Pence got an earful from activists who booed and chanted “Vote them out!” as he walked to his motorcade.

Kavanaugh’s confirmation process has laid bare the partisan gridlock on Capitol Hill and the political polarization of America just a month before midterm elections.

“You don’t hand matches to an arsonist, and you don’t give power to an angry left-wing mob. That’s what they have become. The democrats have become too extreme and too dangerous to govern,” Trump said.

“Republicans are the party of law and order and justice. And we really have become even more so than ever before the party of opportunity and wealth.”

Democratic senators, who had battled hard to block the 53-year-old judge, insisted the caustic battle over Kavanaugh would galvanize Democrats at the polls.

“It is a sad day, but the recourse will have to be on election day,” Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar told reporters.

Kavanaugh’s confirmation had already been all but sealed Friday, when he won the support of key Senate Republican Susan Collins and conservative Democrat Joe Manchin.

‘Presumption of innocence’

The choice of Kavanaugh to replace retired justice Anthony Kennedy was controversial from the start — but the initial focus was solely on the conservative views held by the married father of two.

His ascent to the Supreme Court was thrown into doubt last week after university research psychologist Christine Blasey Ford testified that he had sexually assaulted her at a Washington area gathering in the early 1980s.

The brutal hearing sparked a supplemental FBI dive into Kavanaugh’s background and a weeklong delay of the Senate vote.

While many Republicans said they were satisfied with the FBI probe, Democrats and Blasey Ford’s lawyers called the investigation insufficient.

‘Praying for the country’

Kavanaugh’s nomination seals a conservative majority on the nine-seat high court, possibly for decades to come.

Hundreds of protesters were arrested on Capitol Hill this week — including several dozen in the hours leading to the final vote.

Authorities took the rare step of putting up low metal fencing around the Capitol, keeping the public some distance from the building. But protesters overran the barricades and defiantly claimed the Capitol steps.

After the confirmation, activists gathered in their hundreds on the steps of the Supreme Court, chanting slogans and banging on its closed front doors.

Senator Lisa Murkowski, the only Republican to oppose Kavanaugh, said it was time for the Senate — and Americans — to “heal” after such a divisive few weeks.

She acknowledged the anguish of the protesters who interrupted the historic Senate vote, telling reporters afterward that “I was closing my eyes and praying. Praying for them, praying for us and praying for the country.”

2018 Midterm Voters: Issues and Political Values – Huge partisan divides on health care, immigration, U.S. global role

Supporters of Republican and Democratic candidates in the upcoming congressional election are deeply divided over the government’s role in ensuring health care, the fairness of the nation’s economic system and views of racial equality in the United States.

And these disagreements extend to how the U.S. should approach allies and whether or not other countries “often take advantage of the United States.”

The latest national survey by Pew Research Center, conducted Sept. 18-24 among 1,754 adults, including 1,439 registered voters, finds wide differences in the views of Republican and Democratic voters across 13 different issues and policy areas, though the size of the partisan gaps vary.

An overwhelming majority of registered voters who support Democratic candidates for Congress this November (85%) say that it is the responsibility of the federal government to make sure all Americans have health care coverage. In contrast, only a quarter of Republican voters (24%) say this is the government’s responsibility, while nearly three times as many (73%) say it is not. (For more on Americans’ views of the government’s role in providing health care, see “Most continue to say health care coverage is government’s responsibility”.)

The partisan gaps on many of these values and issues are in line with those seen in previous Pew Research Center reports, including in last year’s major report on trends in the public’s political values. That study found that the partisan gaps across a number of political values – especially on race and immigration – have widened over the past decade. In the new survey, 85% of Democratic voters say the country needs to continue to make changes to give blacks equal rights with whites, compared with 29% of Republican voters.

There also are significant gaps on views of whether abortion should be legal, the factors that make people rich and poor and the fairness of the U.S. economic system.

Two specific Trump-era policies – increased tariffs between the U.S. and its trading partners, and the 2017 tax bill – are viewed much more positively by GOP voters than by Democratic voters. Overall views of the tax law remain largely unchanged from early this year: In the new survey, 78% of voters who support the GOP candidate in their district approve of the tax law, compared with just 11% of Democrats.

And the partisan differences are about as wide in views of the Trump administration’s decision to increase tariffs on imported goods from a number of countries. Nearly three-quarters of GOP voters (72%) say increased tariffs will be good for the United States, about five times the share of Democratic voters who support higher tariffs (14%).

Looking at voters’ priorities for immigration policy, there is some common ground among partisans. When asked whether the policy priority should be “creating a way for immigrants already here illegally to become citizens if they meet certain requirements,” or “better border security and stronger enforcement of our immigration laws” – or whether both should be given equal priority – nearly half of Republican voters (48%) and about as many Democratic voters (45%) say both should be given equal priority.

Still, far more Democratic voters (49%) than Republican voters (11%) say the priority should be on creating a way for those in the U.S. illegally to become citizens if they meet certain conditions. By contrast, far more Republican voters (39%) than Democratic voters (5%) say the focus should be on better border security and enforcement.

(For more on how voters view the importance of immigration, health care, taxes, trade and other issues, see “Voter Enthusiasm at Record High in Nationalized Midterm Environment.”)

Shifting priorities for dealing with illegal immigration

Since 2016, the share of adults in the general public who say border security should take priority over creating a way for those in the country illegally to become citizens has decreased. Two years ago, about a quarter (24%) said stronger law enforcement should be the priority for dealing with illegal immigration. Today, about two-in-ten (19%) say this.

During that same period, the share who prioritize creating a pathway for illegal immigrants to gain citizenship has increased modestly – from 29% in 2016 to 33%.

A plurality (46%) continue to say that both of these should be given equal priority.

Today, significantly more Republicans say both border security and legal pathway should be given equal priority (48%) than say the priority should be border security (38%), a shift from recent years.

About half of Democrats and Democratic leaners (51%) now say creating a way for immigrants who are currently here illegally to become citizens should be prioritized – the largest share saying this since the question was first asked in August 2010; 43% say border security and a pathway to citizenship should be given equal priority. Just 5% say border security should take the higher priority.

There are large demographic differences within the general public on priorities in dealing with illegal immigration.

Women are much more likely to prioritize a legal pathway to citizenship than men (40% to 27%).

Though a plurality of whites say both should be equally prioritized, whites (23%) are far more likely than blacks (6%) and Hispanics (9%) to say better border security should take priority.

About half of Hispanics (47%) say a pathway for legal citizenship should be the priority, while 43% say both should be equally prioritized. Among blacks, 53% say both should be equal priorities, while 37% say the priority should be creating a way for those in the country illegally to become citizens.

Republicans are more likely than Democrats to prioritize stronger law enforcement, while Democrats are more likely to prioritize a path to citizenship for those currently in the U.S. illegally.

Americans’ views of relationships with other nations

A majority of Americans (55%) continue to say that the U.S. should take into account the interests of its allies in foreign policy, even if it means making compromises with them. Fewer say the U.S. should follow its own national interests, even when its allies strongly disagree (38%).

Since 2017, the public has become slightly less likely to say compromising with allies is preferable (59% then, 55% now). This downtick is also more in line with opinions measured in years prior to 2017.

As was true a year ago, Republican and Democratic views differ. Currently, a 38-percentage-point gap separates partisans on whether the U.S. should take into account the interests of allies – one of the largest partisan gaps measured in the past 15 years.

On balance, more adults say that other countries often take unfair advantage of the U.S. (51%) than say that other countries treat the U.S. about as fairly as we treat them (42%). In the 1990s, Americans were much more likely to view other countries’ treatment of the U.S. as unfair than they are today.

When the question was last asked nearly two decades ago, 70% said that other countries take advantage of the U.S. while just 24% said that other countries treat the U.S. with mutual fairness.

These changes are largely attributable to a shift in views among Democrats and Democratic leaners. In 1999, about two-thirds of Democrats (68%) said other countries often take unfair advantage of the U.S.; just 28% say that today. By comparison, 80% of Republicans now say that other countries take unfair advantage (up from 73% in September 1999). As a result, today there is a wide divide between Republicans and Democrats in these views, when there had been little partisan difference in the 1990s.

Among both parties, there are ideological divisions in these views. Conservative Republicans are more likely than moderate and liberal Republicans to say there is unfair treatment (85% to 67%, respectively). Liberal Democrats are more likely than conservative or moderate Democrats to say other countries treat the U.S. fairly (75% vs. 57%).

Opinions on tariffs, tax bill little changed

Overall, the public continues to say that increased tariffs between the U.S. and its trading partners – first imposed by the Trump administration earlier this year – will be bad for the country.

In July, roughly half of the public said they thought increased tariffs would be bad for the U.S. Today, a similar share also says this (53%).

Partisans continue to hold opposing views on this policy; 70% of Republicans say they think tariffs will be good for the U.S. Conversely, nearly eight-in-ten Democrats (79%) say they will be bad for the U.S.

Nine months after passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, views of the sweeping tax law are little changed. More say they disapprove (46%) rather than approve (36%) of the law; about two-in-ten adults (18%) do not offer an opinion either way.

Americans with family incomes of $75,000 or continue to more offer more positive views of the law than those with lower incomes. Among Americans with annual family incomes of less than $75,000, the balance of opinion is negative (48% disapprove, 31% approve), while views of those with higher incomes are more divided (49% approve, 41% disapprove).

Partisan views of the bill are also similar to those measured just after its passage: 72% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents say they approve of the tax legislation, compared with just 12% of Democrats and Democratic leaners.

Republicans are somewhat divided along ideological lines. A 79% majority of conservative Republicans say they approve of the bill, while a narrower majority (61%) of moderate or liberal Republicans say the same. Among Democrats, there are no significant differences in these views by ideology.

India joins G-4 countries in call to UNSC reform

India and other G-4 countries have reaffirmed the need for an early reform of the UN Security Council, including the expansion of both the permanent and non-permanent categories of membership, to enhance the world body’s legitimacy, effectiveness, and representation.

The current composition of the Security Council does not reflect the changed global realities and a reform was essential to address today’s complex challenges, they said in a statement adopted at the end of their meeting in New York on the margins of the UN General Assembly.

The meeting held in New York on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly on Tuesday, September 25th, hosted by External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj, was attended by Brazil Foreign Minister Aloysio Nunes Ferreira, German Foreign minister Heiko Maas, and Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Kono.

Hours after U.S President Donald Trump pilloried multilateralism in this address to the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), the meeting called by India declared: “The G-4 Ministers reaffirmed their commitment to multilateralism. G-4 Ministers stressed that adapting the United Nations to the contemporary needs of the 21st century necessarily required reforming the Security Council.”

Given the American disinterest in the UN and other multilateral bodies, China, one of the five permanent members of the UNSC, has slowed down the move to expand the body, according to diplomats tracking the process. The U.S. has no active opposition to the demand of these four countries to be included as permanent members of the UNSC, but the Trump administration has taken a benign approach to the reform.

In his speech, Trump attacked the UN Human Rights Council and the International Criminal Court. “America is governed by Americans. We reject the ideology of globalism, and we embrace the doctrine of patriotism,” Trump said in the speech that made sweeping accusations against multilateral institutions.

G-4 ministers noted that despite an overwhelming majority of UN member states supporting Security Council reform, the negotiations launched in 2009 have not produced substantive progress over the 10 years. “The G-4 Ministers emphasized the need to revitalize process of the Security Council reform, and they tasked their respective officials to consider the way forward to advance the reform,” the statement said.

While there is no active American support for reform Trump’s call for other countries to step up and share the responsibility of managing the UN might support the reform, even in the face of active Chinese opposition, according to an official. Germany and Japan contribute one fifth of the UN budget while the four countries together have one fifth of the world population. The ministers agreed that the “current composition of the UNSC does not reflect the changed global realities and they stressed that Security Council reform is essential to address today’s complex challenges.” They “reiterated their commitment to work to strengthen the functioning of the UN and the global multilateral order as well as their support for each other’s candidatures,” the statement said.

They reiterated their commitment to working with other countries to realise the shared vision of the overwhelming majority supporting the initiation of text-based negotiations in a democratic and transparent manner. In this regard, the ministers recalled the rules and procedures of the General Assembly and reiterated that the world body takes its decisions in a spirit of compromise and through the methods laid out in the UN Charter.

The Ministers emphasized that the G-4 would intensify dialogue with other member states, especially like-minded countries and groups, to achieve meaningful progress in the upcoming Inter-Governmental Negotiations (IGN) session.

Rejecting Globalism, President Trump takes ‘America First’ to the United Nations

On September 25, 2018, President Trump delivered his second address to the United Nations General Assembly. The speech was highly anticipated in light of President Trump’s often skeptical view of international institutions and multilateral cooperation, as well as recent tensions over U.S.-China trade, the future of the Iran nuclear deal and talks with North Korea, rhetorical spars with U.S. allies in Europe and elsewhere, and more.

“We will never surrender America’s sovereignty to an unelected, unaccountable, global bureaucracy,” U.S. President Donald Trump declared this week in his second UN General Assembly speech on September 25th. “America is governed by Americans.”

“We reject globalism and embrace the doctrine of patriotism,” Trump said in a clear rejection of the half-century old international institutions that emerged from the devastation of World War II. It was a declaration of the supremacy of sovereignty, and the idea that all nations should embrace their own versions of his “America First” foreign policy approach.

Trump was hardly the first U.S. president to make the point. George H. W. Bush put it positively in his 1991 address to the General Assembly, seeing international institutions as an asset in service of an international order “in which no nation must surrender one iota of its own sovereignty.” George W. Bush had a UN ambassador—John Bolton, now Trump’s national security adviser—famous for his fierce defense of sovereignty.

Trump’s speech went around the globe reprimanding ungrateful allies, lambasting so called bad trade deals and criticizing other agreements that enabled the world to take advantage of America. “The U.S. will always choose independence and cooperation over global governance, control and domination,” he said, defending his Administration’s retreat from U.N. organizations like the International Criminal Court, Human Rights Council and a global compact on migration.

Two weeks earlier, when John Bolton announced that Washington would “use any means necessary” to push back against the International Criminal Court, the body mandated by most of the international community to prosecute genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. It was initially intended to act as a “court of last resort,” to step in when nations’ legal systems fail. To Bolton, and now Trump, the court is a challenge to its constitutional authority.

In another shake-up from longstanding U.S. policy, and one that appeals to Bolton, Trump said his Administration intends to take a “hard look” at U.S. foreign assistance, particularly to nations that don’t act in U.S. interests. “Moving forward, we are only going to give foreign aid to those who respect us and, frankly, are our friends,” he said. “And we expect other countries to pay their fair share for the cost of their defense.”

Trump believes that international collaboration has resulted in the U.S. being swindled. For decades, he said, the United States opened its economy with few conditions, allowing foreign goods from all over the world to flow freely across U.S. borders. Other countries did not grant that same access.

“We will no longer allow our workers to be victimized, our companies to be cheated and our wealth to be plundered and transferred,” Trump said, detailing his rationale to slap China with another $200 billion in import tariffs with a promise to implement more, should Beijing retaliate. “The United States will not be taken advantage of any longer.”

Western allies have not embraced the message of sovereignty, which has traditionally been pushed by states like Russia, China, Iran and North Korea as a self-defense tactic. U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres, called on the international community to come together to help repair the broken trust. “Our future rests on solidarity,” he said. “We must reinvigorate our multilateral project.”

Sushma Swaraj calls for end to conflicts during UN address

India’s External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj has called on world leaders at a peace summit at the UN General Assembly to work to end “conflicts, terror and hateful ideologies that are transcending borders”.

In her address on Monday last week, Swaraj named no country or entity but the call against terror has been a continuing and pressing theme for India at the global forum, as the world’s third-most affected country.

She had a busy week at the UN, as she arrived to join the General Assembly debate, holding nine bilateral meetings with counterparts from across the world, including Australia, Spain and Nepal.

“Our world is still beset with conflicts, terror and hateful ideologies that are transcending borders and impacting our lives,” Swaraj said at the Nelson Mandela Peace Summit on Monday. “No one should be allowed to support terror or its perpetration.”

India has been at the forefront at the UN to call for an end to terrorism, and especially to prevent member nations from supporting terror and terrorist organizations as a tool of foreign policy. Joined by the US, Britain and France, India has been trying in recent years to persuade a committee appointed by the UN Security Council to designate Masood Azhar, the head of Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), as a global terrorist to prevent him travelling abroad and to force member nations to freeze his assets and deny him access to weapons.

Batting for Pakistan, where elements support and fund the JeM, China has repeatedly blocked these efforts.

“Our collective survival as a global family requires that the wisdom of pioneering leaders such as Mandela should remain as our moral compass,” Swaraj said at the summit. “We, Indians, consider Madiba (Mandela’s clan name used as a sign of respect) to be one of our own. We are proud to call him a Bharat Ratna — a Jewel of India.”

Among Swaraj’s bilateral meetings was one with foreign minister Marise Payne of Australia, a member of the Quadrilateral security dialogue. The Quad is a group of four nations with the US and Japan that is committed to a free and open Indo-Pacific region.

“Strategic partnership gaining momentum!” external affairs ministry spokesperson Raveesh Kumar tweeted about the meeting. “Continuing our frequent engagement at the highest level.”

Sushma Swaraj says India ready to take lead on climate action

The themes at the United Nations General Assembly have been varied, but what’s been the main theme at the U.N. General Assembly this year? It’s multilateralism – whether to work closely together or go it alone as nations. In speech after speech pretty much everyone has been talking about it.

While the US has been pushing to end globalism, India has declared that as a firm believer in multilateralism, it was ready to take the lead on climate action. “The world needs a roadmap for finance and technology to achieve the goals set out in the Convention and its Paris Agreement in everyone’s collective interest,” External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj said at a high-level meeting on climate change here on Wednesday.

As an example of India’s leadership, she cited the International Solar Alliance (ISA). Already 68 countries have signed on to the program launched with France that aims to mobilize technology and finance to lower unit costs, she said.

India looks forward to welcoming Secretary-General Antonio Guterres to the first General Assembly of the ISA next week in New Delhi, she said. “Our commitment to combat climate change is rooted in our ethos, which considers Earth as Mother.”

Explaining India’s heritage, Sushma Swaraj said that ancient Indian tradition conceives the cosmos to comprise five basic elements, the panchbhutas, which are space, air, water, earth, and fire. “Trouble begins when the equilibrium (among them) is disturbed. From atmosphere to oceans our actions are leading us to unchartered territories with possibly disastrous consequences.”

