Category: U.S.
Trump Wants India To Be Part Of Expanded G-7
Prime Minister Narendra Modi has accepted President Trump’s invitation to attend the G-7 meet as a guest, and has also welcomed Trump’s proposal to include India in an expanded G-7.
The G-7 nations include the United States, Britain, France, Japan, Germany, Italy and Canada, and the European Union.
With the planned expansion, it’s unsure as to how the endgame is going to be. Trump is looking at “G-10 or G-11” with India, South Korea, Australia and Russia as additional members. The math is clear; it should become the G-11. Why G-10? Russia. It was kicked out of the group in 2014 (when G-8 became G-7) for annexing Crimea and it remains in the doghouse for most G-7 heads, who don’t share Trump’s enthusiasm for Russia.
But this uncertainty alone should not cast doubts on Trump’s plans for G-7 overhaul. Negotiators had looked at competing numbers for the 1997-99 expansion as well, but had settled on the smaller number to keep it manageable. India made it to that group.
The endgame is unclear, as it was then. Trump is looking at “G-10 or G-11” with India, South Korea, Australia and Russia as additional members. The math is clear; it should become the G-11. Why G-10? Russia. It was kicked out of the group in 2014 (when G-8 became G-7) for annexing Crimea and it remains in the doghouse for most G-7 heads, who don’t share Trump’s enthusiasm for Russia.
But this uncertainty alone should not cast doubts on Trump’s plans for G-7 overhaul. Negotiators had looked at competing numbers for the 1997-99 expansion as well, but had settled on the smaller number to keep it manageable. India made it to that group.
There was a clear need for a broader platform in 1997 to address challenges to global financial stability due to the widening economic crisis in Asian countries. And the G-20 provided an answer. The forum played an effective role after the 2008 crisis.
Trump’s expansion plan, on the other hand, is not well-thought-out. It does not appear to be about the coronavirus pandemic, the worst health crisis faced by the world in 100 years. If he believed in multilateralism to deal with it or prevent the next, he would have continued to fund the World Health Organization and forced to change it from within.
There was a clear need for a broader platform in 1997 to address challenges to global financial stability due to the widening economic crisis in Asian countries. And the G-20 provided an answer. The forum played an effective role after the 2008 crisis.
Trump’s expansion plan, on the other hand, is not well-thought-out. It does not appear to be about the coronavirus pandemic, the worst health crisis faced by the world in 100 years. If he believed in multilateralism to deal with it or prevent the next, he would have continued to fund the World Health Organization and forced to change it from within.
President Bill Clinton had broached the need for broadening the Group of Seven nations, called the G-7, in the wake of the Asian economic crisis of 1997. And that led to the launch of the G-20 in 1999, a group of 19 countries and the European Union. Today, President Donald Trump, has called for expanding the same body, G-7, on the basis that it is “very outdated.”
It was unclear whether Trump’s desire to invite the additional countries was a bid to permanently expand the G7. On several previous occasions, he suggested Russia be added, given what he called Moscow’s global strategic importance.
Russia was expelled from what was then the G8 in 2014 when Trump’s predecessor, Barack Obama, was U.S. president, after Moscow annexed the Crimea region from Ukraine. Russia still holds the territory, and various G7 governments have rebuffed previous calls from Trump to readmit Moscow.
U.S. President Donald Trump said on Saturday he would postpone a Group of Seven summit he had hoped to hold next month until September or later and expand the list of invitees to include Australia, Russia, South Korea and India.
Speaking to reporters on Air Force One during his return to Washington from Cape Canaveral in Florida, Trump said the G7, which groups the world’s most advanced economies, was a “very outdated group of countries” in its current format.
“I’m postponing it because I don’t feel that as a G7 it properly represents what’s going on in the world,” Trump said. Most European countries offered no immediate comment on the proposal, with a spokesman for the German government saying Berlin was “waiting for further information”.
The decision to postpone the G7 summit is a retreat for Trump, who had sought to host the group of major industrialized countries in Washington as a demonstration that the United States was returning to normal after the coronavirus epidemic, which has killed more than 113,000 Americans to date. Trump had canceled an in-person G7 meeting scheduled for March as the virus spread, but had recently sought to revive it.
French President Emmanuel Macron backed the idea of an in-person meeting, according to the White House. But Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau declined to endorse it, saying there were too many health-related questions. This week, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said she could not attend.
South Korea is aware of Trump’s invitation and will discuss the matter with the United States, a government official in Seoul told Reuters on Sunday. It’s also not about the economic crisis that has accompanied the pandemic.
All Trump cares about, at this time, is his re-election prospects. That’s why German chancellor Angela Merkel, the sharpest of politicians in the western world, who has made it a practice to not visit the United States in election years, is skipping the summit, although, to be sure, she has other reasons.