For its part to fight climate change, she said India has set a target of generating 175 gigawatts of solar and wind energy by 2022 and has installed over 300 million LED bulbs saving $2 billion and 4 GW of electricity.

India is planning to reduce emission intensity of our GDP by 25 per cent over the 2005 levels by 2020 and by 33-35 per cent by 2030, she added.

At the meeting convened by Guterres on the sidelines of the General Assembly session, Sushma Swaraj was seated next to Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi and they were seen engaged in informal chats.

U.N. General Assembly Kicks Off With Strong Words and Ambitious Goals

UNITED NATIONS, Sep 25 2018 (IPS) – In honour of Nobel Peace Laureate Nelson Mandela’s legacy, nations from around the world convened to adopt a declaration recommitting to goals of building a just, peaceful, and fair world.
At the Nelson Mandela Peace Summit, aptly held in the year of the former South African leader’s 100th birthday, world leaders reflected on global peace and acknowledged that the international community is off-track as human rights continues to be under attack globally.
“The United Nations finds itself at a time where it would be well-served to revisit and reconnect to the vision of its founders, as well as to take direction from Madiba’s “servant leadership” and courage,” said Mandela’s widow, and co-founder of the Elders, Graça Machel. The Elders, a grouping of independent global leaders workers for world peace and human rights, was founded by Machel and Mandela in 2007.
Secretary-general Antonio Guterres echoed similar sentiments in his opening remarks, stating: “Nelson Mandela was one of humanity’s great leaders….today, with human rights under growing pressure around the world, we would be well served by reflecting on the example of this outstanding man.”
Imprisoned in South Africa for almost 30 years for his anti-apartheid activism, Mandela, also known by his clan name Madiba, has been revered as a symbol of peace, democracy, and human rights worldwide.
In his inaugural address to the U.N. General Assembly in 1994 after becoming the country’s first black president, Mandela noted that the great challenge to the U.N. is to answer the question of “what it is that we can and must do to ensure that democracy, peace, and prosperity prevail everywhere.”
It is these goals along with his qualities of “humility, forgiveness, and compassion” that the political declaration adopted during the Summit aims to uphold.
However, talk along of such principles is not enough, said Amnesty International’s Secretary-General Kumi Naidoo.
“These are words that get repeated time and time again without the political will, urgency, determination, and courage to make them a reality, to make them really count. But we must make them count. Not tomorrow, but right now,” he said to world leaders.
“Without action, without strong and principled leadership, I fear for them. I fear for all of us,” Naidoo continued.
Both Machel and Naidoo urged the international community to not turn away from violence and suffering around the world including in Myanmar.
“Our collective consciousness must reject the lethargy that has made us accustomed to death and violence as if wars are legitimate and somehow impossible to terminate,” Machel said.
Recently, a U.N.-fact finding mission, which reported on gross human rights violations committed against the Rohingya people including mass killings, sexual slavery, and torture, has called for the country’s military leaders to be investigated and protected for genocide and crimes against humanity by the International Criminal Court (ICC).
While the ICC has launched a preliminary investigation and the U.N. was granted access to a select number of Rohingya refugees, Myanmar’s army chief General Min Aung Hlaing warned against foreign interference ahead of the General Assembly.
Since violence reignited in the country’s Rakhine State in August 2017, more than 700,000 Rohingya fled to neighbouring Bangladesh.
Still some remain within the country without the freedom to move or access basic services such as health care.
Naidoo warned the international community “not to adjust to the Rohingya population living in an open-air prison under a system of apartheid.”
This year’s U.N. General Assembly president Maria Fernanda Espinosa Garces of Ecuador said that while Mandela represents “a light of hope,” there are still concerns about collective action to resolve some of the world’s most pressing issues.
“Drifting away from multilateralism means jeopardising the future of our species and our planet. The world needs a social contract based on shared responsibility, and the only forum that we have to achieve this global compact is the United Nations,” she said.
Others were a little more direct about who has turned away from such multilateralism.
“Great statesmen tend to build bridges instead of walls,” said Iranian president Hassan Rouhani, taking a swipe at U.S. president Trump who pulled the country of the Iran nuclear deal and has continued his campaign to build a wall along the Mexico border.
Trump, who will be making his second appearance at the General Assembly, is expected to renew his commitment to the “America First” approach.
Naidoo made similar comments in relation to the U.S. president in his remarks on urging action on climate change.
“To the one leader who still denies climate change: we insist you start putting yourself on the right side of history,” he told attendees.
Trump, however, was not present to hear the leaders’ input as he instead attended a high-level event on counter narcotics.
Guterres highlighted the need to “face the forces that threaten us with the wisdom, courage and fortitude that Nelson Mandela embodied” so that people everywhere can enjoy peace and prosperity.
Machel urged against partisan politics and the preservation of ego, saying “enough is enough.”
“History will judge you should you stagnate too long in inaction. Humankind will hold you accountable should you allow suffering to continue on your watch,” she said.
“It is in your hands to make a better world for all who live in it,” Machel concluded with Mandela’s words.
The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the U.N. awarded Machel an honorary membership of its Nobel Peace Laureates Alliance for Food Security and Peace in recognition of her late husband’s struggle for freedom and peace.
“It is an honour for us to have her as a member of the Alliance. In a world where hunger continues to increase due to conflicts, her advocacy for peace will be very important,” FAO director general José Graziano da Silva said.
In addition to honouring the centenary of the birth of Nelson Mandela, the Summit also marks the 70th Anniversary of the Declaration of Human Rights and the 20th Anniversary of the Rome Statute which established the ICC.

“I love India, give my regards to my friend PM Narendra Modi:” Donald Trump greets Sushma Swaraj

United States President Donald Trump on Monday, September 24, 2018 exchanged pleasantries with External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj and asked her to “give regards” from his end to Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Both Trump and Swaraj interacted during a high-level event on counter-narcotics hosted by the US President at the United Nations on Monday. As Trump left the podium at the conclusion of the event, US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley warmly hugged Swaraj and introduced her to the president.

When Swaraj told the US president that she has brought greetings from Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Trump responded, “I love India, give my regards to my friend PM Modi,” Indian diplomatic sources told PTI.  Swaraj attended the Global Call to Action on the World Drug Problem chaired by Trump as the high-level week of the 73rd Session of the UN General Assembly began here.

The India-US cooperation is poised to enter a new phase with the United States of America having moved India up into tier-1 of the “Strategic Trade Authorisation” for unlicensed export of sensitive Defence items to India. This is generally reserved for western countries and key allies. Exception for India is, without doubt, a strong political statement by the US and India’s recognition as its major strategic and Defense partner. Clearly, new dynamics are emerging in our bilateral relations. Recent approval by the US for supply of armed Sea Guardian drones to India — which were hitherto sold only to NATO countries — also needs to be seen in that light.

India and the US are the leading democracies in the world. If one traces the evolution of relationship between the two countries at the people’s level, which is important given our democratic traditions, one finds growing resonance and positivity. Almost everyone in India admires the great values of liberty, enterprise and freedom in the US and aspires to send his children there to study and work. There is also considerable goodwill in the US towards India; according to the gallop poll last year, 74 per cent people in the US are favorably disposed towards India.

Ties between the countries too remain somewhat awkward, marked by periods of intense engagement with the promise of elevating relations to a new height – the Trump administration’s National Security Strategy called India a “leading global power”, not the “regional power” it was under President Barack Obama.

More recently, there has been a marked uptick in economic frictions, with Trump’s sharp rhetoric and protectionist measures, including tariffs on steel and aluminium, that have added to a long list of differences over market access and intellectual property rights.

There is also the threat of “secondary sanctions” that could curtail India’s ability to buy oil from Iran, its third largest supplier, and weapons such as the S-400 air defence systems from Russia, a long-time and trusted supplier of military hardware (though there is understanding of India’s concerns on this).

Michael Kugelman, a South Asia expert with Wilson Center, said, “Despite the tensions of recent days, the relationship will be fine. There’s plenty of goodwill and trust to see it through the bumps in the road.”

Sujata Gadkar-Wilcox, a Democratic Party Candidate for CT Assembly Seat “The time is now to take responsibility for getting our state back on the right path.”

 “For too long we have allowed our representatives in Hartford to finger-point and leave messes for others to clean up,” Sujata Gadkar-Wilcox, a Democratic Party candidate, for the 123rd District seat in the state House of Representatives, said during a Greet & Meet event in Trumbull on Thursday, September 20th, 2018. “The time is now to take responsibility for getting our state back on the right path.” Gadkar-Wilcox said her platform will be based on creating a new kind of politics.

Gadkar-Wilcox, an Indian American, is pitted against incumbent David Rutigliano, a Republican in the November 6th elections. Rutigliano has held the seat since 2012.

The Meet & Greet was organized by the Global Organization of Indian Origin (GOPIO) Connecticut Chapter. Dr. Thomas Abraham, Chairman of GOPIO International provided an overall view of GOPIO and how GOPIO works closely with local communities in responding to local needs. Describing some of the programs GOPIO-CT initiates, Abraham said, GOPIO members serve in local soup kitchens, do walkathons to support cancer patients, and jointly celebrate Diwali and India’s Independence Day with the members of multiple Indian groups in our community

Anita Bhat, President of GOPIO-CT Chapter,  described the many flagship events the organization organizes every year. “Our mission at GOPIO-CT is to be active participants in the local community through involvement in community events and local politics, and by providing services to the Indian community at large here in Connecticut. This lofty goal of providing services and a political voice to the local Indian population has evolved into an exemplary community service organization thanks to the tremendous support of our local Indian community. We lack a voice for Indian Americans in the United States. We need a stronger voice. And we are here to support Sujata in her efforts to represent us in the CT Assembly,” declared Anita Bhat.

Sujata Gadkar-Wilcox, a Democratic Party Candidate for CT Assembly Seat “The time is now to take responsibility for getting our state back on the right path.”Trumbull First Selectman Vicki Tesoro said she was “thrilled” to hear she was running, and calling her “passionate about doing what is right for others.” Tesoro shared with the audience  of her commitment to implementing her vision of a more positive, transparent, and inclusive government in Trumbull that listens to the voices of its citizens. Earlier, Tesoro was introduced to the audience by Ajay Ghosh, a Trumbull resident and the Chief Editor of The Universal News Network, and The Asian Era.

Gadkar-Wilcox, an associate professor at Quinnipiac where she teaches Constitutional law and human rights, spoke passionately about how she plans to represent the entire population in Trumbull that is fast growing and diverse.

Gadkar-Wilcox said she was running out of concern for the “contentious and divided” political environment. “The time is now to take responsibility for getting our state back on the right path,” she said. “We have an obligation to ensure that our children enjoy quality public education, preparing them to be innovators and problem solvers. We must find sustainable solutions to manage our budget while not imposing an undue burden on our residents. We must responsibly invest in upgrading our infrastructure, which is the economic lifeline to our state.”

A Trumbull resident for 13 years, Gadkar-Wilcox said she hoped to create a new kind of politics that would work for everyone. “I hope to earn your support so that I may carry your voice to Hartford, working to ensure that you are not only able to thrive, but that Connecticut remains the place you are proud to call home,” she said. “As we move towards election day in November, I will work to earn your trust (and your vote) by listening to your concerns and sharing my vision for a new kind of politics.”

Sujata is a Professor of Constitutional, Comparative and Human Rights Law. She was honored to receive a Fulbright-Nehru Award to support her research on the framework of the Indian Constitution. She also is a former director of juvenile law at Family Services in Westchester where she worked to train attorneys and law students in violence and delinquency prevention programs.

She was awarded the prestigious William Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board, which enabled her to travel to India during the 2015-2016 academic year to continue her research on the framework of the Indian Constitution.

“I am delighted to be selected for a Fulbright-Nehru grant to continue my research,” Gadkar-Wilcox said. “My interest in understanding the pluralism informing the drafting of the Indian Constitution relates to my own experience of being raised in the United States by immigrant parents who instilled in us an appreciation and understanding of our own Indian cultural heritage. The process of operating in overlapping cultural spaces has always enabled me to approach issues from a different vantage point, which is what I see in the drafting of the Indian Constitution as well.”

“Both of my parents were born in India, and I was inspired as a young adult by my grandfather’s stories of his presence at Mahatma Gandhi’s ‘Quit India’ speech, his involvement in pro-Congress Party student protests, and his admiration for B.R. Ambedkar, both as a Maharashtrian and as an advocate for dalit “untouchables.” These led me to be intrigued by the issues of constitutional change at the time of India’s independence.

In 2017, Sujata received the James Marshall Award for Service to the Quinnipiac community. She serves as a faculty fellow with the Albert Schweitzer Institute, is a member of the Oxford Consortium for Human Rights and is a Carnegie New Leader with the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs. Sujata, her husband Wynn, and their two daughters live in Trumbull, CT.

America is richer than ever but most Americans aren’t

Americans are richer than ever. The stock market closed at a record high on Thursday. Filings for unemployment benefits just fell to a 48-year low. Consumer confidence is soaring. The poverty rate is extending a three-year slide, A Washington Post story stated last week.

The income disparity between the classes is growing, as advances by upper-income households outpace those of the middle and lower tiers. Earnings by the typical American household remain mired around where they were before the recession. Wages are inching up, despite a tight labor market, and inflation is all but wiping out those gains.

It’s a tale of two economies. The strength reflected in the headline numbers remains the GOP’s best defense against a midterm wipeout. But lurking just beneath them are reminders that the recovery remains patchy, and its gains have been unevenly distributed, The daily published from the nation’s capital, reported.

Bank of America Merrill Lynch points out that, like income, wealth in the United States is held by a declining percentage of the population. In 1992, 54% of all financial wealth was held by the top 10% of earners; today 63% is. The latest numbers from Gallup show that just 52% of Americans own stocks — the lowest percentage on record — down from 65% in 2007.

According to Market Watch, average annual earnings for people in their prime working years (ages 25 to 54) increased 30.2% after inflation between 1979 and 2016, based on an analysis of data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics by the Economic Policy Institute, a nonprofit think tank that advocates for low-to-moderate income Americans. For the most part, however, that growth isn’t a reflection of higher hourly wages — instead it’s an indication that people are working more hours, researchers found.

For the bottom fifth of earners, an increase in wages only accounted for 25% of annual earnings growth, compared with 88% of earnings growth for the top fifth, or richest, earners.

Altogether, prime-age adults worked 7.8% more hours per year in 2016 than they did in 1979. But workers in the bottom fifth in terms of annual earnings upped their hours by 24.3% over that time span, compared with just a 3.6% uptick among top earners. People in the middle-class in terms of wages increased their hours by 9.4%.

The high-flying stock market, combined with a steady recovery in home prices during the last several years, has pushed total household net worth in the United States to about $95 trillion — nearly $30 trillion more than before the last recession began in 2007. As a percentage of disposable income, household net worth just hit a new peak, which means that wealth in the United States relative to the size of the population is now at the highest level on record. We’re rich!

These 7 Products May Cost You More After Trump Escalated His Trade War With China

President Trump’s controversial trade war with China is heating up. That means consumers may soon have to pay more for goods ranging from furniture to electronics to food and clothing.

It started on Monday, when the Trump administration announced new tariffs of 10% on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods that will go into effect on Sept. 24 and climb to 25% by Jan. 1. The latest round of tariffs means that nearly half of all Chinese imports into the U.S. will soon face levies.

Beijing retaliated on Tuesday with tariffs on $60 billion of U.S. goods, prompting Trump to up the ante yet again, renewing a threat to slap taxes on another $267 billion of Chinese products. Including an initial $50 billion round of tariffs that went into effect over the summer, Trump has enacted or threatened to tax more than $500 billion worth of Chinese goods.

“That’s going to hit the pocketbook of every American family in 2019,” says David French, senior vice-president for government relations at the National Retail Federation, a trade group.

The latest round of levies includes all but 300 items originally proposed by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative before it held a public comment period over the summer.

Some politically sensitive products were able to dodge the new tariff. Apple gadgets, whose prices are widely followed by the tech press were left off the list, as were goods like bicycle helmets and child safety seats.

Here are the products that will cost you more:

  1. Home Décor and Appliances

Tariffs will hit numerous home appliances, including refrigerators, vacuum cleaners and cooking appliances like plate warmers. Home decor such as lamps and lighting parts as well as wooden furniture, including baby cribs, have also been targeted. Overall prices for furniture are likely to increase 2% to 4%, according to a NRF report, as manufactures eat part of the new tax and pass part on to consumers.

  1. Electronics

While some popular Apple devices were spared, other telecommunications and computer equipment were targeted, including so-called connected devices like modems, internet routers, and smart speakers. A recent Consumer Technology Association study estimated that tariffs on circuit board assemblies and connected devices could result in price increases of as much as 6%, costing overall American shoppers up to $3.2 billion extra each year.

  1. Clothing

Certain types of hats, as well as furs, and many popular clothing fabrics fall under the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative’s Sept. 18 list. Given the already tight profit margins on low-end clothing, this could be one of the first product categories to see price increases, says Simon Lester, associate director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the CATO Institute.

  1. Travel Goods

Products like backpacks, luggage, wallets, phone cases, handbags, and similar items are included and could see prices increase by 5% to 10%, according to the NRF report.

  1. Food & Beverages

Fruits, nuts, grains, flours, vegetables, and other products like soy sauce, will all face new taxes. The tariffs could notably increase prices for seafood, since they already have low margins. Seafood company Chicken of the Sea “cannot absorb the costs of tariffs and must pass them on to consumers,” Chief Executiv Auto parts

  1. Auto & Parts

The new tariffs target more than 100 different auto parts, according to the Detroit Free Press. “Raising the prices of vehicles is a real concern,” Republican Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder told the media.

  1. Paper, Personal Care Products, and Just About Everything Else

Personal care and beauty products (make-up, shampoo) are also on the list. Other assorted items – dog leashes, calculators, sporting goods, paper, and pet products are all covered in the latest round of tariffs too.

UN Expects More Upheavals as Trump’s Foreign Policy Runs Wild

The unpredictable Donald Trump, described by some as a human wrecking ball, will be walking down his own path of self-inflicted destruction when he visits the United Nations next week.

The volatile American president’s unorthodox and reckless foreign policy has already reverberated throughout the United Nations: a $300 million reduction in funding to the UN Relief Works Agency (UNRWA) aiding Palestinians and a $69 million cut in funding, since last year, for the UN Population Agency (UNFPA), advancing reproductive health.

And there is widespread speculation that the United States will also initiate a General Assembly resolution later this year to reduce its assessed contributions to the world body – currently at 22 percent of the annual budget.

But that resolution may be adopted by the 193-member General Assembly if the US resorts to strong-arm tactics — as US Ambassador Nikki Haley once threatened to “take down names” and cut American aid to countries that voted for a resolution condemning US recognition of Jerusalem as the new Israeli capital.

Making his second visit to the United Nations on September 25 to address the 73rd session of the General Assembly and later to preside over a Security Council meeting, Trump is known to hold the UN in contempt ever since he called for the renegotiation of the 2015 Climate Change agreement which has been signed by 195 countries and ratified by 180.

In May, Trump also withdrew from the 2015 Iranian nuclear deal – the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)– while all other signatories, including France, UK, Russia and China, (four of the five permanent members of the Security Council), plus Germany and the European Union (EU), refused to follow his destructive path.

And he once denounced the UN as just another “social club” – a remark made through sheer ignorance than a well-thought-out diplomatic pronouncement.

The world body is expecting more upheavals from an erratic political leader who has kept the international community guessing – not excluding the United Nations.

Norman Solomon, Executive Director of the Washington-based Institute for Public Accuracy, told IPS: “The world is too large, too diverse and too wondrous to have the foremost world body held hostage by the United States government. Trump’s jingoistic arrogance has dragged powerful discourse to new lows at the United Nations”.

The madness of Donald Trump, he pointed out, is shocking on a daily basis, but his administration is an extreme manifestation of what the UN has all too often tolerated in previous times, in more “moderate” forms from Washington.

“The time has come — the time is overdue — for the United Nations to clearly distinguish its operational missions from destructive agendas of the U.S. government,” said Solomon, Co-Founder and Coordinator of the online activist group RootsAction.org, which has 1.4 million active online members.

Meanwhile, as part of his contempt for the international trading system, Trump has threatened to withdraw from the World Trade Organization (WTO) in Geneva as he continues to break trade agreements and impose unilateral tariffs.

Still, he has his adherents out there in Washington DC.

Stephen Moore, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, has proposed that Trump should receive the 2018 Nobel Prize in Economics, since the much-coveted Nobel Peace Prize is far beyond his reach.

Writing in Investor’s Business Daily last week, Moore said Trump’s economic achievements have been overshadowed by reports regarding his erratic and “dangerous” behavior.

As his foreign policy runs wild, Trump also broke political ranks with the rest of the world when he decided to unilaterally recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital in open violation of a Security Council resolution calling for the warring parties to decide on the future of the disputed city.

Trump triggered a global backlash last year when he singled out Haiti and African nations as “shithole countries” eliciting protests from the 55-member African Union (AU).

Trump has also come under fire for his insulting statements that “all Haitians have AIDS” and Nigerians who visit the US “would never go back to their huts.”

But running notoriously true to form, he has reversed himself again and again — and denied making any of these statements, despite credible evidence.

Mouin Rabbani, Senior Fellow at the Institute for Palestine Studies in Washington DC told IPS that speculating on what issues President Trump will address at the United Nations, and how he will conduct himself, is a difficult task.

“Virtually the only thing that can be said with certainty is that he will once again put on a display of breathtaking vulgarity, will spew falsehoods with abandon (in many cases, it must be said, without having a clue that he is doing so), and will for these reasons be celebrated for unprecedented acts of heroism by his American and Israeli supporters,” he added

If Trump sticks to the script drafted by his handlers, which he may or may not do, the United States is expected to focus on its attempts to isolate Iran, he noted.

“It’s an interesting choice, given that the JCPOA is an international treaty that has been ratified by the UN Security Council, that Iran has repeatedly been judged to be in compliance with its JCPOA obligations, and that the United States in unilaterally renouncing its obligations under this treaty stands in open, willful violation of both international law and its obligations to the world body,” he pointed out.

Last week National Security Adviser John Bolton told the Federalist Society in Washington DC the Trump administration will push hard against any investigations by the International Criminal Court (ICC) of US citizens (read: American soldiers accused of war crimes in Afghanistan) or allies (read: Israel accused of war crimes by the Palestinians) from “unjust prosecution by an illegitimate court.”

Meanwhile, Haley has already held out a threat on US funding for the UN when she said “We will remember it (the voting against the US) when we are called upon once again to make the world’s largest contribution (22 percent of the regular budget) to the United Nations”.

Solomon told IPS the U.S. government’s contempt for international law, humanitarian priorities and the United Nations as an institution has reached new overt heights during the Trump presidency.

“The destructive arrogance of Washington’s current policies, represented at the UN by Ambassador Nikki Haley, must be condemned and opposed.”

But governments should do more than directly push back against the dangerous militarism and implicit racism of the current U.S. administration. Members of the UN should also assess — and fundamentally change — the trajectory of the world body’s subservience to the U.S. government and its long-term consequences he noted.

During the last few decades, while several different individuals have been in the White House, the U.S. government has engaged in de facto bribery, blackmail and other devious methods to manipulate member states — sometimes using very heavy-handed tactics to induce members of the Security Council to endorse or at least not oppose the USA’s aggressive military actions and ongoing wars, said Solomon.

Most permanent and rotating members of the Security Council have too often served as silent partners, rubber stamps or outright complicit assistants to the U.S. government’s flagrant, destabilizing and deadly violations of international law.

Yet the undue efforts to go along with Washington’s policies during the last several decades have disfigured the noble ideals of the United Nations — all too often twisting them into rationalizations for enabling the United States to claim the UN’s acquiescence, he declared.

Rabbani told IPS “Perhaps more interesting than Trump’s ramblings at the General Assembly will be his presiding over a session of the UNSC, over which the US holds the presidency this month.”

Watching Trump preside over a UN Security Council session, which includes an obligation to respect its procedures etc. will be a sight to behold. It’s entirely possible that he will open the session with an offer to remodel the building on the basis of one of his special discounts, and request that his fellow UNSC members adopt a resolution to dismiss Special Counsel Robert Mueller, said Rabbani.

If he does stick to script, and insists on pursuing the Iran agenda, one can think of a number of UNSC members that will provide pointed responses to the US position, and these may include US allies as well.

There appears to be a growing realisation that the US agenda is not limited to individual objectives such as the destruction of the JCPOA or ensuring permanent Israeli supremacy over the Palestinian people, but rather has a core objective the dismantling of international institutions, particularly those concerned with international law, and replacing these with naked power, primarily US and Israeli, as the arbiter of international affairs.

This agenda, he said, also helps further explain recent funding decisions taken by Washington vis-a-vis UN institutions such as UNRWA, though there are clear ideological factors at play as well.

“If Trump does come in for serious criticism at the UN, and particularly the UNSC, we should expect Washington to take further measures to seek to marginalise, de-fund, and render impotent the world body and its various agencies.”

“What we recently witnessed with respect to UNRWA and the ICC may prove to be just a precursor to what is coming,” warned Rabbani. The writer can be contacted at thalifdeen@ips.org

Kamala Harris ranks No. 2 among 2020 Democrats to run against Trump

In less than two months, as the mid-term elections come to a close, the official launch of the 2020 Democratic presidential primary season will begin. Over a dozen prospective candidates will start making moves or even launching campaigns to challenge President Donald Trump.

According to a CNN report published on September 13th, Kamala Harris, the Senator from California ranks 2nd among the 10 potential aspirants to the White House among the Democrats. She comes after Sen. Elizabeth warren of MA among the 10 ranked by CNN. In June this year, The Washington Post ranked the Indian Origin Senator from the Golden State 3rd after Sen. Warren and Sen. Bernie sanders of Vermont.

The popular FiveThirtyEight.com wrote recently, “Sen. Kamala Harris has not officially said she is running in 2020, but she hasn’t denied it, either, and she’s showing many of the signs of someone who is preparing for a run, including campaigning for her Democratic colleagues in key races and signing a deal to write a book.”

Harris recently told MSNBC’s Kasie Hunt that she’s “not ruling out” a 2020 presidential run. But her actions may speak louder than her words. She was the first lawmaker to call for Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen to resign over the Trump administration’s family-separation policy. She has also somewhat recently written off accepting money from corporate PACs.

According to CNN, “ Harris clearly saw the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings as a chance to showcase her prosecutorial mettle. And like Booker, what you took from Harris’ performance during the hearings is likely determined by what you thought of her before the hearings. But if you are looking at what the 2018 primaries have taught us, it’s that a candidate with a profile like Harris’ — liberal record, the first Indian-American in the Senate and first black senator from California — could be just what Democratic primary voters are looking for.”

In 2017, Kamala D. Harris was sworn in as a United States Senator for California, the second African-American woman and first South Asian-American senator in history. She serves on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, the Select Committee on Intelligence, the Committee on the Judiciary, and the Committee on the Budget.

Kamala has spent her life fighting injustice. It’s a passion that was first inspired by her mother, Shyamala, an Indian-American immigrant, activist, and breast cancer researcher.

Growing up in Oakland, Kamala had a stroller-eye view of the Civil Rights movement. Through the example of courageous leaders like Thurgood Marshall, Constance Baker Motley, and Charles Hamilton Houston, Kamala learned the kind of character it requires to stand up to the powerful, and resolved to spend her life advocating for those who could not defend themselves.

After earning an undergraduate degree from Howard University and a law degree from the University of California, Hastings, she began her career in the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office.

In 2003, Kamala became the District Attorney of the City and County of San Francisco. Among her achievements as District Attorney, Harris started a program that gives first-time drug offenders the chance to earn a high school diploma and find employment.

Having completed two terms as the District Attorney of San Francisco, Kamala was elected as the first African-American and first woman to serve as California’s Attorney General. In this role, she worked tirelessly to hold corporations accountable and protect the state’s most vulnerable people.

Over the course of her nearly two terms in office, Kamala won a $25-billion settlement for California homeowners hit by the foreclosure crisis, defended California’s landmark climate change law, protected the Affordable Care Act, helped win marriage equality for all Californians, and prosecuted transnational gangs that trafficked in guns, drugs, and human beings.

In the United States Senate, Kamala’s mission remains unchanged: fighting for the rights of all communities in California. Since taking office, she has introduced and cosponsored legislation to raise wages for working people, reform our broken criminal justice system, make healthcare a right for all Americans, address the epidemic of substance abuse, support veterans and military families, and expand access to childcare for working parents.

Tharoor, a politician, diplomat & author launches 2 Books at DIAC Literary Event

(Dallas, TX – September 11, 2018) Dallas Indian Arts Collective (DIAC), in partnership with Teamwork Arts, proudly presents a Fireside Chat with Indian politician, diplomat and author, Dr. Shashi Tharoor, on Tuesday, September 18, 2018, from 6:30 to 8 p.m. at Center Stage, located at 111 Oak Lawn Avenue in the Design District. The conversation will be moderated by Sanjoy Roy, founder and producer of the world-renowned Jaipur Literature Festival.

Tickets are $50 and are available at www.diactexas.org. Both Tharoor & Roy will be available for one-on-one media interviews, upon request, from 5 to 6 p.m. Media RSVP toJitin@JingoMedia.com or 512.773.6679.

In a profound re-examination of Hinduism, one of the world’s oldest and greatest religious traditions, India’s leading public intellectual, Shashi Tharoor, lays out Hinduism’s origins and its key philosophical concepts, major texts and everyday Hindu beliefs and practices, from worship to pilgrimage to caste.

Tharoor is unsparing in his criticism of extremism and unequivocal in his belief that what makes India a distinctive nation with a unique culture will be imperiled if Hindu “fundamentalists”— the proponents of “Hindutva,” or politicized Hinduism—seize the high ground. In his view, it is precisely because Hindus form the majority that India has survived as a plural, secular democracy. A book that will be read and debated now and in the future, Why I Am a Hindu, written in Tharoor’s captivating prose, is a revelatory and original contribution to our understanding of the role of religion in society and politics.

PRAISE FOR WHY I AM A HINDU (available for pre-sale at the event):
“Shashi Tharoor is the most charming and persuasive writer in India. His new book is a brave and characteristically articulate attempt to save a great and wonderfully elusive religion from the certainties of the fundamentalists and the politicization of the bigots.”—William Dalrymple

“[O]ne of India’s most articulate liberals and a leading voice of those who reject the aggressively fundamentalist strains of Hindu nationalism.” —Victor Mallett, Financial Times. “A profound book on one of the world’s oldest and greatest religions.”—Hindustan Times

In the eighteenth century, India’s share of the world economy was as large as Europe’s. By 1947, after two centuries of British rule, it had decreased six-fold. Beyond conquest and deception, the Empire blew rebels from cannon, massacred unarmed protesters, entrenched institutionalized racism, and caused millions to die from starvation.

British imperialism justified itself as enlightened despotism for the benefit of the governed, but Shashi Tharoor takes on and demolishes this position, demonstrating how every supposed imperial “gift”— from the railways to the rule of law—was designed in Britain’s interests alone. He goes on to show how Britain’s Industrial Revolution was founded on India’s deindustrialization, and the destruction of its textile industry. In this bold and incisive reassessment of colonialism, Tharoor exposes to devastating effect the inglorious reality of Britain’s stained Indian legacy.

PRAISE FOR INGLORIOUS EMPIRE (available for sale at the event):
“Rare indeed is it to come across history that is so readable and so persuasive.”Amitav Ghosh

“Tharoor’s impassioned polemic slices straight to the heart of the darkness that drives all empires. Forceful, persuasive and blunt, he demolishes Raj nostalgia,

laying bare the grim, and high, cost of the British Empire for its former subjects. An essential read.”— Nilanjana Roy, Financial Times

“His writing is a delight and he seldom misses his target … Tharoor should be applauded for tackling an impossibly contentious subject … he deserves to be read. Indians are not the only ones who need reminding that empire has a lot to answer for.”—Literary Review

Rep. Krishnamoorthi introduces Bill to give H-1B visa workers job flexibility, reduce Green Card backlog

Indian-American Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi has introduced legislation in the House of Representatives which gives H-1B workers the flexibility to switch jobs and reduce the Green Card backlog by expanding education-based exemptions from per-country caps for H-1B holders.

According to a PTI report, Krishnamoorthi and Republican lawmaker Mike Coffman, introduced the HR 6794, or the “Immigration Innovation Act of 2018” in the House of Representatives on September 13 and if passed by the Congress and signed into law by the President, the bill would reform and streamline the H-1B high-skilled worker visa program while increasing investment in American Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education for students in K-12, post-secondary or college programs.

According to Krishnamoorthi and Coffman, the bill will: Propose to ban employers from hiring H-1B holders to replace American workers while increasing funding for STEM education at the K-12, post-secondary and university levels.

All fees collected for H-1B visas and conditional Green Cards will go to state-administered funds to promote domestic STEM education and worker training including financial aid and research initiatives, which will expand investments in advanced training for the domestic workforce, ultimately reducing the demand for foreign workers while helping the American economy grow.

Remove the existing annual exemption cap on H-1B visas for holders of American master’s degrees or higher, which is currently exempting 20,000 per year, for individuals who are sponsored for a Green Card while narrowing education-based cap exemption to those with American PhDs.

Creates lottery prioritization for cap-subject petitions in the order of: American master’s degree or higher, foreign PhDs, and the American STEM bachelor’s degrees while establishing a grace period to allow H-1B visa holders to change jobs without losing their legal status to permit mobility under qualifying circumstances.

Subjects employers who have more than five H-1B employees to a penalty for each employee who worked less than 25 percent of the first work-authorization year and prohibits employers from hiring an H-1B visa worker to replace an American worker while also providing work authorization for spouses and dependent children of H-1B visa workers at the prevailing wage.

Proposes to eliminate per-country limit for employment based green cards and adjusts per-country caps for family-based green cards along with enabling the reassignment of unused visas from previous years.

Creates new conditional Green Card category to allow American employers to sponsor university-educated foreign professionals through a separate path from H-1B and requires employers to attest that no American worker has been displaced for the Green Card holder, undertaking recruitment efforts to fill the position with an American worker and offer prevailing wage not less than $100,000 per year.

The bill exempts spouses and children of employment-based green card holders, holders of American STEM master’s degrees or higher and individuals with extraordinary skill in arts and sciences from caps.

The bill also enables F-1 student visa holders to seek permanent resident status while they are still a student or during their Optional Practical Training.

After dissent within Administration, Trump calls it treason

An anonymous senior Trump administration official assailed President Donald Trump’s “amorality” and reckless decision-making in a New York Times op-ed published on  September 5th and said he or she is part of a “resistance” working to thwart Trump’s worst impulses.

“The dilemma — which (Trump) does not fully grasp — is that many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations,” the Times piece reads. “I would know. I am one of them.”

The Times said disclosing the name of the official, who is known to the publication, would jeopardize the official’s job, and that publishing the piece anonymously was the only way to deliver an important perspective to readers. Major newspapers almost never publish unnamed op-ed pieces. At The New York Times, it is very rare, but not entirely unprecedented.

The op-ed amplified the sense of paranoia inside the West Wing and resurrected the feeling that the White House is under assault from within, as per reports. Trump administration officials, struggling to mount a defense to Woodward’s tell-all book, were stunned when the op-ed was published Wednesday afternoon, left guessing and quietly pointing fingers at other officials as they tried to figure out who wrote it, even texting reporters possible guesses.

Speculation rose that it could be someone in the vice president’s office given the op-ed’s inclusion of the word “lodestar” and several speeches Mike Pence gave using the unusual term.

Pence’s deputy chief of staff and communications director Jarrod Agen denied that Pence or anyone from their office authored the New York Times op-ed.

The op-ed came on the heels of reports based on a damning book about Trump’s presidency by veteran journalist Bob Woodward and amplified the sense that top advisers to the President have serious concerns about his conduct in office and leadership abilities. And it is likely to compound Trump’s sense of paranoia that he is surrounded by advisers who may be duplicitous and untrustworthy.

Trump quickly lashed out, dismissing the op-ed as “really a disgrace” and “gutless” and assailing the author and The New York Times for publishing the anonymous opinion piece. “We have somebody in what I call the failing New York Times that’s talking about he’s part of the resistance inside the Trump administration,” Trump said. “This is what we have to deal with. And you know the dishonest media … But it’s really a disgrace.”

He then pivoted to his accomplishments, claiming that “nobody has done what this administration has done in terms of getting things passed and getting things through.”

Trump later tweeted a pointed and unsubstantiated attack on the Times, questioning if the author of the op-ed exists. If the author does exist, the organization should publicly identify the individual, Trump said.