Goldman Predicts A ‘Blue Wave’ In The November Elections
- Goldman Sachs sees an increased possibility of a “blue wave” in the November elections, which could impact corporate profits and dividends.
- That could lead to a partial or full reversal of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act corporate tax reform legislation.
- “We estimate that a full reversal would lift the effective S&P 500 tax rate from 18% back to 26% and reduce our 2021 EPS forecast of $170 by $20 (11%) to $150,” Goldman vice president of equity strategy Cole Hunter and chief US strategist David Kostin wrote in a Thursday note.
Goldman Sachs said the possibility of a “blue wave,” or round of Democratic victories, is increasing ahead of the November 2020 elections.
“The 2020 election is just five months away, and prediction markets now price a 77%, 50%, and 51% likelihood of Democratic victories in the House, Senate, and presidential races, respectively,” Goldman vice president of equity strategy Cole Hunter and chief US strategist David Kostin wrote in a Thursday note.
According to Goldman, that could lead to a partial or full reversal of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, sweeping corporate tax reform legislation. Rolling the legislation back or dashing it entirely would have a negative impact on the earnings and dividends of companies, Goldman said.
“We estimate that a full reversal would lift the effective S&P 500 tax rate from 18% back to 26% and reduce our 2021 EPS forecast of $170 by $20 (11%) to $150,” Hunter and Kostin wrote.
The increasing odds of a Democratic “blue wave” in November have also raised the chances of a corporate tax hike, according to a Goldman Sachs report.
“The 2020 election is just five months away, and prediction markets now price a 77%, 50%, and 51% likelihood of Democratic victories in the House, Senate, and presidential races, respectively,” the report said.
“Our political economists believe that such an outcome could lead to a full or partial reversal of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act corporate tax reform legislation.”
Some of the major elements of the act, which was backed by congressional Republicans and the Trump administration, include reducing tax rates for businesses and individuals and reducing the alternative minimum tax for individuals and eliminating it for corporations.
The observation appeared in a study about how long-dated S&P 500 dividends are trading at a discount to the firm’s top-down estimates.
The report noted that the S&P 500 has surged 38% from its March 23 low. While long-dated S&P 500 dividend swaps and futures have historically traded with a high beta to the underlying equity index, the report said, the 2023 S&P 500 dividends per share has risen by only 7% during the period.
High beta stocks are those that are positively correlated with returns of the S&P 500, but at an amplified magnitude.
Fifty-six companies accounting for 8.1% of 2019 S&P 500 dividends per share have cut or suspended their payouts year-to-date as companies reassess their balance sheets in light of uncertainty caused by the coronavirus pandemic.
Airlines, cruise operators, hotels, casinos, retail, and energy companies account for much of the list, the report said, but dividend cuts have been fairly broad-based.
In addition to a possible Democratic victory, the report noted that the equity rally has been narrowly concentrated among firms that pay minimal or dividends.
Also, the recent higher move in equities has been driven by an expansion in P/E multiples rather than earnings growth.
Still, Goldman noted that high-tax-paying equities have actually outperformed their low-tax peers since March – gaining 44% and 38%, respectively. This could imply that investors may not be pricing in the risk of an increase in taxes, according to the note.
This is just one factor that Goldman sees contributing to the underperformance of long-dated dividends, the note said.
Other contributors include that the equity market has been disproportionately driven by valuation expansion as opposed to earnings growth. Also, the market has become increasingly concentrated in big-tech companies such as Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Google, Netflix, and Microsoft.
Meanwhile, a new national poll indicates that President Trump’s approval rating is dropping and that he trails Democratic challenger Joe Biden by double digits if November’s presidential election were held today.
According to a CNN survey released on Monday, the president’s approval rating stands at 38 percent, a dive of 7 percentage points from CNN’s previous poll, which was conducted in early May. And Trump’s disapproval rating jumped from 51 percent month ago to 57 percent now.
And the poll shows the former vice president and presumptive Democratic nominee topping the GOP incumbent in the White House by 14 points — 55 to 41 percent. That’s nearly triple the 5-point margin – 51-46 percent – Biden led by a month ago in CNN polling.
The president, who rarely misses an opportunity to blast a poll that he doesn’t like, took to Twitter soon after the survey’s release to charge that “CNN Polls are as Fake as their Reporting.” CNN Polls are as Fake as their Reporting. Same numbers, and worse, against Crooked Hillary. The Dems would destroy America!, Trump wrote.
The 14-point lead for Biden in the new CNN survey is double the 7-point advantage for the former vice president over Trump in an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released on Sunday. An average of the last national general election matchup polls compiled by RealClearPolitics indicates Biden on top by 7.8 percent over the president.
The CNN poll was conducted Tuesday through Friday – which means it questioned voters nearly entirely before Friday’s stunning unemployment report, which indicated 2.5 million jobs were created last month and that the nation’s jobless level had dropped. The numbers were boosted by states reopening their economies after being mostly shut in late March and April in order to limit the spread of the coronavirus pandemic.
CBS News’ Weijia Jiang on Newsroom Diversity, COVID-19 Racism, and Covering President Trump
(Courtesy: The Asia Society)
On May 11, during a press conference at the White House Rose Garden, CBS News White House Correspondent Weijia Jiang asked President Donald Trump why he was boasting that the United States was testing more people for coronavirus than any other country.
“Why does that matter?” she asked. “Why is this a global competition to you if every day Americans are still losing their lives and we are still seeing more cases every day?”
“Maybe that’s a question you should ask China,” Trump responded. “Don’t ask me. Ask China that question, OK?”
When Jiang, who is Chinese American, asked the president why he was directing this question to her, Trump denied singling her out. He then chided her for asking a “nasty” question before storming out of the news conference.
Trump’s churlish reaction to a question from a White House correspondent — particularly a woman of color — was hardly new. But Trump’s invocation of Jiang’s ethnicity occurred in a particularly fraught moment for Asian Americans, who have been subject to a surge of racist attacks in the months since the coronavirus spread from China to the rest of the world. The exchange with Trump also wasn’t the first time Jiang has encountered racist sentiment at work. In March, she tweeted that a White House official referred to COVID-19 as the “kung flu virus” in her presence. “Makes me wonder what they’re calling it behind my back,” she said.
Born in Xiamen, China, Jiang grew up in a small city in West Virginia. A graduate of Syracuse University, she has worked for CBS News since 2015 and became White House correspondent in July 2018. In this conversation with Asia Blog, Jiang recounted her upbringing, reflected on the importance of newsroom diversity, and explained why she thinks that news organizations have never been more vital.
What was your upbringing like? What was the adjustment like for your parents? Were there any other Chinese families in your hometown?
I can’t imagine what the adjustment was like for my parents settling down in a completely foreign land without an Asian community to offer support. They are braver than I could ever be. We had a small Chinese restaurant — one of two in the town. So there was one other Chinese American family, but they didn’t have kids my age. I was the only Chinese American student in my school system. I definitely had to deal with challenges and racism throughout my upbringing, but I wouldn’t change anything because those experiences shaped who I am today. There was also a lot of kindness in our little town. I spent lots of time with my friends and their welcoming families.
How did you decide to become a journalist — what about the profession called to you?
I remember watching my dad watch hours of news as a child, which probably led to me taking a TV news class in middle school. I was also on the newspaper staff, and I loved everything about reporting. My teacher convinced me to apply for “Student Produced Week” at ChannelOne News — a news program for middle and high school students across the country. (It has since closed operations, but offered a start for many journalists including Anderson Cooper and Lisa Ling.) Every year the company selected a group of students and paid for a two-week trip to Los Angeles to learn about journalism. I won, and my life changed forever. I loved the idea that talking to people and telling their stories could be a career. I also loved asking questions and sharing the answers with people who needed them. That hasn’t changed.
Newsrooms, like professions across the country, have struggled to match the diversity of the communities and stories they cover. Do you feel news organizations have improved in fostering a diverse environment over the years?
I can’t speak to newsrooms nationwide, but the ones I have worked in have all made strides in adding diversity. But in my opinion, it is not diversity on its face that matters. The perspective that comes with being a minority is essential in reporting and telling stories in an authentic way. We all have to make an effort to acknowledge and embrace those varying points of view to make the most of our resources. That requires a never-ending, always-evolving conversation about diversity and why it matters. I think we can all do more to nurture that dialogue and create a space where people feel comfortable sharing. I also think diversity at the top makes a huge difference because people in those positions are leading that effort and making important decisions.
Earlier this year, you tweeted about a racist remark (“kung flu virus”) said in your presence at the White House — and you wondered what was said when you were not around. Have you been subject to any other anti-Asian racism while at work or otherwise since COVID-19 spread to the U.S.? What more needs to be done to halt this trend?
I have not experienced another incident in person, but I get messages on social media every day that include racist language. I think the best thing we can do is provide facts. The fact is the virus does not discriminate against any group of people, and Asian Americans are not more likely to spread it. It’s also important to report on hate crimes and attacks against members of the APA community so they are not normalized.
But the tension between the press and the president is nothing new. President Trump expresses it more frequently and more … colorfully than others.
News organizations have recently debated whether broadcasting President Trump’s press conferences serve the public interest. What are your thoughts about this? Should news organizations refrain from broadcasting these live?