“Does the so-called ‘Senior Administration Official’ really exist, or is it just the Failing New York Times with another phony source?” Trump tweeted. “If the GUTLESS anonymous person does indeed exist, the Times must, for National Security purposes, turn him/her over to government at once!”

The op-ed offers a firsthand account that corroborates key themes of Woodward’s book: that some of the President’s top advisers have a dim view of the commander in chief and are quietly working to thwart Trump’s most reckless and impulsive decisions from becoming a reality.

The author writes the resistance inside the Trump administration is not the same “resistance” of the left against the President and said they and like-minded colleagues working to thwart some of Trump’s actions “want the administration to succeed … But we believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic.”

“That is why many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump’s more misguided impulses until he is out of office.”

The result, the official writes, has been a “two-track presidency” in which Trump’s own worldview — uttered both in public and private — diverges from some key actions taken by the administration, like those involving additional sanctions against Russia.

A dramatic alternative to the quiet effort to thwart some of Trump’s more concerning actions was, however, considered, the official said: invoking the 25th Amendment.

The official alleges there were “early whispers within” Trump’s Cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, which would require a majority of Cabinet officials to declare to Congress they believe the President is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.” Explaining the “resistance” effort, the senior administration official offers a damning portrait of Trump’s character and leadership ability.

The author argues the “root of the problem is the President’s amorality” and assails Trump’s “reckless decisions,” “erratic behavior” and what the official describes as the President’s “impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective” leadership style.

“The root of the problem is the President’s amorality. Anyone who works with him knows he is not moored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision making,” the official writes. “Although he was elected as a Republican, the President shows little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets and free people.” Trump officials react

It’s impossible to know in the moment when a presidency begins to dissolve. But after a devastating 48 hours, it’s already clear that Donald Trump’s will never be the same. These statements and those behind this “resistance movement” warn that the President of the United States is not only unfit to be the most powerful man in the world, but is a venal mix of ignorance and ego, pettiness, malignancy and recklessness that is putting the republic and the world itself at risk.

Pompeo and Mattis hail strong partnership between Indian and USA at New Delhi meet

The US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Defense Secretary Jim Mattis praised the deepening ties between the world’s two largest democracies after their first joint meeting with their Indian counterparts in New Delhi, after The United States and India signed a major military communications agreement Thursday, September 6th,  highlighting the growing partnership between the two nations as they seek to manage a rising China.

The agreement, which had been under discussion for more than a decade, will allow India to receive military-grade communications equipment from the United States and permit the exchange of real-time encrypted information on platforms used by the Indian and U.S. armed forces.

Pompeo and Mattis were in India for their first joint meeting with their Indian counterparts, a conclave aimed at showcasing areas of agreement between the world’s two largest democracies — while downplaying areas of tension.

The relationship between the United States and India has entered “a new era,” Pompeo said, adding that Thursday’s meeting was “symbolic of our increasingly close partnership.”

At a grand strategic level, both the United States and India are eager to develop closer ties. Each views the other as a useful partner in checking China’s ambitions in Asia and as an ally in counterterrorism efforts. Sales of U.S. military equipment to India have increased considerably over the past decade, and the United States is now India’s second-largest arms supplier.

The Communications Compatibility and Security Agreement, signed Thursday by Mattis and his Indian counterpart, is a type of foundational accord that the United States uses as a framework for military cooperation with other countries. Washington has such agreements with fewer than 30 nations, Reuters news agency reported.

India had hesitated to conclude the agreement partly out of worries about the United States getting access to Indian military communications.

“If the Indian establishment is willing to move forward with politically tricky but operationally meaningful agreements, I take that as a good sign,” said Joshua White, who served as a senior adviser on South Asian affairs at the National Security Council under the Obama administration.

Indeed, India’s defense minister, Nirmala Sitharaman, sounded ebullient about the prospects for further collaboration. Defense cooperation “has emerged as the most significant dimension of our strategic partnership and a key driver of our overall bilateral relationship,” she said Thursday. The momentum in that arena has “imbued a tremendous positive energy” to U.S.-India relations, she said.

But in realms apart from defense, the relationship has progressed more haltingly. India is one of many targets in President Trump’s crusade to reduce the U.S. trade deficit, and the two countries have imposed tit-for-tat tariffs. The Trump administration is pushing India to increase its imports of U.S. goods and to drastically reduce its purchases of Iranian oil or face sanctions.

Thursday’s meeting was supposed to be held in Washington but was postponed twice by the Trump administration. Pompeo struck a conciliatory tone about the areas of friction between the two countries in remarks to reporters after a half-day of meetings in New Delhi.

Many countries, including India, “are in a place where it takes them a little bit of time to unwind” oil imports from Iran, he said. “We’ll work with them, I’m sure, to find an outcome that makes sense.” The Trump administration has withdrawn from a 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran and is reimposing nuclear-related sanctions that were lifted as part of the deal.

Pompeo also said the United States would work with India on another area of concern — India’s upcoming purchase of a Russian missile and air-defense system known as the S-400. The purchase will violate sanctions instituted by Congress on arms purchases from Russia, but lawmakers have allowed the possibility of a presidential waiver.

Vanita Gupta questions DOJ’s stand in lawsuit against Harvard

A coalition of civil rights and Asian-American advocacy organizations, led by the former head of the Department of Justice’s Office of Civil Rights, Vanita Gupta, have slammed the amicus brief filed by the department in support of the lawsuit filed by Asian-American students and parents against Harvard’s race-conscious admissions policy.

Harvard is being sued by a group calling itself Students for Fair Admissions which is working to have the school dismantle its race-conscious admissions policy, which it said discriminates against Asian-American students.

The Justice Department on Aug. 30 in its amicus brief, said that Harvard has “failed to demonstrate that it does not discriminate on the basis of race,” siding with the Asian-American students, including some Indian-Americans suing the Ivy League school’s race-based admissions policy as discriminatory. The brief said, “Harvard is engaging in outright racial balancing.”

Last year, the DOJ opened a Title VI investigation into Harvard’s admissions process, based upon a complaint filed by several Asian-American organizations that also included some Indian-American organizations, arguing that admissions should be based strictly on merit.

Some reports have suggested that if Harvard and other institutions that have a race-conscious admissions policy eliminate these policies, the Asian-American student population would rise to as much as 40 percent for a population of approximately 6 percent in the U.S. while the African-American and Hispanic-American students admitted could drop drastically with the African American students admissions being reduced to less than 2 percent.

“Despite a lot of these programs, blacks and Hispanics are underrepresented in colleges and universities today even more so than they were in 1980,” Gupta said.

The Supreme Court has upheld use of race as a factor in college admissions as recently as 2016.

“The Justice Department’s investigation is unprecedented,” Vanita Gupta, who had led the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division under President Obama, had said in 2017. She is now president and CEO of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. “The Justice Department has never been a party in these cases directly investigating an institution.”

Gupta has filed an amicus brief opposing Harvard’s motion for summary judgment in the case. Gupta’s filing argues that the Justice Department, under Jeff Sessions, “opposes constitutionally sound strategies that colleges and universities are using to expand educational opportunity for students of all backgrounds.”  The Justice Department recently filed a statement of interest in the lawsuit which has called Harvard’s affirmative action policy discriminatory against Asian-Americans.

Gupta called justice officials’ action one more example of “the administration’s contempt for efforts to build a more inclusive, just society. It is now backing Edward Blum’s longstanding political agenda to undermine diversity in education and opportunity for millions of young people.”

Blum, a financial adviser considered the leading force behind Students for Fair Admissions, had filed the lawsuit charging Harvard with discrimination against Asian-Americans in its admissions practices. Gupta said that Sessions’ recent action shows his department “has once again abdicated its responsibility to enforce the law and protect the civil rights of all people in America.”

Sessions’ office, however, stands by its filing. “The Department of Justice has the responsibility to protect the civil rights of the American people. This case is significant because the admissions policies at our colleges and universities are important and must be conducted lawfully,” Sessions said in a press release. The DOJ press release said that “Harvard admits that it uses race to decide whether to admit certain applicants to the college. Under Supreme Court precedent, Harvard must demonstrate that its use of race does not result in illegal discrimination.” The department said that Harvard has failed to do so and plaintiffs should be allowed to proceed to a trial.

“No American should be denied admission to school because of their race,” said Sessions. “As a recipient of taxpayer dollars, Harvard has a responsibility to conduct its admissions policy without racial discrimination by using meaningful admissions criteria that meet lawful requirements.”

“The Justice Department clearly seems to be trying to tee up another case for the Supreme Court. It looks like right now that they are looking for a sympathetic, attractive group of plaintiffs — here it’s Asian-Americans students who’ve been denied admission at Harvard — and to try to drive a wedge among communities of color by kind of pitting Asian-Americans against African-American and Hispanic students,” Gupta had said.

National Council of Asian Pacific Americans (NCAPA) agreed with Gupta. Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, which also represents over two dozen Asian-American groups, joined by some senior education faculty at leading universities, for its part, filed an amicus brief in support of Harvard’s race-conscious admissions policy.

Anita Malik wins Democratic primary in Arizona, will face David Schweikert in November

Anita Malik was declared winner in the Primary for the 6th Congressional District race on Friday, August 31st after her narrow lead over Heather Ross continued to grow and the number of uncounted votes kept shrinking.

Malik’s victory in the Scottsdale-based district represents a minor upset over Heather Ross, who had the backing of several labor unions and high-profile congressional endorsements. Malik now faces four-term Republican incumbent David Schweikert in November.

“Arizonans deserve someone who will work hard to represent them and build a stronger future for our community, our state and our country,” Malik said in a statement Friday night. “As the daughter of immigrants — people who believed in the promise of America — I want to help everyone have that opportunity to build a better life for themselves and their families.”

Ross said, “Although I am disappointed in the result of this primary, I thank all of my supporters from the bottom of my heart. For the first time, we had a competitive Democratic primary and gave the people of (the 6th District) something to vote for.”

Democrats have higher hopes in the traditionally red district this year, partly because Schweikert is under an ethics investigation over allegations of misspending and other issues.

Malik works in technology and communications and embraced a relatively liberal policy agenda on worker benefits, job creation and inequality. She supports transitioning to a single-payer health-care system, paid parental leave, guaranteed paid sick leave and adjusting the federal minimum wage with inflation. The current federal minimum wage, $7.25 an hour, hasn’t been adjusted since 2009.

Malik favors raising the income limit that is taxed to help fund Social Security as a way to shore up that program’s finances. She also wants to incentivize more private employers to match contributions to employee-retirement programs.

The House Ethics Committee decided to open that investigation after a review by the House Office of Congressional Ethics, an independent body that refers cases only when it has already found substantial evidence of a violation. Schweikert maintains the investigation is rooted in an accounting problem that has since been resolved. His longtime chief of staff quit last month, effectively ending the investigation into his actions.

The northeast Valley district runs from Cave Creek and Carefree south to the Salt River Reservation near Tempe. It stretches from Deer Valley east to Fort McDowell and includes Scottsdale and Paradise Valley.

John McCain, War Hero, Senator, Presidential Contender, Dies at 81

John S. McCain, the proud naval aviator who climbed from depths of despair as a prisoner of war in Vietnam to pinnacles of power as a Republican congressman and senator from Arizona and a two-time contender for the presidency, died on Saturday at his home in Arizona. He was 81.

According to a statement from his office, Mr. McCain died at 4:28 p.m. local time. He had suffered from a malignant brain tumor, called a glioblastoma, for which he had been treated periodically with radiation and chemotherapy since its discovery in 2017.

Despite his grave condition, he soon made a dramatic appearance in the Senate to cast a thumbs-down vote against his party’s drive to repeal the Affordable Care Act. But while he was unable to be in the Senate for a vote on the Republican tax bill in December, his endorsement was crucial, though not decisive, in the Trump administration’s lone legislative triumph of the year.

A son and grandson of four-star admirals who were his larger-than-life heroes, Mr. McCain carried his renowned name into battle and into political fights for more than a half-century. It was an odyssey driven by raw ambition, the conservative instincts of a shrewd military man, a rebelliousness evident since childhood and a temper that sometimes bordered on explosiveness.

Nowhere were those traits more manifest than in Vietnam, where he was stripped of all but his character. He boiled over in foul curses at his captors. Because his father was the commander of all American forces in the Pacific during most of his five and a half years of captivity, Mr. McCain, a Navy lieutenant commander, became the most famous prisoner of the war, a victim of horrendous torture and a tool of enemy propagandists.

Shot down over Hanoi, suffering broken arms and a shattered leg, he was subjected to solitary confinement for two years and beaten frequently. Often he was suspended by ropes lashing his arms behind him. He attempted suicide twice. His weight fell to 105 pounds. He rejected early release to keep his honor and to avoid an enemy propaganda coup or risk demoralizing his fellow prisoners.

He finally cracked under torture and signed a “confession.” No one believed it, although he felt the burden of betraying his country. To millions of Americans, Mr. McCain was the embodiment of courage: a war hero who came home on crutches, psychologically scarred and broken in body, but not in spirit. He underwent long medical treatments and rehabilitation, but was left permanently disabled, unable to raise his arms over his head. Someone had to comb his hair.

Sen. Tim Kaine acknowledges Indian-Americans’ emerging influence in D.C.

(From Reports by Aziz Haniffa at India Abroad)

The clout and influence of the Indian diaspora is evident in the nation’s capital, as evidenced by so many Indian-American groups in the metropolitan area, said Sen. Tim Kaine (D.-Va.). The former vice presidential candidate made his remarks at the India Independence Day celebrations on Aug. 19, which drew more than 300 to the Falls Church Marriott Fairview Park.

“This is an important community and that’s why you have so many officials who are here because we value so much the Indian American community in Virginia and nationally,” he said. “When I was governor and I had assembled my entire cabinet, a newspaper in India pointed out to me that three of my cabinet members were Indian-American, and I wasn’t even aware of it. They were in my cabinet because they were so fantastic. Many of you know and remember the team that I assembled and you see that in a bipartisan way across the Commonwealth.”

Kaine said it was the linkages between both countries – sharing common values, diversity and pluralism – that makes it imperative that this relationship has always been celebrated in the U.S.

Kaine, the ranking Democrat on both the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committees, recalled a 2015 visit he made to India as member of both committees to the Mazagon Docks in Mumbai. The Mazagon Dock Shipbuilders Limited, is India’s prime shipyard and is where the country’s warships and submarines are manufactured for the Indian Navy.

He said that he and the congressional delegation wanted to see India’s shipbuilding industry because his own state of Virginia is central in U.S. shipbuilding. “I’ll never forget the pride of India’s shipbuilders showing off the Mazagon Docks,” he said. He said upon his return to the U.S. he spoke to the secretary of the Navy telling him Indian naval officials needed to come visit U.S. shipbuilders in Newport News, Virginia and on the Gulf Coast.

Kaine said the Pentagon insisted “we don’t like to take people from foreign nations to our shipyards because of concerns about security and secrecy.” He said he pointed out that “our Indian colleagues and the Indian military does more joint exercises with the United States military than they do with any other nation in the world, and they were so proud and so welcoming to show us their shipbuilding industry, and so the least we can do is have that same relationship with them.”

Within a year, the Pentagon hosted a delegation of India’s key naval officials, he said. They visited Virginia’s shipyards and many others, he said, where some of the most sophisticated U.S. warships and submarines were being assembled. “This is just the tip of the iceberg of the cooperation that we can do together,” he said. “We are now so connected, and that’s what tonight is all about.”

Indian Ambassador to the U.S. Navtej Sarna, in a message to the gathering, noted: “India’s relationship with the United States is substantive and wide-ranging and is set to grow further in strategic and economic spheres. The contribution of the Indian-American community to this relationship has been critical.” Sarna and other embassy officials who had been slated to attend the event were not present as the government of India observed a weeklong period of mourning after the death of former Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee.

Raj Shah was honored with a Distinguished Service Award at India’s 72nd birthday celebration hosted by a coalition of Indian-American organizations under the aegis of the National Council of Asian American Associations. The gathering of about 300 attendees was held at the Falls Church Marriott Fairview Park and also celebrated Shah’s work for what the keynote speaker called “a commitment to our nation.”

Nima Kulkarni wins Primary: Set to Win Kentucky House Seat

Indian American Nima Kulkarni is almost all set to win the Kentucky state House District 40 seat after winning the Democratic primary over three other candidates, including incumbent Dennis Horlander. The candidate, who has the backing of organizations such as the Indian American Impact Fund is expected to win the seat if she receives more votes than Republican Joshua Neubert this November.

Kulkarni is an immigration attorney, advocate and founder of the New Americans Initiative, a nonprofit dedicated to educating and informing the local community about immigration related issues.

When she was 6, her family immigrated from India to Louisville to ensure her brother could get the special education that was not available in India.

She went on to receive bachelor’s and M.B.A. degrees from the University of Louisville and then her law degree from the University of D.C. David A. Clarke School of Law.

The owner of the Indus Law Firm which specializes in immigration, employment and business law, Kulkarni in 2013 was honored by Business First in its 40 Under 40 list.

She serves on the board of the Community Foundation of Louisville, Louisville Public Media, the Indian Professional Council of Kentucky and the Beaded Treasures Project, which empowers refugee and underprivileged women in Louisville.

She is also a member of Greater Louisville Outstanding Women, the Rotary Club of Louisville, and serves as county ambassador for the Greater Louisville International Professionals.

Kulkarni’s platform is five-fold. Among the issues she is campaigning to address if elected include standing with labor and work for a living wage for all, supporting new and innovative ways to stimulate the state’s economy while ensuring public employee pensions, supporting equality and fair immigration policies, supporting a strong education system to give students the skills necessary for success in their careers, and supporting expanded and comprehensive healthcare for all, according to her website, www.votenima.com.

Thus far, the Indian American candidate’s voice has been heard. In the May 22 primary, Kulkarni received 1,642 of the 3,524 votes, or 46.59 percent. The incumbent Horlander was closer to last place than he was to first, while finishing second with 25.37 percent. The other candidates – Logan Gatti and Kelly Gibson – finished third and fourth, respectively, with 15.35 percent and 12.68 percent.

If Kulkarni wins the general election over Neubert, she would be the first Indian American to not only run, but win, state office in the history of Kentucky politics.

Top CEOs raise concern about changes made by Donald Trump in H1-B policies

The Trump administration’s “inconsistent” immigration policies, including on the H1-B visa for professionals, could “disrupt” operations of American firms and inflict “substantial harm” on their competitiveness, CEOs from top US companies have warned.