I absolutely think it is important for Americans to hear from the president of the United States during a time of crisis. People want to know what the government is doing to contain the spread, help patients recover, and get people back on their feet again when it comes to the economy. However, the conversation during the briefings has sometimes veered toward other topics than the pandemic and its impact. In those instances, airing the briefings in their entirety can be unproductive. I think that’s why viewership for evening news broadcasts like the CBS Evening News and public affairs shows like Face the Nation continue to increase. It is the job of news organizations to cut through all the noise and distractions to provide the latest information.
If nothing else, White House press conferences have changed significantly during the Trump years. Do you anticipate that things will revert to the way they were in a post-Trump era? Or do you feel that Trump has, for better or worse, revolutionized the way an American president deals with the press? Has his antagonistic relationship with the press damaged journalism? Or is this concern overblown?
I have only ever covered the Trump administration in this capacity, so I don’t have a frame of reference for what is “normal.” This is normal to me.
Of course, I recognize the president’s unique relationship with the press and how it compares with past presidents. I am curious myself how it will impact the future, if at all. But the tension between the press and the president is nothing new. President Trump expresses it more frequently and more … colorfully than others.
Biden Is Best Placed For Any Challenger Since Scientific Polling Began
Former vice president Joe Biden has gained a clear national lead against president Donald Trump in the latest Washington Post/ABC poll ahead of the 2020 election.
In the poll of registered voters conducted between 25-28 May, 53 per cent of respondents said that they would vote for Mr Biden over 43 percent who favoured Mr Trump were the election held on the day they were questioned. Just two months ago the same poll had the two candidates virtually tied at 49 per cent to 47 per cent.
But it’s important to put individual polls into context, and that context continues to show Biden’s in one of the best positions for any challenger since scientific polling began in the 1930s.
There were more than 40 national public polls taken at least partially in the month of May that asked about the Biden-Trump matchup. Biden led in every single one of them. He’s the first challenger to be ahead of the incumbent in every May poll since Jimmy Carter did so in 1976. Carter, of course, won the 1976 election. Biden’s the only challenger to have the advantage in every May poll over an elected incumbent in the polling era.
Biden remains the lone challenger to be up in the average of polls in every single month of the election year. His average lead in a monthly average of polls has never dipped below 4 points and has usually been above it.
Biden hasn’t trailed Trump this entire year in a single telephone poll in which at least some voters were reached via their cell phones — historically the most accurate. The ABC News/Washington Post poll is the latest example of these polls. In fact, Biden’s never been behind in any of these polls since at least January 2019. No other challenger has come close to that mark.
Indeed, the stability of Biden’s edge has been what is most impressive. The May polls had Biden up by 6 points on average. That is right where the average of polls taken since the beginning of this year has been. It’s where the average of polls conducted since the beginning of 2019 has been as well.
If we limit ourselves to just the telephone polls that call cell phones, Biden’s edge might even be slightly larger. This month those polls have Biden up 7 points on average. Estimating Biden’s advantage from state polls of this type shows a similar lead for Biden.
A look at the fundamentals shows why Trump continues to trail. Simply put, he remains unpopular.
His net approval rating (approval – disapproval) in the ABC News/Washington Post poll was -8 points. That’s very close to the average of polls, which has it at about -10 points. At no point during the past three years has Trump ever had a positive net approval rating.
The only other two presidents to have a net approval rating this low at this point in the campaign were Carter in 1980 and George H.W. Bush in 1992. Both of them lost reelection.
But I’m not predicting anything here. Between the coronavirus pandemic and now the protests and riots taking place nationwide, we’re obviously in a volatile news environment.
Still, no other campaign involving an incumbent president has moved as little as this one has. That’s after nearly three months of the coronavirus dominating the news cycle. That’s after many anti-Biden ads have been aired.
It’s at least possible that nothing will move the electorate substantially in Trump’s direction.
Will There Be A Second Round Of Stimulus Check In June?
Congress could decide on a second wave of stimulus checks this month. If it passes, the package could be the last relief check coming to Americans as a result of the coronavirus pandemic. Here’s the update today and what could happen next.
Congress seems to be moving closer to a decision on a second round of economic stimulus payments for individuals and families, but details haven’t yet taken shape The US House of Representatives passed a fourth stimulus relief package last week by 208 votes to 199. The $3 trillion Heroes Act includes a second round of $1,200 stimulus checks, another $200 billion in hazard pay for essential workers, and six further months of COVID-19 unemployment along with other help for state and local assistance.
The HEROES (Health and Economic Recovery Omnibus Emergency Solutions) Act will still face significant opposition from the Republican-controlled Senate and the White House but if the bill fails to pass into law after debate on the floor of the upper house, a consensus compromise is still expected to be reached between Democrats and Republicans to provide hard-hit Americans with a second round of financial support sometime during May or possibly June at this rate.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said last Friday that if Congress does take up another round of stimulus payments, it will be the “final” one, CNBC reported. McConnell also said that senators could decide in “about a month” whether to move ahead with a second relief check, according to CNBC.
The first stimulus checks for up to $1,200 apiece were initially intended as a one-time payment to help the people and businesses affected by the coronavirus outbreak. That includes people who couldn’t work because they got sick, received limited work hours or lost their jobs when businesses closed as a measure to slow the spread of COVID-19.
Now, with surging unemployment and a potential global recession ahead, some wonder if the first check did enough for individuals, families, businesses and those who are out of work and are looking at how best to distribute additional aid.
The US Bureau of Labor Statistics reported in its monthly assessment that 38.6 million Americans sought unemployment benefits (PDF) in the past 10 weeks. That number has reached 42 million people, CBS News reported last week.
Earlier this month, White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett projected that unemployment could reach 20% “by June.”
That appears to be the case already for Nevada, Hawaii and Michigan. During a recent Senate hearing, the Chair of the Federal Reserve Jerome Powell called for additional economic relief. And earlier this month, the International Monetary Fund forecast a deep global recession that could become the worst since the Great Depression.
Some Members of Congress even sent a letter to the Treasury recommending high-tech options such as blockchain to help speed up delivery and offer transparency of the payments. However, the only technological move from Secretary Mnuchin appears to be allowing debit cards for now.
On the other hand, not only have Republican senators lined up to oppose the plan, Senate Democrats say they are concerned about what they see as a massive untargeted expense, The Hill reported.
“I’d like to take a look at all that aid we provided and get good economic information on the value for that, from the point of view of our economy but more importantly on fairness to people who are really hurt,” Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Maryland), a member of the Senate Finance Committee, told The Hill.
Cardin said rather than issue a second set of checks to all taxpayers, the government should focus on the households that have been hardest hit by COVID-19’s economic impact. As the Senate determines what the next bailout bill should look like, lawmakers in both parties are ranking their priorities. Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan) of the Finance Committee said she was not a fan of the checks.
“One-time payments are not what people need, she told The Hill. “What people need is a paycheck. They need ongoing income until this is done. That’s what they need.”
MY Thoughts On US Leaving World Health Organization
1. It will have adverse effects in the World post Trump sanctions against WHO, specially to third world countries. Of course President Trump has promised that the amount US was donating to WHO in the amount of $450 million dollars, would be distributed as per the will of the Trump administration. I am sure some of the countries that are under US sanctions will have diverse effects specially countries like Iran,Venezuela etc.
We all feel, it is absolute loss to humanitarian work in health care across the world.
The problem is WHO failed in their duties to protect the world on Corona, because of Chinese dominance in WHO, even though it was contributing just over $ 45 million or so. I am glad that India has been given the prestigious position as chair of WHO, that may change the world out look of WHO. Will have to wait and see.
I think it is a huge rebuff to China by the USA and it is almost open war with deteriorating relationships between US and China. President Trump did not hesitate to condemn China in his White House press conference this week.
2. US President is absolutely justified in criticizing the misuse of WHO funds in favor of China during Covid Pandemic and its inability to forewarn the world of insufficient and unequivocal measures taken by WHO on behest of China are unpardonable.
3. Yes absolutely China is being looked down in US and there is demand to boycott Chinese imports and put limitations on Commerce, and cultural relations between the two nations. There is a strong move in US congress to de list Chinese companies in New York stock exchanges that will be a big blow to Chinese industries.
President Trump has gained enormous sympathy in his fight against China and WHO. This will greatly help in his re election campaign come November 2020.
Dr. Sampat Shivangi (drssshivangi@aol.com) is the National President of Indian American Forum for Political Edu
Indian Americans on Joe Biden’s Unity Taskforces
Several Indian Americans are part of the Unity Task Force announced by presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders with the purpose of use to promoting Democratic party unity by hammering out consensus on top policy issues, additional members have been announced.
Two Indian Americans had already been named as co-chairs of the Health panel: former Surgeon General Vivek Murthy and U.S. Representative Pramila Jayapal of Washington.
Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and his chief primary rival Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., announced on Wednesday the members of a joint task force meant to unify the party ahead of November’s general election, bringing together figures from different wings of the party, ranging from New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to former Secretary of State John Kerry.
The news comes a month after Sanders joined Biden via video stream to endorse him. The pair pledged to create these task forces to focus on shared policy concerns. “Now, it’s no great secret out there, Joe, that you and I have our differences, and we’re not going to paper them over; that’s real,” Sanders said at the time. “But I hope that these task forces will come together utilizing the best minds and people in your campaign and in my campaign to work out real solutions to these very, very important problems.”