In a letter to US Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, members of the Business Roundtable, including Apple CEO Tim Cook, Chairman and CEO of PepsiCo Indra Nooyi, President and CEO of Mastercard Ajay Banga and Chairman and CEO of Cisco Systems Chuck Robbins said that confusion around US immigration policy “creates anxiety for employees who follow the law.”

The Business Roundtable, an association of chief executive officers of America’s leading companies, told Nielsen yesterday that “inconsistent government action and uncertainty undermines economic growth and American competitiveness.”

Due to a shortage of green cards for workers, many employees find themselves stuck in an immigration process lasting more than a decade, they said.

To avoid unnecessary costs and complications for American businesses, the US government should not change the rules in the middle of the process, the CEOs said, pointing out to the several policy memoranda over the past year by the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has issued that has resulted in “arbitrary and inconsistent adjudications”.

“Companies now do not know whether a work visa petition that was approved last month will be approved when the company submits the identical application to extend the employee’s status,” they said.

In particular, the CEOs said they are worried about changes to the review process for H-1B visas for high-skilled workers, expected changes to the rules for spouses of H-1B employees and planned changes to certain deportation rules.

The H-1B visa is a non-immigrant visa that allows US companies to employ foreign workers in speciality occupations that require theoretical or technical expertise. The technology companies depend on it to hire tens of thousands of employees each year from countries like India and China.

Employees who qualify for H-1B jobs often hold degrees in science, tech, engineering or math, and are highly sought after by employers, the CEOs said.

The Roundtable members said that a confusing immigration system in the US which threatens to split their families apart, could encourage them to seek employment in a different country. That would put the American economy at a disadvantage.

They also noted that in many cases, the US Labor Department has determined that “no qualified US workers are available to do that person’s job.”

President Donald Trump has said that some IT companies were abusing the US work visas to deny jobs to American workers.

“As the federal government undertakes its legitimate review of immigration rules, it must avoid making changes that disrupt the lives of thousands of law-abiding and skilled employees, and that inflict substantial harm on US competitiveness,” the CEOs noted.

The Business Roundtable will continue to work with Congress to reduce the Green Card backlog, they said.

In the interim, inconsistent immigration policies are unfair and discourage talented and highly skilled individuals from pursuing career opportunities in the United States, they said.

The reality is that few will move their family and settle in a new country if, at any time and without notice, the government can force their immediate departure–often without explanation.

“At a time when the number of job vacancies are reaching historic highs due to labour shortages, now is not the time restrict access to talent,” the CEOs said.

The group has called for increasing the number of H-1B visas and letting people with advanced STEM degrees from American universities qualify for a green card immediately.

Meanwhile, the US Citizenship and Immigration Services said in a statement the “administration has been relentlessly pursuing necessary immigration reforms that move towards a merit-based system.”

“USCIS is committed to reforming employment based immigrant and non-immigrant immigration programs so they benefit the American people to the greatest extent possible,” CNN quoted spokesperson Michael Bars as saying.

India seeks Russia’s help in new bid to enter Nuclear Suppliers Group

Foreign secretary Vijay Gokhale visited Russia last week to follow up on Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Vladimir Putin’s informal summit in May and to lobby for India’s Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) membership.

NSG is an elite club of countries that deals with the trade in nuclear technology and fissile materials. India is making a renewed bid for getting NSG membership. It expects Moscow to help India get it.

The 48-member NSG works on the principle of consensus for admitting new members. India has not signed the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) for an entry into the group.

But New Delhi has maintained it has impeccable non-proliferation credentials that had enabled the country to get a waiver from the grouping to operationalise the India-US nuclear deal and get into nuclear commerce.

There was no Indian statement on Gokhale’s visit on August 24. But Russians said deputy foreign minister Sergey Ryabkov held consultations with him in Moscow.

“The officials discussed the main multilateral export control regimes, including the Nuclear Suppliers Group, cooperation in the framework of BRICS and other topical issues of mutual interest on the international agenda,’’ a Russian statement said.

The NSG is the only major export control regime India is not part of.

India became a part of the Australia Group in January 2018, the Missile Technology Control Regime in June 2016 and the Wassenaar Arrangement in December 2017.

Putin is expected to meet Modi in October for their annual summit. India is expected to take up the NSG membership with the US again during the two plus two dialogue between foreign and defence ministers of the two countries on September 6.

“The issue of getting NSG membership is an important issue for the government. Becoming member of the export control regimes remained the Modi government’s key foreign policy priority,” said an official. “We are now part of three out three export control regimes. That says a lot about India’s non-proliferation track record as well.”

Experts said the improvement in India-China ties could change Beijing’s stance against India’s NSG membership.

“There has been a perceptible change in the bilateral ties after Modi’s meeting with President Xi Jinping in Wuhan on April 27 and 28. So if China withdraws its objection, India could be a member of NSG,” said former foreign secretary Lalit Mansingh.

Sushma Swaraj likely to meet her Pakistani counterpart in UN next month, says report

A meeting between external affairs minister Sushma Swaraj and her new Pakistani counterpart Shah Mehmood Qureshi is “possible” in the US on the sidelines of the annual UN General Assembly session next month, a media report said on Monday.

This could be the first ministerial-level bilateral meeting since Prime Minister Imran Khan became Pakistan’s 22nd prime minister on August 18.

“Such a meeting (between Swaraj and Qureshi) is possible but no decision (has been taken) yet,” Dawn news quoted a senior Pakistani diplomat in the US as saying.

The external affairs ministry has not announced any such meeting between Swaraj and Qureshi.

In a letter to Khan, Prime Minister Narendra Modi had expressed India’s resolve to build good neighbourly relations between the two countries.

In July, Modi had telephoned Khan and congratulated him on his party’s victory in the general elections and expressed hope that both countries will work to open a new chapter in bilateral ties.

The 73rd United Nations General Assembly opens on September 18 in New York.

Swaraj will address the annual high-level UNGA session on September 29, according to the provisional list of speakers released by the UN.

Pakistan is reluctant to confirm its agenda for the UNGA meeting as it is still undecided who will represent the country at the world body, the report said.

Media reports in Islamabad has indicated that Khan may skip the UNGA as part of his efforts to cut down on government expenses. However, several Pakistani diplomats and political commentators have urged him to reconsider his decision.

Pakistani officials feel the prime minister Khan’s presence in New York will add a new dimension to an India-Pakistan meeting, even though he will not participate in minister-level talks, the report said.

Dawn news, quoting diplomatic sources in Washington, said Islamabad would like to see how productive this meeting could be, particularly because India has already said that it is not ready to resume bilateral or formal talks with Pakistan.

They point out that this week, India strongly rejected a suggestion that in his letter to Khan, Prime Minister Modi had expressed interest on resuming talks.

The Indian reaction forced Pakistan to clarify that the suggestion was a media interpretation of the letter and Foreign Minister Qureshi, in his comments on Modi’s letter, never said that “the Indian Prime Minister had made an offer of a dialogue”, the report said.

Last week, a key US official said America welcomes Khan’s statement emphasising the importance of peace on both sides of Pakistan’s borders.

Rupee dives to new closing low against US dollar

The Indian rupee on Monday retreated sharply to hit a record ..

Vajpayee, 93, former Indian PM, is laid to rest in New Delhi

Former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, whose politics of moderation in a hardline party propelled the BJP to power for the first time in the 1990s, died on Thursday after long illness.

The 93-year-old leader, who had faded from public life for more than a decade following health complications and was admitted to AIIMS with urinary tract infection on June 11, breathed his last at 5.05 p.m., the hospital said in a statement.

“It is with profound grief that we inform about the sad demise of former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee. “Unfortunately, his condition deteriorated over the last 36 hours and he was put on life support system. Despite the best of efforts, we have lost him today,” the statement said.

Vajpayee, a diabetic, was undergoing treatment at All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS). He was said to be stable for the last nine weeks but his health suffered a setback on last week and finally he succumbed. That things were getting worse could be gleaned from the fact that Prime Minister Narendra Modi made two visits to AIIMS in the last two days.

Vajpayee, 93, former Indian PM, is laid to rest in New DelhiRich tributes poured from across the political spectrum for Vajpayee who had the reputation of having no enemies in politics. Modi described the passing away of Vajpayee as “the end of an era” and every Indian and the BJP worker would continue to be guided by his vision.

President Ram Nath Kovind said Vajpayee was a “true Indian statesman”. “His leadership, foresight, maturity and eloquence put him in a league of his own.” Congress President Rahul Gandhi said Vajpayee was loved and respected by millions. “Today, India lost a great son.”

Earlier, as news of deterioration of his health spread, national leaders, including Vice President M. Venkaiah Naidu, BJP brass — party President Amit Shah, veterans L.K. Advani and Murli Manohar Joshi, and Home Minister Rajnath Singh, cabinet ministers, chief ministers and opposition leaders Rahul Gandhi and Mamata Banerjee visited the hospital during the day.

The body was taken to Vajpayee’s house on Krishna Menon Marg in Lutyen’s Delhi for the public to pay last respects to the departed leader. The former Prime Minister, whose birthday on December 25 is celebrated as Good Governance Day, was honored with the Bharat Ratna in 2014 at his home.

Vajpayee, whose more than six-year term was marked by peace initiative with Pakistan and the 1998 Pokhran nuclear test that invited US sanctions, was a bachelor and leaves behind a foster family.

Though his long-time associate L.K. Advani, credited for the rise of the BJP from the last 1980s on the Ayodhya temple issue with his hardline politics, it was Vajpayee’s moderate stance that took the party close to power. He was the Prime Minister for 13 days in mid-1996 at the head of the first short-lived BJP government. He was forced to resign ahead of the confidence vote as he failed to muster the numbers.

However, Vajpayee again became the Prime Minister in March 1998 with improved numbers and new allies like the TDP, the AIADMK, the National Conference and the Samta Party. But his government fell 13 months later on the floor of the Lok Sabha losing by one vote in the confidence motion after AIADMK headed by the late J.Jayalalithaa withdrew support to the BJP.

The BJP government headed by Vajpayee returned to power in 1999 and completed almost its full term till 2004 when the party lost in the polls called earlier than scheduled.

Vajpayee was known for his lavish praise of Indira Gandhi as Durga on India’s victory over Pakistan in the 1971 war of Bangladesh independence.

Vajpayee had a long association with the RSS and the Bhartiya Jana Sangh which merged to form the Janata Party in the post Emergency period when he was jailed along with numerous opposition leaders. And in 1980, he, Advani, Joshi and other leaders founded the BJP of which he was the first President.

He had a flair for foreign policy issues and the then Prime Minister Narasimha Rao chose him to lead an Indian delegation to the UN Human Rights conference to counter Pakistan’s campaign for Kashmir.

Imran Khan sworn in as Pakistan’s 22nd Prime Minister

Imran Khan, cricketer-turned-politician and Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) chief — took oath as Pakistan’s 22nd Prime Minister on Saturday, August 18, 2018. He was administered the oath by President Mamnoon Hussain at a simple ceremony held at the Aiwan-e-Sadr (the President House) in Islamabad. “I will bear true faith and allegiance to Pakistan,” Khan read from the oath, standing next to the President.

The ceremony, which was scheduled to begin at 9:30am, started 40-minute late. It commenced with the national anthem, followed by recitation of verses from the Holy Quran. Khan arrived at the President House in a black sherwani from his Banigala residence. He was seen little nervous while taking the oath as he faced difficulties in pronouncing some Urdu words.

The PTI chief along nith his wife Bushra Imran greeted various guests and proceeded to the Prime Minister’s Office where he was presented the guard of honour. Several high-profile guests including caretaker Prime Minister Nasirul Mulk, National Assembly Speaker Asad Qaiser, Army Chief Gen Qamar Javed Bajwa, Air Chief Marshal Mujahid Anwar Khan and Naval Chief Admiral Zafar Mahmood Abbasi were present at the ceremony.

Others who were in attendance to witness Khan’s formal ascension to the top ministerial job in the country include — PTI leaders, former Indian cricket star Navjot Singh Sidhu, cricketer-turned-commentator Rameez Raja, legendary paceman Wasim Akram, newly-elected Punjab Assembly Speaker Chaudhry Pervez Elahi, singers Salman Ahmed and Abrarul Haq, actor Javaid Sheikh and former National Assembly speaker Dr Fehmida Mirza.

Khan defeated his only rival and Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz chief Shahbaz Sharif in a one-sided election for the top post in the National Assembly. Of the total National Assembly members, 176 voted in favour of Khan, while his opponent, Shahbaz received 96 votes. Hence, making the way clear for the PTI chief to become the new PM.

The election in the 15th National Assembly was held on July 25 and results were declared the next day in which Khan’s PTI emerged as the largest party securing 116 seats. Opposition parties Pakistan Muslim League (PML-N) and Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) won 64 and 43 seats respectively. However, Khan did not have the majority to form the government as a total of 172 votes were needed for that in the 342-member lower house of Parliament.

In his first address to parliament, Khan had vowed to act against those who looted Pakistan. “I promise my nation today that we will bring the tabdeeli (change) that this nation was starving for,” Khan said yesterday after winning the election. We have to hold strict accountability in this country; the people who looted this country, I promise that I will work against them. The money that was laundered, I will bring it back – the money that should have gone towards health, education, and water, went into people’s pockets,” Khan had said.

Real Voting Data Shows Rahul Gandhi Closing In On PM Modi!

The unthinkable is now being predicted. Prime Minister Modi could be on a treacherous wicket in 2019. The Lokniti-CSDS-ABP Mood of the Nation Survey published a fortnight back, threw up a faint prospect of the ruling party’s defeat. A few of its top-line findings are astonishingly contrarian.

Modi’s government is about as unpopular right now as the UPA was in July 2013, nine months before its electoral debacle in 2014 – “nearly half (47 percent) of the total 15,859 respondents are of the opinion that the Modi government does not merit another opportunity”.

While minorities like Muslims, Christians, and Sikhs are overwhelmingly against the government, the majority Hindu community is virtually split down the middle over its support/opposition.

Over the last 12 months, “BJP’s popularity is down seven percentage points… if this declining trend continues then the ruling party may well dip below the 30 percent mark in the next few months”

Congress could “net about one in four votes (25 percent) nationally”; and the erstwhile UPA would secure 31 percent of the votes across the country.

Remember, this does not include the Congress’s new-found allies, which are Mayawati’s Bahujan Samaj Party, Akhilesh Yadav’s Samajwadi Party, and HD Deve Gowda’s Janata Dal (Secular), which could add another 11 percentage points to the ‘new UPA’s’ tally.

One conclusion, however improbable, seems equally inescapable: if the above numbers pan out, Prime Minister Narendra Modi is staring at a defeat in 2019.

Here, then, are the contours of our ‘real-world sample’. After the Gujarat Assembly Elections in December 2017, we’ve had ten parliamentary and 21 assembly by-elections, spread over 15 states, in which over 1.25 crore people have actually cast their votes for nearly 19 political parties.

While the following may still be erroneous or turn out to be exaggerated, they certainly enjoy a stronger ring of truth after the by-elections’ polling data:

Prime Minister Modi is now only marginally ahead of Rahul Gandhi in voter support; his 17 percentage points lead has fallen to only 10 percentage points.

An equal 43 percent like both Modi and Rahul; and since fewer people dislike Rahul, his ‘net likeability’ is actually better than Modi’s.

Rahul has also managed to convince nearly 30 percent of his ‘naysayers’ into becoming ‘supporters’; conversely, Modi has converted 35 percent of his earlier supporters into opponents.

Rahul’s biggest gains have come among middle-aged and elderly voters (those with a higher propensity to go out and vote); Modi’s fall is sharpest among middle and lower class voters.

Confirming the above trend, Congress is recovering quicker in towns and small cities; and beginning to show early traction in big cities.

Shockingly, over 60 percent feel that Modi’s government is corrupt; over 50 percent have heard about Nirav Modi’s scam, and two-thirds of them are dissatisfied with the actions taken, or not taken.

Congress has staged a remarkable recovery amongst Dalits and Adivasis, nosing ahead of the BJP by 1-2 percentage points.

Farmers are deserting Modi at an alarming rate—a fall of 12 percentage points over one year—and the bulk of these gains are accruing to the non-Congress regional parties.

Except for the North, Modi has lost support everywhere, most sharply in South, West and Central India.

The Goods and Services Tax is becoming an albatross around Modi’s neck, its unpopularity getting worse, from 24 percent to 40 percent (January to May).

And this one is impossible to fathom: there isn’t a single issue on which the Modi government is rated positively now!

Dita Bhargava loses in CT Primary; Harry Arora, Josh Kaul Advance to General in Uncontested Races

In the Primaries held on August 14th, in the state treasurer’s race, Democrat Shawn Wooden, endorsed by the party, defeated a formidable challenge from Dita Bhargava, a hedge fund portfolio manager from Greenwich.

In Connecticut, Mudita Bhargava was seeking the Democratic nomination for the state treasurer’s seat. In a two-candidate race, Shawn Wooden received 113,994 votes for 57 percent of the vote, ousting Bhargava, who received 86,940 votes for 43 percent, from the race. “Thank you so much to all of my supporters. You have given me the necessary strength to run this campaign,” Bhargava tweeted.

 “I’m thrilled that Democrats across the state nominated me to run in November, recognizing my experience with public pension plans and commitment to working people,” Wooden said. “The state has a real choice with the Democratic team nominated tonight, and it will be a stark contrast to the Republicans.”

Wooden, 49, is expected to face Republican Thad Gray, who claimed victory over challenger Sen. Art Linares in a GOP primary for treasurer Tuesday.  The winner will replace longtime Treasurer Denise Nappier, who chose not to run for re-election. The primary race was a battle over every dollar, with each candidate focusing of different elements of their fiscal prowess to win over voters.

Primary elections were held in Connecticut, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Vermont with little activity from Indian Americans, though the candidates who were running in contested races were unsuccessful.

Meanwhile, in Connecticut’s 4th Congressional District, Harry Arora, an Indian American running as a Republican, advanced after running uncontested. He will face Democratic incumbent Jim Himes in the general election.

In Wisconsin, Josh Kaul is seeking to become the state’s attorney general. Kaul, a Democrat, ran uncontested in his race and will challenge, along with Terry Larson, the Republican incumbent Brad Schimel to win the seat.

Meanwhile, in Vermont, Jasdeep Pannu was seeking the GOP nomination for a U.S. Senate seat held by Democrat Bernie Sanders. In the four-candidate race, Brooke Paige held the slightest of edges over Lawrence Zupan – 39.6 percent to 37.8 percent – while Pannu received 18.3 percent of the vote. At time of press, roughly 97 percent of the precincts had reported.