Biden and Sanders put together six of the “unity task forces” to handle policy in these areas: the economy, education, immigration, health care, climate change, and criminal justice reform.
South Asians for Biden said May 21 that these additional Indian Americans have also been named members of the Unity Taskforce:
- Chiraag Bains, director of Legal Strategies for the think tank Demos, will serve as the co-chair of the Criminal Justice Reform group;
- Former Acting Assistant Attorney General Vanita Gupta, now president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, will also serve on the Criminal Justice Reform group;
- Varshini Prakash, executive director of the Sunrise Movement, a leading organization focused on climate change among young people, will serve on the Climate Change group; and
- Sonal Shah, policy director for Pete Buttigieg’s 2020 presidential campaign, will serve on the Economy group.
The taskforce brings together a number of prominent Democrats with subject matter expertise to guide the Democratic Party heading into the November general election on critical issues.
“We are thrilled to see that a number of South Asian leaders have been selected to serve on the Unity Taskforce, which will have an impact on the Democratic Party platform for years to come,” said Neha Dewan, National Director of South Asians for Biden. “South Asians represent the second-most rapidly growing demographic group in America. In this critical election year, the South Asian community has a stake in key policy questions that affect our communities, and are deeply impacted by issues spanning immigration, civil rights, and healthcare. Such a robust representation of South Asians on the Unity Taskforce reflects the growing voting strength of the community,” said Ritu Pancholy, a member of the communications team for South Asians for Biden.
South Asians for Biden is a national, grassroots organization that is dedicated to engaging, educating, and mobilizing the South Asian community to help to elect Joe Biden as the next president of the United States.
Sen. Kamala Harris Introduces Bill to Provide Monthly $2,000 Payments During COVID-19 Crisis
U.S. Senator Kamala D. Harris (D-CA), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), and Ed Markey (D-MA) May 8 had introduced the Monthly Economic Crisis Support Act, legislation that provides a monthly $2,000 check to those struggling to make ends meet during the COVID-19 pandemic. As rent comes due and bills continue to pile up, Americans desperately need assistance to financially survive this crisis, said a press release.
“The coronavirus pandemic has caused millions to struggle to pay the bills or feed their families,” said Harris. “The CARES Act gave Americans an important one-time payment, but it’s clear that wasn’t nearly enough to meet the needs of this historic crisis. Bills will continue to come in every single month during the pandemic and so should help from government. The Monthly Economic Crisis Support Act will ensure families have the resources they need to make ends meet. I am eager to continue working with Senators Sanders and Markey as we push to pass this bill immediately,” the Indian American senator said in the release.
“As a result of this horrific pandemic, tens of millions of Americans are living in economic desperation not knowing where their next meal or paycheck will come from,” said Sanders. “The one-time $1,200 check that many Americans recently received is not nearly enough to pay the rent, put food on the table and make ends meet. During this unprecedented crisis, Congress has a responsibility to make sure that every working-class household in America receives a $2,000 emergency payment a month for each family member. I am proud to be introducing legislation with Senators Harris and Markey to do exactly that. If we can bail out large corporations, we can make sure that everyone in this country has enough income to pay for the basic necessities of life.”
The Monthly Economic Crisis Support Act is endorsed by Economic Security Project Action, Humanity Forward, Community Change Action, High Ground Institute, LatinxVoice, Shriver Center on Poverty Law, Income Movement, People’s Action, NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice, Golden State Opportunity, MyPath, National Domestic Workers Alliance, Heartland Alliance, One Fair Wage, Caring Across Generations, End Child Poverty CA/The GRACE Institute, Coalition on Human Needs, Black to the Future Action Fund, ParentsTogether Action, RESULTS, and Forum for Youth Investment.
The Monthly Economic Crisis Support Act:
- Provides up to $2,000 a month to every individual with an income below $120,000 throughout and for three months following the coronavirus pandemic.
- Married couples who file jointly would receive $4,000.
- $2,000 per child up to three children
- Retroactive to March
- Begins to phase out after $100,000
- Ensures that every U.S. resident receives a payment, regardless of whether or not they have filed a recent tax return or have a social security number.
- Uses the data from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Supplemental Security Income, (SSI), Medicare and housing assistance programs
- Forbids debt collectors from seizing the rebate payments.
- Ensures the homeless and foster youth receive payments.
Understanding the electoral college in US Presidential Election
When Americans head to the polls to vote in this November’s general election, they won’t actually be voting for the President of the United States directly, but rather they’ll be telling their electors which candidate they want as president. The electors then have their own election in which they select the new president and vice president.
If that sounds needlessly complicated and somewhat undemocratic, that’s because it is.