As our media environment blurs, confusion often reigns

A generation ago, the likes of Walter Cronkite, Peter Jennings and Diane Sawyer were the heroes of television news. Now the biggest stars are arguably Sean Hannity and Rachel Maddow.

Notice the difference? Cronkite, Jennings and Sawyer reported the news. Hannity and Maddow talk about the news, and occasionally make it. But you never doubt how they feel about it.

In a chaotic media landscape, with traditional guideposts stripped away by technology and new business models, the old lines between journalism and commentary are growing ever fuzzier. As President Donald Trump rewrites the rules of engagement to knock the media off stride, he’s found a receptive audience among his supporters for complaints about “fake news” and journalists who are “enemies of the people.”

In such a climate, is it any wonder people seem to be having a hard time distinguishing facts from points of view, and sometimes from outright fiction? It’s a conclusion that is driving anger at the news media as a whole. On Thursday, it produced a coordinated effort by a collection of the nation’s newspapers to hit back at perceptions that they are somehow unpatriotic.

“We don’t have a communications and public sphere that can discern between fact and opinion, between serious journalists and phonies,” says Stephen J.A. Ward, author of 10 books on the media, including the upcoming “Ethical Journalism in a Populist Age.”

Not long ago — think back 30 years — the news business had a certain order to it.

Evening newscasts on ABC, CBS and NBC gave straightforward accounts of the day’s events, and morning shows told you what happened while you slept. Newspapers flourished, with sections clearly marked for news and editorial pages for opinion. The one cable network, in its infancy, followed the play-it-straight rules of the big broadcasters. There was no Internet, no social media feed, no smartphone with headlines flashing.

Today, many newspapers are diminished. People are as likely to find articles through links on social media posted by friends and celebrities. Three TV news channels, two with firmly established points of view, air an endless loop of politically laced talk. There’s no easy escape from a 24-hour-a-day news culture.

The internet’s emergence has made the media far more democratic — for good and ill. There are many more voices to hear. But the loudest ones frequently get the most attention. n“No one can control the flow of information across social media and the internet media,” says George Campbell, a 53-year-old business consultant from Chicago. “This has led to a confusion about fact vs. fake. But mostly, it has resulted in a cash cow for conspiracy makers.”

Let’s not neglect the memorable journalism that the Trump era has produced all across the country. Many newspapers are far from “failing,” as Trump often claims about the scoop-hungry shops at The New York Times and The Washington Post. The number of digital subscribers to the Times has jumped from below 1 million in 2015 to more than 2.4 million now.

The cable networks have turned politics into prime-time entertainment, and it’s been both great for business and polarizing: Fox News Channel (from the right) and MSNBC (from the left) are frequently the most-watched cable networks in the country.

For many years, those network executives did a delicate dance. The stations were news during the day, opinion at night. But with the opinion shows so successful — shouting what you believe tends to “pop” more than facts — it has become harder to suppress those identities. Even when different sides are given, the hours are filled with opinionated people giving their takes.

A recent White House briefing illustrates how the Trump administration has plucked examples from the endless talk feed in its campaign against the media. When press secretary Sarah Sanders rebuffed CNN reporter Jim Acosta’s attempt to have her renounce Trump’s attacks on the press, she noted that she’s been attacked personally by “the media” more than once, including by CNN.

Both of Sanders’ references had nothing to do with news reporting, and a lot to do with expressions of opinion. One of them, for example, came from an MSNBC appearance by Jennifer Rubin, a Washington Post columnist paid specifically to give her take on things.

But that kind of distinction blurs when it’s decoupled from the newspaper columns and appears in the wild of social media feeds. “I don’t blame the public for being confused,” said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, communications professor and director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania.

In a heated news environment, journalists are left to find descriptions for things they haven’t seen before. CNN’s Anderson Cooper called Trump’s performance in a joint news conference with Russia’s Vladimir Putin “disgraceful” after both leaders left a Helsinki stage this summer. For Cooper, it was a moment of truth-telling. For the president’s supporters, it was a brash embrace of bias.

Social Media’s impact on People’s ability/inability to separate what is factual from what is opinion

The Pew Research Center conducted an experiment earlier this year. It presented more than 5,000 adults with five statements of fact and five opinions and asked them to identify which was which. Only 26 percent of respondents correctly identified the five facts, and 35 percent identified the five opinions as such.

The survey suggested that people are in different realities. For instance, 63 percent of Republicans correctly said the statement “Barack Obama was born in the United States” was a fact. Meanwhile, 37 percent of Democrats incorrectly identified the statement “increasing the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour is essential for the health of the U.S. economy” as fact, not opinion.

“Overall, Americans have some ability to separate what is factual from what is opinion,” says Amy Mitchell, Pew’s director of journalism research. “But the gaps across population groups raise caution, especially given all we know about news consumers’ tendency to feel worn out by the amount of news there is these days, and to dip briefly into and out of news rather than engage deeply with it.”

Boston Globe receives threat after anti-Trump editorial

The Boston Globe today received a threatening telephone call that is being taken seriously by local and federal authorities, according to an email sent by a facilities manager to other tenants at the newspaper’s headquarters.

Big picture: The Boston Globe today published an editorial pushing back against President Trump’s claims that some in the media are an “enemy of the people,” and also helped coordinate similar editorials in 300 other papers.

The Boston Globe, which was sold to the the Failing New York Times for 1.3 BILLION DOLLARS (plus 800 million dollars in losses & investment), or 2.1 BILLION DOLLARS, was then sold by the Times for 1 DOLLAR. Now the Globe is in COLLUSION with other papers on free press. PROVE IT!

Here is part of the building manager’s email, which was sent just before noon today: “Earlier today a tenant in the building, the Boston Globe, received several threats via phone call. Based on this threat the local and federal authorities have recommended some additional security measures for the property. For the remainder of the day you will see uniformed Boston Police officers in the lobby and around the property. There are very few specifics, but the threat was specific to later this afternoon.”

A Boston Police Department spokesman confirmed that it increased patrols around the Globe building, but said to call the FBI about any possible threat. The FBI declined comment, citing Department of Justice policy.

A spokeswoman for the Globe provided the following statement: “We are taking the advice of local and federal authorities who have recommended some additional security measures. The alarming turn of the president’s rhetoric — the specific labeling of the press as an ‘enemy of the American people’ and the opposition party — does cause us concern about media outlets and the stories we have heard around the country. Journalistic outlets have had threats throughout time but it’s the president’s rhetoric that gives us the most concern.”

14% of Americans have changed their mind about an issue because of something they saw on social media

For most Americans, exposure to different content and ideas on social media has notcaused them to change their opinions. But a small share of the public – 14% – say they have changed their views about a political or social issue in the past year because of something they saw on social media, according to a Pew Research Center survey of U.S. adults conducted May 29-June 11.

Although it’s unclear what issues people changed their views about, within the past year a variety of social and political issues – from the #MeToo movement to #BlackLivesMatter and #MAGA – have been discussed on social media.

Certain groups, particularly young men, are more likely than others to say they’ve modified their views because of social media. Around three-in-ten men ages 18 to 29 (29%) say their views on a political or social issue changed in the past year due to social media. This is roughly twice the share saying this among all Americans and more than double the shares among men and women ages 30 and older (12% and 11%, respectively).

14% of Americans have changed their mind about an issue because of something they saw on social mediaThere are also differences by race and ethnicity, according to the new survey. Around one-in-five black (19%) and Hispanic (22%) Americans say their views changed due to social media, compared with 11% of whites.

Social media prompted views to change more among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents (17%) than among Republicans and Republican leaners (9%). Within these party groups, there are also some differences by gender, at least among Democrats. Men who are Democrats or lean Democratic (21%) are more likely than their female counterparts (14%) to say they’ve changed their minds. However, equal shares of Republican and Republican-leaning men and women say the same (9% each).

Previous survey work with slightly different question wording showed similar overall partisan differences. In 2016, the Center asked social media users whether they had “ever modified” their views about a political or social issue because of something they saw on social media. Two-in-ten said yes and 79% said no, with more Democrats and Democratic leaners than Republicans and Republican leaners saying they had modified views.

Although most people have not changed their views on a political or social issue in the past year because of social media, those who have also tend to place a high level of personal importance on social media as a tool for personal political engagement and activism. Among all social media users, people who changed their views on an issue are much more likely than those who didn’t to say such sites are important when it comes to getting involved with political or social issues important to them (63% vs. 35%) or finding others who share their views about important issues (67% vs. 38%). Just over half whose views changed (56%) say social media is personally important in providing a venue to express their political opinions, compared with a third of social media users who have not changed a view in the past year (33%).

While Americans who haven’t changed their views put less personal importance in social media, majorities see these platforms as helping give a voice to underrepresented groups; highlighting important issues that might otherwise go unnoticed; or helping hold powerful people accountable for their actions. Those who have changed a view thanks to social media are somewhat more likely to agree that these statements describe social media well. At the same time, majorities in both camps also agree that social media distracts people from issues that are truly important or makes people think they are making a difference when they really aren’t.

Obamas Hire Priya Swaminathan for New Netflix Production Company

Barack and Michelle Obama hire Priya Swaminathan, a seasoned entertainment executive with a background in documentaries and social activism, to work at the Los Angeles-based Netflix production company. She will team with the Obamas on developing new Hollywood projects, according to The Hollywood Reporter.

Swaminathan is the former director of development at Annapurna Pictures. She produced and co-directed Very Young Girls, a 2007 documentary on New York’s teenage prostitutes that aired on Showtime. She formerly worked for Dickhouse Productions. Swaminathan has served as an industry advisor for the Sundance Institute’s FilmTwo Initiative to encourage minority filmmakers. She’s also been recently involved in the Time’s Up Initiative.

Obamas Hire Priya Swaminathan for New Netflix Production CompanyIn May, Netflix announced that it signed the Obamas to a multiple-year deal to produce films and TV series.

The Obamas will produce a diverse mix of content, including the potential for scripted series, unscripted series, docu-series, documentaries and features. The Obamas have established Higher Ground Productions as the entity under which they will produce content for Netflix.

“One of the simple joys of our time in public service was getting to meet so many fascinating people from all walks of life, and to help them share their experiences with a wider audience,” said President Obama. “That’s why Michelle and I are so excited to partner with Netflix – we hope to cultivate and curate the talented, inspiring, creative voices who are able to promote greater empathy and understanding between peoples, and help them share their stories with the entire world.”

“Barack and I have always believed in the power of storytelling to inspire us, to make us think differently about the world around us, and to help us open our minds and hearts to others,” said the former first lady.

Swaminathan, a filmmaker and the former director of development at Annapurna Pictures, produced and co-directed “Very Young Girls,” a 2007 documentary on New York’s teenage prostitutes that aired on Showtime, and she formerly worked for Dickhouse Productions, according to The Hollywood Reporter. She also worked as an industry advisor for the Sundance Institute’s FilmTwo Initiative, which focuses on encouraging minority filmmakers. A social activist, she’s been closely associated with the Time’s Up Initiative, among others.

As a producer, Swaminathan has worked on a few documentaries like “The Wild and Wonderful Whites of West Virginia.” Her resume also includes working as a 3D artist on Bollywood films like “My Name is Khan” and “De Dana Dan.”

Statement of IIT Bombay Students Against Invitation of Narendra Modi in Convocation

As IIT Bombay students, we are proud that this institution has now stepped in its Diamond Jubilee year and has occupied a prominent place among the other well-known institutes of learning in this world. However, invitation of Mr. Narendra Modi, the prime minister of India, as a guest of honour in the convocation of this year, has raised some concerns among several students which we would like to share with the larger body of students, academicians and people in general. We would like to question the contribution of the ruling government, whose head is PM Narendra Modi, in higher education and in other vital social issues affecting the social harmony and fundamental rights of a substantial section of the Indian population. Visit of politicians and ministers is not new for academic institutions, but, the motive behind this is also a matter of concern. whereas nobody would be stopping the Prime minister from entering the campus, or delivering his speech,  there are questions, which we would like to raise here. There are the issues which affect even the privileged students in IITs as well as the other students from more neglected institutions . Such issues should at least be raised, if not addressed by the authorities.Let us begin with the question of poor public expenditure in higher education.
Expenditure of the Indian government in education is abysmally low, and it is almost negligible in higher education, compared to many other countries. Budgetary expenditure in higher education is in a steep decline for the last few years as more and more private universities are coming up and public universities are compelled to hike their fees, leading a large number of students to difficulties and forcing many out of higher education.
Public Expenditure in Higher Education in India
Kundu,P. 2017: Education Budget lacks imagination, Economic and Political Weekly. Vol. LII. No.27
Kundu,P. 2017: Education Budget lacks imagination, Economic and Political Weekly. Vol. LII. No.27
This ever declining public expenditure in education, is making us question the higher education policy of the ruling government, and naturally we wonder, whether Mr. Modi  wants higher education for all, or whether he is promoting the Brahmanical idea of education only for a few people, belonging to upper caste and upper class backgrounds. Even out of this limited education budget, the share of the IIT’s alone is more than half. Academia in social sciences is facing acute shortage of funds. We fear, scraping of Non-NET fellowship in central universities or scraping of GOI-PMS scholarship (for SC, ST and OBC students) in TISS,are just the beginning. Further fee hike and scraping of scholarships are expected if the present system is allowed to continue. Of course, the worst sufferers would be the underprivileged students coming from non-upper caste backgrounds. Already the General Financial Rules (GFR) of the MHRD and UGC are about to be implemented in the central universities, and if these rules are implemented, a substantial expenditure of the central universities has to be raised from the fees paid by the students.This will automatically lead to fee hike. Is it wrong for us to question, what happens to the state universities? Is it wrong to think this to be an attack on the entire academic community of the country in general? Incidentally IIT Bombay has already complied with GFR and recently a massive fee hike was announced. This is true in every other institutions despite how privileged they are. Shouldn’t we ask here what happens to the students who are not able to meet this increased financial burden of higher education without economic assistance from the state?  Why shouldn’t we ask that this abysmally low budget in public education be raised immediately, and education be made inclusive?
The next set of concerns obviously arises with the HECI Bill (Higher Education Committee of India Bill), which is proposed to replace the University Grants Commission (UGC),  the main body regulating funds given to the institutes of higher education. Since the power to control funds will remain with the MHRD under the new act and HECI will have the power to punish or even shut down any institution which will not meet its guidelines,as researchers and students we suspect this to be an attack on the autonomy of the universities. Also without grants, the universities are expected to repay the ‘loans’ they have taken from the MHRD, which will automatically lead to further hike in fees, making the higher education spaces exclusionary for students. Already specialized centres like Centres for Study of Social Exclusion or Centres for Women studies, which deal with social exclusion and raise criticisms are dissolved in universities like JNU and TISS. HECI can regulate this to a far greater extent and totally curb the autonomies of the universities in selecting which courses they are willing to offer. Will it be wrong for us to question the prime minister  why his government is hell bent on destroying the educational institutions of this country? Will it be wrong for us to ask, why the government is scared of higher education and freedom of teachers and students in selecting what they want to study?
The next very important concern is that of employment. Despite our privileged status as students of IIT Bombay, we are indeed concerned about the falling rate of employment across the country. The government has managed to create very little number of jobs over the last few years.The employment generation speed faced a six-year low in 2015 as only 135,000 new jobs were created compared to 421,000 jobs in 2014 and 419,000 in 2013, as per a quarterly industrial survey conducted by the Labour Bureau under the Labour Ministry.Jobs in the IT sector have dwindled to 1.5 lakh annual recruitments from over 3 lakh recruitments in previous years. After a survey conducted by job site Naukri.com, the report said, “The overall job market saw an 11 percent fall in new jobs, with IT-software industry most hit. IT-Software industry was hit the most with a 24 percent decline in hiring in April as compared to April 2016.” Besides,as per Labour bureau figures, India added just 1.35 lakh jobs in eight labour-intensive sectors in 2015, compared to 9.3 lakh jobs that were created in 2011. Whereas recruitment in government sector is almost negligible and employment in other sectors are falling, we are rightfully concerned about the validity of the entire ‘Make in India’ narrative and how much it actually guarantees. Without presence of any reservation for SC/ ST or OBC candidates in the private sector, more than 50 % of the Indian population with higher education, are likely to be pushed out of the job market as well.  The prime minister is expected to answer for this exclusion in the employment sector.
As researchers and students, we believe that academia is not something disconnected from the society. We condemn all the hate crimes happening across the country in name of religion, caste, ethnicity and race. Somehow, the ruling government has found out a way to defend or be silent about most of such occurring. As we write this, we condemn the rape and murder women across the country, particularly of those, who were targeted because of their Dalit, tribal or Muslim identities. We question how the perpetrators of such heinous crime could get all solidarity from the ruling party. We condemn all the atrocities committed on Dalits and Muslims over the last few years in the name of religion and aggressive upper caste pride. We question how beef becomes so important an issue that living human being could be killed for it, and the murderer would get perfect impunity from the state. We question how the government could so easily decide who is a citizen and who is not on basis of their religious identities. But finally we would like to question Mr. Modi’s silence on all these issues. As a prime minister, we demand that he takes a positive stand and condemn all the hate crimes committed and supported by his party members.
Students of IIT Bombay

“I believe in the future of Connecticut:” Says Dita Bhargava, Running for State Treasurer in Connecticut

“I believe in the future of Connecticut. As Treasurer, I will execute strong and sound fiscal policy to benefit our great state and residents,” says Dita Bhargava, an Indian American running to win the nomination for State Treasurer in Connecticut, representing the Democratic Party in the upcoming state primaries on August 14th. “I’ll work with businesses, colleges, and government on solutions that lead us to thrive together and make our state stronger and fairer. I want to improve our fiscal situation such that we can invite new businesses that will invest responsibly in our state, and ensure that our college graduates can find the right opportunities here at home.”

Dita Bhargava had initially wanted to run to be state’s Governor, but abandoned the run and chose to be the next Treasurer of the Constitution state. Her reason for switching from gubernatorial to treasurer candidate is because she believes her financial background is better suited to the state’s treasurer post, she told the publication.

Dita Bhargava was elected as vice chairwoman of the Connecticut Democratic State Central Committee (DSCC) and has been seen as rising star in the state Democratic Party. “Dita Bhargava is an excellent choice to serve as state party vice chairwoman,” said U.S. Rep. Jim Himes. “I have gotten to know her as a community leader in Greenwich, and I can tell you from experience that she has the leadership skills to be highly effective in her new role. ”

“I want to thank the DSCC for entrusting me with this incredible opportunity and responsibility,” said Bhargava. “Connecticut Democrats are already working tirelessly to build a grassroots organization and expand our ranks with new voices and faces that ensure we are ready to compete in 2017 and 2018. We will hold the Connecticut Republicans supporting the Trump administration’s extreme agenda accountable. I look forward to getting right to work.”

“I’m proud to call Connecticut my home,” Bhargava says. “I believe in our great state and my vision is for Connecticut to be a place where all have a chance for success.  We must create thriving cities, empower our middle class families and make revitalizing Connecticut a top priority. With my private sector experience, I know what it takes to find solutions, navigate and negotiate the complicated issues our state faces, and get things done.”

As the Treasurer, Bhargava, an young and energetic Indian American leader, is committed to  work “to enhance the livelihood of our families, strengthen our economy, and restore the state’s fiscal solvency. A strong and fair Connecticut is a goal we all share, and we will deliver it together.”

“I believe in the future of Connecticut:” Says Dita Bhargava, Running for State Treasurer in Connecticut“Democrats are fired up and ready to go,” said Bhargava, a former Wall Street portfolio manager from Greenwich. “What better way to tap into that energy than a series of debates that drive to the heart of the issues that they care about?” Bhargava suggested one debate in each of Connecticut’s five Congressional district, the same format that candidates for attorney general are planning for their forums.

Bhargava received an overwhelming number of votes in support of her campaign at the Democratic State Convention this Spring. “I’m excited to continue this incredible journey with you all. Now, it’s time to dig in, dig deep, and set our sights on Election Day. There is much work to be done in Connecticut, and I look forward to winning this race and getting to work to put our state back on a path of fiscal and economic prosperity.”

“This fall and winter, as I explored running for statewide office, I visited more than 60 towns across Connecticut to learn about the challenges facing our state. I heard the concerns you voiced over rising living costs and college tuition, escalating taxes, increasing budget deficits, our exodus of young workers, and the future of our pension system, among many other issues,” Bhargava said in the statement.

“Hearing these stories has emboldened my commitment to public service and helped strengthen the fiscal and economic foundations of our state. It’s also led me to reconsider how I can best harness my strengths, knowledge, and experiences in ways that best serve our citizens,” she added.

In order to succeed in her efforts to make the state successful for everyone, the talented and visionary leader, says, “It will require new ideas and strong executive leadership in Hartford. We cannot afford to keep governing the same way and expect a better outcome. That’s why I’m running for State Treasurer.”

Bhargava is an active volunteer and supporter of the Clinton Foundation, Robin Hood Foundation and Inspirica Women’s Shelter and in January of 2017, she was unanimously elected Vice Chair of the Connecticut State Democratic Party, according to her website.

“I believe in the future of Connecticut:” Says Dita Bhargava, Running for State Treasurer in ConnecticutBhargava said that the state will need to be steered in a new direction as Denise Nappier completes her 20-year tenure as state Treasurer. “During her tenure, Denise has expanded the discussion on corporate governance to include an awareness of businesses’ social and environmental impact.  She has been a tireless advocate for better financial literacy in our state, where we lag behind our peers. The next Treasurer should have an appreciation for these issues, as well as a comprehensive knowledge of finance, investing, and the economy,” Bhargava stated, adding that her upbringing, professional experience in the financial sector and her progressive vision “are what Connecticut needs in our next Treasurer.”

Bhargava also mentioned in the statement that she wants to find solutions for the middle- and working-class families of Connecticut and she believes she can do so since she has that financial experience on Wall Street as well as in the nonprofit area where she “spent many years helping underserved communities and advocating for family-friendly policies such as paid family leave and equal pay for equal work.”

Lauding the great contributions of the Indian American community, which has excelled in almost every field, Bhargava, a second generation Indian American has urgedthe need for Indian Americans to come together, stand united and work for the greater good of the larger American society. She appealed to the fast growing Indian American community in the US to join her as “we work together to make Connecticut a prosperous state.”

“I’m fully prepared to steer Connecticut’s financial future in these challenging times. We’re already in a prolonged budgetary crisis, and Donald Trump’s federal tax plan—and the large deficits it will incur—may threaten Connecticut’s fiscal stability and its pension portfolio, already hard-pressed to match liabilities. The people of our state – retirees, workers, students, and the most vulnerable—need and deserve protection. I feel confident that with my experience, vision, and dedication, I’m the candidate most qualified and best equipped to lead our state back to fiscal and economic stability,” Bhargava stated.

Trump’s Attacks on Media Violate Basic Norms of Press Freedom, Human Rights Experts say

U.S. President Donald Trump’s repeated attacks on the free press are strategic, designed to undermine confidence in reporting and raise doubts about verifiable facts.
The President has labelled the media as being the “enemy of the American people” “very dishonest” or “fake news,” and accused the press of “distorting democracy” or spreading “conspiracy theories and blind hatred”.

These attacks run counter to the country’s obligations to respect press freedom and international human rights law. We are especially concerned that these attacks increase the risk of journalists being targeted with violence.
Over the course of his presidency, Trump and others within his administration, have sought to undermine reporting that had uncovered waste, fraud, abuse, potential illegal conduct, and disinformation.
Trump’s Attacks on Media Violate Basic Norms of Press Freedom, Human Rights Experts sayEach time the President calls the media ‘the enemy of the people’ or fails to allow questions from reporters from disfavored outlets, he suggests nefarious motivations or animus. But he has failed to show even once that specific reporting has been driven by any untoward motivations.
It is critical that the U.S. administration promote the role of a vibrant press and counter rampant disinformation. To this end, we urge President Trump not only to stop using his platform to denigrate the media but to condemn these attacks, including threats directed at the press at his own rallies.
The attack on the media goes beyond President Trump’s language. We also urge his entire administration, including the Department of Justice, to avoid pursuing legal cases against journalists in an effort to identify confidential sources, an effort that undermines the independence of the media and the ability of the public to have access to information.
We urge the Government to stop pursuing whistle-blowers through the tool of the Espionage Act, which provides no basis for a person to make an argument about the public interest of such information.
We stand with the independent media in the United States, a community of journalists and publishers and broadcasters long among the strongest examples of professional journalism worldwide. We especially urge the press to continue, where it does so, its efforts to hold all public officials accountable.
We encourage all media to act in solidarity against the efforts of President Trump to favor some outlets over others. Two years of attacks on the press could have long term negative implications for the public’s trust in media and public institutions. Two years is two years too much, and we strongly urge that President Trump and his administration and his supporters end these attacks.
(David Kaye is the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression for the United Nations and Edison Lanza is Special Rapporteur for the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.)

Will Imran Khan help Pakistan reshape its image

For a second time in its over 70 years of history, Pakistan transitioned to a peaceful politically inspired democratic transition on Wednesday, July 22nd. Imran Khan, the cricket star and A-list celebrity whose political party won this past week’s elections, could use his fame and charisma to reset Pakistan’s troubled relations with the West.

The dust has hardly settled from the election, which was marred by allegations of rigging and copious evidence that Pakistan’s military interfered to help Khan win. Khan’s party trounced the others, but as of Sunday remained short of a majority in Parliament. To become prime minister, he needs to win over independent candidates and smaller parties to build a coalition. Most analysts believe he will succeed, although it is not a sure thing.

It is widely expected that if Khan, 65, becomes prime minister, there will be an initial fascination with him as he tours the world. Most likely, he’ll visit foreign capitals and business titans, seeking help to solve Pakistan’s dire debt crisis and bring in investors. He also seems to have China in mind.

Khan’s political rivals in the months before the election, helping him win. But the Establishment chiefs may now be kicking themselves for doing a job too well. They seem to like Khan, for the time being, partly because his forcefulness with the United States and tolerance of Islamist extremists reflect how many of Pakistan’s top officers feel.

Pakistan’s military has directly ruled for much of its history and meddled during the rest. What the military bosses really wanted this time, analysts say, was a weak civilian government, with the veneer of a democracy. They were so heavy-handed in their tactics they ended up getting neither.

Will Imran Khan help Pakistan reshape its imageIn many ways, Pakistan is a pivotal nation. It is the world’s sixth-most populous country, with 200 million people. It is also nuclear-armed and strategically located next to India, China, Iran and Afghanistan. For decades it has been cast in turmoil by suicide bombers, extremist groups and a nefarious spy agency that helped create the Taliban and actively supported Al Qaeda while ostensibly serving as an ally to the United States.

For a nation often in the news for all the wrong reasons — suicide bombings, support for terrorism, horrific massacres — Pakistan has reached a turning point that could possibly alter its dysfunctional trajectory. Khan also may move Pakistan much closer to the expanding sphere of China, a neighbor he has praised conspicuously as a role model.

Or Khan could simply follow the same path as many Pakistani leaders before him, supporting harsh Islamic laws and showing sympathy for militant groups, policies that have kept Pakistan isolated for years.

Khan brings something new: more star power and mystique than any recent Pakistani leader and perhaps a better chance to change the country’s narrative, even though the election was widely considered tainted. “Relatively few Pakistani leaders have won over the West,” said Michael Kugelman, deputy director for the South Asia Program at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington. “But Khan is familiar with operating in the international world. He already has strong name recognition. He doesn’t need to be introduced.”

Former cricketer Khan was once known as a party-loving playboy who eventually married Jemima Goldsmith, a British heiress with Jewish heritage. Now Khan was a pious Muslim and conservative politician who rejected Western values. Khan’s transformation was still never fully accepted as authentic by Pakistan’s political elite, who routinely indulged in gossip about his playboy ways and religious hypocrisy—for instance, the woman on the divan.

Oxford-educated and once married to a wealthy British woman, Khan is clearly comfortable in the highest circles of Western power brokers. He was close friends with Princess Diana. He now expresses sympathy for the Taliban and for Pakistan’s harsh blasphemy laws, which include the death penalty, positions that play well domestically.

“He’s dangerously accommodating of extremists, and anyone who knows him knows this,” said C. Christine Fair, a political scientist at Georgetown University.

“Khan might be more inclined to butt heads,” said Marvin Weinbaum, a scholar at the Middle East Institute and former State Department intelligence analyst. “The difference with Imran is going to be because he’s a populist, he feels he can go further than Nawaz.”

Khan’s erratic personality is a further complication. He is known for running a team of one, making impulsive decisions, contradicting himself and then using his enormous reserves of self-confidence and charisma to dig himself out.

Khan remains most focused on getting the numbers he needs in Pakistan’s Parliament to form a coalition government with him as prime minister. So far, some smaller parties have indicated they will join, but he still has a way to go. The third-place party, the Pakistan Peoples Party, has been coy about whether it will join Khan’s side or oppose him. If it did join, that would easily push  Khan’s coalition into the majority.

Most Pakistanis, even those who did not vote for Khan, believe he will be the next prime minister. Expectations are soaring that he will be able to change his country’s image. “Everybody thinks of Pakistan as a terrorist world,” said a 16-year-old girl named Mahnoor, who was sitting in the food court of a fancy new mall this week, eating McDonald’s French fries. “It’s not.”

Naveed Majeed, a rice exporter, said foreigners would listen to Mr. Khan because he brings something of an aura. “And I want him to tell the world we’re not all terrorists,” Mr. Majeed said. It’s clearly a sensitive subject; many Pakistanis ache for a new story for their country.

A wealthy sports icon turned politician who constantly reminds the country’s elite they don’t know the real Pakistan, Imran Khan’s rise to power is a replay of America’s 2016 reckoning with Donald Trump and the anti-establishment wave he rode to the White House.

Turnout in this year’s U.S. House primaries is up, especially on the Democratic side

Americans appear to be more engaged with this year’s midterm elections than they typically are. Not only do about half of registered voters report being more enthusiastic than usual about voting, up from 40% in 2014, but turnout has surged in the 31 states that already have held their congressional primaries – particularly among Democrats.

In those states, nearly 13.6 million people – or 10.1% of registered voters – have voted in Democratic primaries for the U.S. House of Representatives, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of state election returns. By this point in the 2014 midterm election cycle, fewer than 7.4 million people – or 6% of registered voters – had cast ballots in Democratic House primaries.

The total number of votes cast in Democratic House primaries so far this year is 84% higher than the total for the equivalent point in 2014. One reason: There have been a lot more contested primaries, which tend to attract more voters.

Republican turnout in House primaries also has increased, from a combined 8.6 million votes at this point in 2014 (7% of registered voters) to 10.7 million (7.9%) so far this year. But the increase is much smaller (24%) than on the Democratic side, and the total number of votes cast in Democratic House primaries is considerably higher. Overall turnout in U.S. Senate and gubernatorial primaries also is above 2014 levels.

In general, voter turnout falls in midterm elections relative to presidential election years, and primaries nearly always draw fewer voters than general elections. So even if the surge seen so far this year continues, final turnout rates for this year’s primaries likely will be low in absolute terms, even if they exceed 2014 levels. And based on past experience, partisan disparities in primary turnout don’t necessarily predict individual general-election outcomes.

Our analysis is based on official vote totals and voter registration figures from the states that have held primaries so far this year. (The next batch is in early August, making July an opportune time for a spot-check.) We included all valid votes for candidates, including write-in votes when reported, but excluded blank votes and other spoiled or void ballots. For comparability, we also excluded runoffs and special elections from the analysis.

The primaries held so far cover 308 House seats, which means there were potentially 616 contested Republican and Democratic primaries. In most cases, however, there’s only one candidate for the nomination (or, sometimes, none at all), so the actual number of primaries with at least two choices on the ballot is a lot smaller.

So far this year, 340 House primaries have been contested by at least two candidates, versus 251 in 2014. Most of that increase has been on the Democratic side, with 81 more contested Democratic House primaries this year (203) than in 2014 (122). By contrast, there have been only eight more contested Republican House primaries so far this year (137) than at this point in 2014 (129).

To date, more than 9.9 million people have voted in contested Democratic House primaries, more than twice as many as had voted in such races at this point in 2014 (fewer than 4.3 million). Turnout in contested Republican House primaries has risen too, but again less so than in the Democratic races: an increase of about 1.2 million votes between 2014 (5.7 million) and this year (just under 7 million).

The rules governing primaries can (and do) vary considerably from state to state, which can make it tricky to compare turnout across time, between states and among different offices.

Several states, such as Virginia, don’t hold primaries in uncontested races; some rely on party conventions to pick nominees, with primary elections as a backstop. In some states, parties limit their primaries to registered members; in other states, especially those that don’t register voters by party, primaries are open to anyone. California uses a “top two” system in which all candidates for a given office run in a single primary; the two gaining the most votes, regardless of party label, advance to the general election in November. This year, Maine used a “ranked choice” system in its primaries, in which voters ranked candidates in order of preference.

More often than you might think, one or the other major party might not even nominate someone for a particular office, depressing turnout while effectively ceding the general election to its main rival (and, in some cases, a batch of minor parties and write-in candidates). On the other hand, turnout in an uncontested race could be boosted by the presence of a different, contested race on the same ballot.

Turnout also has been higher in this year’s gubernatorial and Senate primaries, though the increases have been similar for both parties. (We analyzed those contests separately, even if they were on the same ballot as the House races, since some people may have voted in one or the other race but not all of them.) So far this year, around 16.8 million people have voted in 17 states’ regular Senate primaries, or 20.8% of those states’ registered voters. By this point in 2014, 9.7 million people had voted in 19 Senate primaries.

Direct comparisons are easier in the 36 states that are choosing governors this year, because the same states did so four years ago. So far, total turnout in the 20 states that have held gubernatorial primaries is 22.7 million (24.8% of these states’ registered voters), up from 14.9 million (18.4%) in 2014. (To be fair, there were no gubernatorial primaries in South Carolina four years ago, as both the Republican and Democratic nominees faced no competition, but that wouldn’t come close to explaining the gap: Only 608,451 people voted in this year’s gubernatorial primaries, both of which were contested.) A likelier reason is that there were a lot more incumbent governors running for re-election four years ago. Only four of the 20 gubernatorial contests held by this point in 2014 were open seats, compared with 12 this year.

Attorney J. Nicholas Ranjan Nominated for U.S. District Judge Seat in Western Pennsylvania

The White House July 24 announced that J. Nicholas Ranjan has been nominated to be the U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Nicholas Ranjan is an equity partner in the Pittsburgh office of K&L Gates LLP. On July 13, 2018, Republican President Donald Trump nominated Ranjan to a seat on the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania

The nomination, made in response to Kim R. Gibson retiring, was officially sent to the Senate, a White House news release said. His practice focuses on a variety of complex litigation and arbitration including class action defense and energy litigation, appeals, compliance counseling and internal investigations.

The Indian American attorney practices anjan’s practice focuses on a variety of complex litigation and arbitration (including class action defense and energy litigation), appeals, compliance counseling, and internal investigations. His practice is across a number of different industries, such as the energy, commercial real estate, financial services, higher education, innovation, internet marketing, insurance, consumer, pharmaceutical, and transportation industries.

He has been selected by Chambers USA as one of the top commercial litigators in Pennsylvania multiple times, with clients commending his “creative approach and responsiveness.” He has been selected as a fellow with The Litigation Counsel of America, which is an invitation-only trial lawyer honorary, representing less than one-half of one percent of American lawyers. He serves as a 2017 fellow with the Leadership Council on Legal Diversity. He also serves as a member of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Litigation Center (state litigation advisory committee), advising the Chamber of Commerce on appellate amicus involvement throughout the country.

Mr. Ranjan is the pro bono coordinator for the firm’s Pittsburgh office. During his time in this position, the Allegheny County Bar Association awarded the firm the pro bono law firm of the year award. He also is the chairman of the Pittsburgh office’s diversity committee and is a member of the K&L Gates global diversity committee. He is active in leading diversity initiatives within the firm and in the community. For these efforts, he was a recipient of the Leadership Excellence Award, awarded by the Pittsburgh Leadership Conference.

Ranjan’s complex litigation experience is varied, across a number of different industries and before a number of state and federal courts. One area of his focus is on class action defense, where he has had experience litigating a variety of consumer, health-care, statutory, government-enforcement “tag along,” oil and gas, product liability, and employment-related class actions. He has handled class certification proceedings and has negotiated complex classwide settlements.

He has counseled clients on cybersecurity and telecommunications class action liabilities and risks, including those associated with cyber data breaches and those associated with text messaging and junk faxes under the TCPA. He has represented private equity clients in conducting due diligence associated with class action liabilities. He has also advised clients and published articles on the use of arbitration/class waiver agreements as a means to reduce class-action liability.