Electors – of which there are 538 – are supposed to be representatives of the electorate who meet on a state-by-state level and select which presidential and vice presidential candidates will earn that state’s votes. This group of electors and their assemblage is what is known as the “electoral college.” When a presidential candidate receives support from a majority of the the electors – 270 votes – they win the presidency.
s he will not stand as third-party candidate
The number of electors is based on the number of members in the US Congress. A state is allocated one elector for every member of the House of Representatives (which has 435 seats in all) and every member of the Senate (which has 100) representing that state. That number can only change when a new legislator is added to the Congress, which means changes to the electoral college only happen once every 10 years, and even then only if the Census reports a significant state population shift.
States with small populations – like Alaska, Delaware, Vermont, Wyoming, North Dakota and Montana – have fewer Congressional representatives and thus fewer electors. Each of those states have three electors, and thus three electoral votes. Likewise, the District of Columbia, which has no Congressional representation, also has three electors.
On the flip side, states with huge populations – like California and Texas – have dozens of Congressional representatives and thus dozens of electoral votes. California has 55 electoral votes and Texas has 38.
The electoral college was implemented by the Constitutional framers for a number of reasons, some good, some not-so-good.
The Good
The framers wanted to prevent elections from becoming provincial competitions, pitting states against each other to see which would rule the government. Instead, by divorcing the vote from simple one person, one vote rule, the framers hoped to avoid factional coalition building that could cause fractures in the country.
They also wanted to ensure that the country wasn’t simply going to be representative of the will of the most populous states.
The Not-So-Good
It was established as a compromise between framers who believed the people should choose the president, and those who worried that allowing for a direct one person, one vote rule would make the American South a permanent minority. To help ensure the South wasn’t dominated by the more populous North, the 3/5s Compromise was enacted, in which every 3 slaves out of 5 would count as a “person” for legislative and taxation purposes. As a result, human beings who weren’t even allowed to vote were used as a means of giving more political power to their captors.
In trying to protect states with smaller populations from having their electoral desires crushed by states with larger populations, the electoral college has actually undermined the voting power of people who live in denser urban areas, resulting in five elections where the president of the United States actually lost the popular vote but still won the election.
Both President George W Bush and President Donald Trump won the US presidential elections despite losing the popular vote.
In the 2000 election, Mr Bush defeated Democrat Al Gore despite Mr Gore having more than 500,000 more votes. In 2016, the gulf between the electoral college and the popular vote was substantially wider; Mr Trump lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes.
Prior to 2000, the last time a president lost the popular vote but won the election was when President Benjamin Harrison won against Grover Cleveland in 1888. Whether Mr Trump’s and Mr Bush’s victories are flukes or indicative of inherent flaws in the system hasn’t changed its popularity among voters.
According to Gallup, a majority of American poll respondents have favoured a Constitutional amendment to adopt a nationwide popular vote – thus eliminating the electoral college – since 1944. The only exception to that was a poll taken in late November 2016, just after Mr Trump’s victory, during which Americans were evenly split on the topic.
Since World War II, the electoral college has almost always been opposed by the majority of the American people.
Why does the US keep the system?
First and foremost, because smaller states that have inflated voting power granted by the system vote to ensure they don’t lose that power. Even without smaller states working against the changes, abolishing the electoral college would still require an amendment to the US Constitution, which is an enormous obstacle in and of itself. While it would be difficult, it wouldn’t be impossible – the electoral college has been changed three times in the past via Constitutional amendment – but it would require broad majorities in Congress.
Healthcare Workforce Resilience Act S.3599/HR6788 will address shortage of Doctors in USA: AAPI
“AAPI supports the Healthcare Workforce Resilience Act S.3599/ HR6788, introduced by Senators Durbin, Perdue, Young, Coons addressing Shortage of doctors, nurses, and urges the Congress to approve the bill and allow the thousands of immigrant Indian American doctors on green card backlog to bolster the American health care system and extend their patient care whole-heartedly without disruption,” said Dr. Suresh Reddy, President of AAPI.
Dr. Reddy was responding to the Bill. the Healthcare Workforce Resilience Act, introduced by U.S. Senate Democrats Dick Durbin (D-IL), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Immigration Subcommittee, along with Senators David Perdue (R-GA), Todd Young (R-IN), and Chris Coons (D-DE), which recaptures 15,000 green cards to provide a temporary stopgap to quickly address our nation’s shortage of doctors. This legislation will help underserved communities with physician shortage to recruit more physicians and thus effectively extend health care coverage.
The Health care Resilience Act S.3599/ HR6788 would recapture 25,000 unused immigrant visas for nurses and 15,000 unused immigrant visas for Physicians. This would help the American health care force to mobilize the medical professionals to the areas of health care needs.