In addition to his class-action experience, Ranjan has served as lead counsel in complex commercial disputes, ranging from commercial real estate (including retail lease, construction, and injunction matters), financial services (including FCRA, FDCPA, and investment management), false advertising, intellectual property, catastrophic injury, trade secret, pharmaceutical, corporate raiding, transportation/3PL, insurance coverage, ERISA, internet-marketing, and Title IX-related litigation.

Ranjan is also qualified to act as an arbitrator for the American Arbitration Association, and is qualified to serve individually and on panels concerning commercial disputes, oil and gas disputes, and consumer disputes, among other matters. Additionally, Ranjan has an active domestic arbitration practice. Within the last five years, Mr. Ranjan has been lead counsel for claimants and respondents in over fifteen AAA, common law, and free form arbitrations. In many of these cases, Mr. Ranjan initially compelled the matter from court to arbitration. Six of these cases were taken to a full award.

Ranjan also has an active pro bono practice, representing prisoners, criminal defendants, and religious entities in free speech, religious liberties, civil rights, criminal, and habeas cases, both at the trial level and on appeal. Several of these cases have garnered local and national media attention.

Within the energy sector, Mr. Ranjan’s experience includes representing natural-gas operators, pipeline companies, non-operating interest owners, and drilling and completions companies in royalty calculation and class action matters, lease disputes, joint-venture disputes, surface-use disputes, seismic-testing disputes, pooling/unitization disputes, wastewater disputes, tax disputes, injunction proceedings, nuisance matters, insurance coverage matters, and other land-use litigation.

Ranjan has also represented energy and industrial clients in multiple crisis management events, having advised clients on on-site response and investigatory efforts, insurance and cost recovery, and litigation management.

Ranjan has represented clients in appeals before five different federal appellate courts, and has briefed, argued, or consulted on numerous appeals in federal and state appellate courts, including in the Pennsylvania, Ohio, California, and West Virginia supreme courts. He has been commended by the Third Circuit on several occasions in written opinions for his appellate advocacy, and in one case, the Third Circuit appointed him to serve individually as an amicus curiae to assist the court. He also previously served by appointment to the Second Circuit’s pro bono panel.

Ranjan is a member of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Litigation Center (state litigation advisory committee), advising the Chamber of Commerce on appellate amicus involvement throughout the country, and has served as counsel of record for the Chamber in the California and Ohio Supreme Courts, as well.

Ranjan has also given presentations with a number of other appellate practitioners and judges, providing advice on effective appellate advocacy and oral argument strategy. And, since 2010, he has been one of the authors of the Pennsylvania Bar Institute’s Third Circuit treatise. Ranjan also frequently provides advice to K&L Gates’ trial teams across the country in formulating post-trial motion and appellate strategy.

PM Modi talks trade at BRICS Summit, meets Xi on sidelines

Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Thursday reaffirmed India’s commitment to multilateralism, international trade and a rules-based world order as he participated in the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) summit in South Africa.

Modi, who arrived in Johannesburg on the last leg of his Africa tour, presented the country statement of India at the BRICS leaders’ closed session.

“At the session with fellow BRICS leaders, I shared my thoughts on various global issues, the importance of technology, skill development and how effective multilateral cooperation creates a better world,” Modi tweeted. He also met Chinese President Xi Jinping, who earlier urged fellow leaders of the BRICS emerging economies to “reject protectionism outright”.

Modi along Xi, Russian President Vladimir Putin, Brazilian President Michel Temer and South African President Cyril Ramaphosa posed for a group photograph on the second day of their meeting. The leaders reiterated their resolve to fight terrorism, but the names of terrorist organisations including the Pakistan-based ones were missing from the joint declaration.

The Xiamen Declaration of the last BRICS summit, which was celebrated last year as a victory for Indian diplomacy, had named Pakistan-based terror groups such as the Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed.

“We condemn terrorism in all its forms and manifestations wherever committed and by whomsoever. We urge concerted efforts to counter terrorism under the UN auspices on a firm international legal basis and express our conviction that a comprehensive approach is necessary to ensure an effective fight against terrorism,” the joint statement said. “We recall the responsibility of all States to prevent financing of terrorist networks and terrorist actions from their territories.”

In his address, PM Modi said India wants to work with the nations on the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) and called for sharing among them the best practices and policies in the area. The 4IR is the fourth major industrial era since the Industrial Revolution of the 18th century. Modi said technological innovations can help enhance service delivery and productivity levels. “High-skilled but temporary work will be the new face of employment. There will be radical changes in industrial production, design, and manufacturing,” he said.

In his address, Xi called for a concerted effort by global institutions such as the United Nations, the G7 and the World Trade Organization to fight unilateralism and protectionism. Xi also called for dialogue to settle disputes on global trade, underlining remarks he made at the opening day, urging a rejection of unilateralism in the wake of tariff threats by US President Donald Trump. Trump’s warnings have given the BRICS nations fresh impetus to enhance trade cooperation, and their leaders found a collective voice championing global trade at the summit.

Malnutrition at unacceptable levels: Venkiah Naidu

India stood a poor 100th among 119 countries in the Global Hunger Index (GHI) that was released in October last year.

Decrying persisting malnutrition in the country at “unacceptable levels”, Vice President M. Venkaiah Naidu on Sunday last week called for making agriculture nutrition-sensitive to address the problem.

There is no improvement despite the efforts taken by successive governments at Centre and in various states, which is “quite distressing”, he said while addressing the National Consultation on Leveraging Agriculture for Nutrition organised by MS Swaminathan Research Foundation.

“A considerable section of the population in our country suffers from malnutrition consisting of under-nutrition, hidden hunger caused by micronutrient deficiencies and obesity…We must make agriculture nutrition-sensitive and it is critical that we explicitly make this vital connection between agriculture and nutrition,” he said, as per a release.

His remarks came against the backdrop of three sisters that were found to have starved to death in east Delhi and doctors held severe malnutrition as the main cause for their deaths.

India stood a poor 100th among 119 countries in the Global Hunger Index (GHI) that was released in October last year.

Naidu further said the central government has adopted The National Nutrition Strategy, which recognises the imperative need to have a relook at the agriculture policy.

He said Indian agriculture must diversify food production by moving away from mono-cropping of major cereals to a system that integrates a variety of food items including small millets, pulses, fruits, and vegetables.

“Millets like jowar, bajra, ragi and little millets like kutki, kodo, sawa, kangni and cheena are known to be nutrient-rich. Since cultivation of millets requires less water, efforts must be to promote their cultivation as part of crop rotation,” he said.

Naidu said that government, civil society, scientists and researchers must share knowledge and expertise with farmers to make agriculture sustainable and nutrition-rich.

Balancing Trade Wars

A global trade war has broken out. The United States fired the first salvo and there has been retaliation by the European Union, Canada, China and even India. Tariffs on certain imported goods have been increased in a tit-for-tat reaction.

Analysts see it as a limited war in the understanding that Donald Trump is all for “free-trade”. But this view denies the fact that a tectonic shift is taking place in the world. It is a war for ascendency to global leadership; a contest between the US and China.

China is heaving its might on the world. President Xi Jinping’s Belt and Road Initiative is an open call for its global influence. In July 2017, China launched the ambitious plan to invest in the technology of the future—artificial intelligence.

There are dark (unconfirmed) whispers about how it is going about acquiring many new-age technologies by rolling over western companies operating in vast markets.

The last century belonged to the US and Europe with Russia as the communist outlier. China became mighty all because of the emergence of the free trade regime in the world. Just some 35-odd years ago, it was behind the iron curtain.

But then the World Trade Organization (WTO) was born in January 1995. China’s trade boomed. It took over the world’s manufacturing jobs. India, too, found its place by servicing outsourced businesses like telemarketing. “Shanghaied” and “Bangalored” entered the lexicon—as jobs (and pollution) moved continents. This way, globalization fulfilled its purpose to usher in a new era of world prosperity. Or so, we thought.

Instead, globalization has made the world more complicated and convoluted. In early 1990s, when the discussions on the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) were at its peak, there was a clear North-South divide.

The then-developed world pushed for opening up of trade. It wanted markets and protection through rules on “fair” trade and intellectual property. The then developing world was worried what the free trade regime would do to its nascent and weak industrial economies.

More importantly, there were fears of what these new open trade rules would do to its farmers, who would have to compete with the disproportionately subsidised farmers of the developed world.

In 1999 tensions flared up at the WTO ministerial meet in Seattle. By this time, reality of globalisation had dawned and so it was citizens of the rich world who protested for labour rights, worried about outsourcing of their jobs and environmental abuses.

But these violent protests were crushed. The next decade was lost in the financial crisis. The new winners told the old losers that “all was well”.

Today Trump has joined the ranks of the Leftist Seattle protesters, while India and China are the new defenders of free trade. The latter in fact want more, much more of it.

But again, is it so straightforward? All these arrangements are built on the refusal to acknowledge the crisis of employment. The first phase of globalisation led to some displacement of labour and this is what Trump is griping about.

But the fact is that this phase of globalisation has only meant war between the old elite (middle-classes in the world of trade and consumerism) and the new elite. It has not been long enough or deep enough to destroy the foundations of the livelihoods of the vast majority of the poor engaged in farming. But it is getting there.

But this is where the real impact of globalisation will be felt. Global agricultural trade remains distorted and deeply contentious. The trade agreements targeted basics like procurement of foodgrains by governments to withstand scarcity and the offer of minimum support price to farmers.

Right now, the Indian government is making the right noises that it will stand by its farmers. But we will not be able to balance this highly imbalanced trade regime if we don’t recognise that employment is the real crisis.

It is time that this round of trade war should be on the need for livelihood opportunities. Global trade talks must discuss employment not just industry. It must value labour and not goods.

This is what is at the core of the insecurity in the world. It is not about trade or finance. It is about the biggest losers: us, the people and the planet. The link to the original article follows:
https://www.downtoearth.org.in/

Sen. Kamala Harris’ Book to Be Published Next Year: Penguin Press

Sen. Kamala Harris, a rising star in the Democratic Party who is sometimes cited as a possible presidential contender in 2020, has a book deal.

Penguin Press announced that Harris’ “The Truths We Hold: An American Journey” will come out Jan. 8, 2019. According to Penguin, Harris will write about “the core truths” in American life and how to learn what they are.

The 53-year-old Harris was formerly California’s attorney general. She was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2016.

For politicians, books have long been a standard part of developing a national profile, from John F. Kennedy’s “Profiles in Courage” to Barack Obama’s “The Audacity of Hope.”

Scott Moyers, vice president and publisher of Penguin Press, according to the Times praised Harris’s “authentic” voice, and said her back story was especially compelling, including her “fascinating and formidable” mother.

The memoir and current-events primer, in a mixture well-known to campaign books, will include sketches of both Ms. Harris’s upbringing and her governing principles.

It’s the second book by Harris. The first, “Smart on Crime,” was published in 2009 — the year before she was elected California attorney general. Harris won her Senate seat in 2016.

Publishing books is a rite of passage for presidential prospects. Harris is the latest possible Democratic contender to publish a book since the 2016 presidential election. She joins former Vice President Joe Biden, Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and former New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu. Former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro’s book is expected this fall, and independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who published a book last year, has another one — titled “Where We Go From Here” — due after November’s midterm elections.

Penguin said that in the book Harris is “reckoning with the big challenges we face together, drawing on the hard-won wisdom and insight from her own career and the work of those who have most inspired her.”

“Through the arc of her own life, on into the great work of our day, she communicates a vision of shared struggle, shared purpose, and shared values,” Penguin said. “In a book rich in many home truths, not least is that a relatively small number of people work very hard to convince a great many of us that we have less in common than we actually do, but it falls to us to look past them and get on with the good work of living our common truth. When we do, our shared effort will continue to sustain us and this great nation, now and in the years to come.”

Indian Overseas Congress to hold a one-day conference this coming weekend in New York

Indian Overseas Congress, USA will be holding a one-day national conference on this coming Saturday, July 28, 2018, at the Crowne Plaza Hotel near JFK airport (138-10 135th Ave, Jamaica, NY 11436). Delegates from across the country are expected to attend. Mr. Sam Pitroda, Chairman of the Indian Overseas Congress, AICC will be presiding over the conference.

The purpose the conference is to bring together like-minded people from around the country who believe in the values and principles of the Congress party that gained independence for India and helped to build the nation into one of the top economic powerhouses in the world based on a secular democracy that preserved freedom, liberty and justice for each and every citizen regardless of the caste, color, regional or linguistic differences.

The conference will be discussing the current challenges to the democracy in India and exploring the possibilities of strengthening the Overseas Congress Units in the U.S and expanding the cooperation between the NRIs and their motherland. The meeting will also be seeking inputs from the delegates as to how to strengthen the pillars of democracy in India through knowledge sharing in social media and via volunteerism with the upcoming 2019 elections in mind.

Speakers at the meeting include Mr. Sam Pitroda, Dr. Surinder Malhotra, George Abraham, Shudh Prakash Singh, Mohinder Singh Gilzian,  Rajinder Dichpally,  Harbachan Singh and AICC secretaries Himanshu Vyas and Madhu Yaskhi.

Those who are interested in attending the conference are urged to register at http://www.inocusa.org or call 917-544-4137 or 646- 646-732-5119 or 917-749-8769 for further information.

Judge Brett Kavanaugh is Trump’s Nominee for the Supreme Court

Brett M. Kavanaugh, 53, has been chosen to replace Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, by President Trump.  If confirmed, Judge Kavanaugh, who is expected to be a reliable conservative, would replace Justice Kennedy, a Reagan appointee who often voted with the court’s liberal wing on social issues like abortion and gay rights. Judge Kavanaugh is estimated to be more conservative than 66 percent of all other current and former federal judges nominated since 1980.

Before joining the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Judge Kavanaugh held several posts in the administration of George W. Bush, ultimately serving as his staff secretary. He also worked under Kenneth W. Starr, the independent counsel who investigated President Bill Clinton. Judge Kavanaugh sits on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the most influential circuit court) and is reportedly commanding wide and deep respect among scholars, lawyers and jurists.

In an opinion piece in a major daily, Akhil Reed Amar, an Indian American professor at Yale Law School, has hailed the nomination. “The nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to be the next Supreme Court justice is President Trump’s finest hour, his classiest move,” Prof. Amar wrote.

Judge Kavanaugh has already helped decide hundreds of cases concerning a broad range of difficult issues. Good appellate judges faithfully follow the Supreme Court; great ones influence and help steer it. Several of Judge Kavanaugh’s most important ideas and arguments — such as his powerful defense of presidential authority to oversee federal bureaucrats and his skepticism about newfangled attacks on the property rights of criminal defendants — have found their way into Supreme Court opinions.

According to Prof. Amar, Judge Kavanaugh has taught courses at leading law schools and published notable law review articles. More important, he is an avid consumer of legal scholarship. He reads and learns. And he reads scholars from across the political spectrum. (

Prof. Amar, who was one of Judge Kavanaugh’s professors when he was a student at Yale Law School, wrote, “This studiousness is especially important for a jurist like Judge Kavanaugh, who prioritizes the Constitution’s original meaning. A judge who seeks merely to follow precedent can simply read previous judicial opinions. But an “originalist” judge — who also cares about what the Constitution meant when its words were ratified in 1788 or when amendments were enacted — cannot do all the historical and conceptual legwork on his or her own.

“Judge Kavanaugh seems to appreciate this fact, whereas Justice Antonin Scalia, a fellow originalist, did not read enough history and was especially weak on the history of the Reconstruction amendments and the 20th-century amendments. A great judge also admits and learns from past mistakes. Here, too, Judge Kavanaugh has already shown flashes of greatness, admirably confessing that some of the views he held 20 years ago as a young lawyer — including his crabbed understandings of the presidency when he was working for the Whitewater independent counsel, Kenneth Starr — were erroneous.

“Judge Kavanaugh is, again, a superb nominee. Judge Kavanaugh could be confirmed with the ninety something Senate votes he deserves, rather than the fifty something votes he is likely to get,” Prof. Amar wrote.

Dinesh D’Souza in New Film, ‘Death of a Nation’ compares Trump with Lincoln

Weeks after being pardoned by President Donald Trump, Dinesh D’Souza is unveiling the trailer for his latest movie. Quality Flix opens the conservative’s latest documentary film, Death of a Nation, in 1,000 theaters on Aug. 3.

The film likens Abraham Lincoln to Donald Trump — saying that the situations they found themselves in as U.S. presidents are very similar, according to the filmmaker.

“Lincoln was elected to unite a country and stop slavery. Democrats smeared him; went to war against him; assassinated him. Now, their target is Trump,” D’Souza intones at the top of the trailer before announcing the movie is produced by Gerald Molen, the Oscar-winning producer of Schindler’s List and Jurassic Park.

D’Souza’s first three films, 2016: Obama’s America; America: Imagine a World Without Her; and Hillary’s America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party, were huge hits as far as documentaries go.

They were also very controversial, and D’Souza’s newest effort promises to be doubly so, considering its favorable treatment of Trump comes on the heels of a presidential pardon for the filmmaker, who was on probation for using straw donors to give more to a friend’s campaign for U.S. senator than the law allows.

Snippets seen in the two-minute trailer above include actor Pavel Kriz as Adolf Hitler in scenes filmed at Zeppelin Field where Nazi rallies took place eight decades ago, plus reenactments of the Civil War and of slaves being unmercifully beaten.

“Lincoln saved America the first time. It’s now up to us to save it a second time,” he says at the trailer’s end.

“The primary theme of the movie is racism and fascism,” D’Souza tells The Hollywood Reporter. “Look at the timeliness of this with the immigration debate, where Trump is being called a ‘Nazi,’ ‘fascist’ and ‘racist.’ This tells me that people don’t have a clue, not only about the history of fascism and racism, but where it exists today.”

D’Souza was convicted in 2014 on campaign finance fraud charges and sentenced to five years’ probation. Former Indian American U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara led the investigation into D’Souza, who was charged with using straw donors to illegally funnel $20,000 to the 2012 U.S. Senate campaign for New York Republican Wendy Long. President Trump pardoned the high-profile Indian American May 31. (Read earlier India-West story here.)

According to the film’s official description, “Death of a Nation” cuts through “progressive big lies to expose hidden history and explosive truths through stunning historical recreations and a searching examination of fascism and white supremacy.”

The trailer shows an actor portraying Adolf Hitler, reenactments of Nazi rallies, and Civil War, showing black slaves being mistreated by white men. “A nation dies when its people are not free,” D’Souza adds.

-+=