Healthcare continues to be at the center of the national debate, especially in the context of the global Corona Virus pandemic affecting millions of people in the United States. This deadly virus has claimed lives of many healthcare professionals who are in the frontline caring for the hundreds of thousands of patients affected by this disease.
An estimated 800,000 legal immigrants who are working in the United States are waiting for green card. This unprecedented backlog in employment-based immigration has fueled a bitter policy debate but has been largely ignored by the Congress. Most of those waiting for employment-based green cards which would allow them to stay in the United States are of Indian origin. The backlog among this group is so acute that an Indian national who applies for a green card now can expect to wait up to 50 years to obtain it. The wait is largely due to the annual per-country quota immigration law, which has been unchanged since 1990.
This heightened demand for physicians will only continue to grow, and will soon outpace supply leading to a projected shortfall of nearly 122,000 physicians by 2032. Thus, recapturing the unused visas/Green cards that are available for International Medical Graduates is critical to addressing this mounting shortage of physicians.
In a detailed report on Green Card delays affecting Indian American physicians, the Green Card Backlog Task Force by AAPI had pointed out that there are over 10,000 Physicians waiting for Green Card for decades. AAPI members would like to see the Green Card backlog addressed, which it says has adversely impacted the Indian American community. During their annual Legislative Day on Capitol Hill, they have stressed the need for bipartisan efforts in passing the Health care Resilience Act, which will recapture and provide Green Cards for physicians serving in America’s under-served and rural communities.
“Consider this: one-sixth of our health care workforce is foreign-born. Immigrant nurses and doctors play a vital role in our health care system, and their contributions are now more crucial than ever. Where would we be in this pandemic without them? It is unacceptable that thousands of doctors currently working in the U.S. on temporary visas are stuck in the green card backlog, putting their futures in jeopardy and limiting their ability to contribute to the fight against COVID-19,” said Sen. Durbin.
“This bipartisan, targeted, and timely legislation will strengthen our health care workforce and improve health care access for Americans in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support these vital health care workers,” the Senator from Illinois pointed out.
“The growing shortage of doctors and nurses over the past decade has been exacerbated by the COVID-19 crisis,” said Sen. Perdue. “Fortunately, there are thousands of trained health professionals who want to practice in the United States. This proposal would simply reallocate a limited number of unused visas from prior years for doctors and nurses who are qualified to help in our fight against COVID-19. This shortage is critical and needs immediate attention so that our healthcare facilities are not overwhelmed in this crisis.”
Specifically, the Senators’ proposal:
- Recaptures unused visas/green cards from previous fiscal years for doctors, nurses, and their families
- Exempts these visas/green cards from country caps
- Requires employers to attest that immigrants from overseas who receive these visas will not displace an American worker
- Requires the Department of Homeland Security and State Department to expedite the processing of recaptured visas
- Limits the filing period for recaptured visas to 90 days following the termination of the President’s COVID-19 emergency declaration
“AAPI joins other similar organizations including American Medical Association, Illinois Health and Hospital Association, American Hospital Association, American Organization for Nursing Leadership, Physicians for American Healthcare Access, American Immigration Lawyers Association, and National Immigration Forum, that have come in support of The Healthcare Workforce Resilience Act,” said Dr. Sampat Shivangi, Chair of AAPI’s Legislative Committee.
Dr. Seema Arora, Chair of the Board of Trustees of AAPI, urged the members of Congress to include physicians graduating from U.S. residency programs for Green Cards in the comprehensive immigration reform bill. “Physicians graduating from accredited U.S. residency programs should also receive similar treatment. Such a proposal would enable more physicians to be eligible for Green Cards and address the ongoing physician shortage,” she said.
Dr. Sudhakar Jonnalgadda, President-Elect of AAPI, said, “AAPI has once again succeeded in bringing to the forefront many important health care issues facing the physician community and raising our voice unitedly before the US Congress members.”
“AAPI welcomes this bipartisan legislation introduced by Senators Perdue, Durbin, Young and Coons; the bill would help address the critical healthcare shortage in the United States, a weakness that has been evident during the COVID-19 national emergency,” said Dr. Anupama Gotimukula, Vice President of AAPI.
“The Healthcare Workforce Resilience Act recognizes the importance and the need of immigrant doctors, nurses and their families. At this critical time, addressing shortages in the health care workforce is imperative. By ensuring unused visas do not go waste, the bill will help doctors, nurses and their families, who have been waiting in line, immigrate sooner,” said Dr. Raghuveer Kurra, Chair of AAPI Committee on Green Card Backlog.
“Thousands of Indian-American Physicians have been affected by the backlog for Green Card. This negatively impacted their ability to work and provide the much-needed health care services for the people affected by the COVID-19 pandemic across the nation,” said Dr. Ram Sanjeev Alur, Co-Chair, AAPI Committee on Green Card Backlog. “These Indian physicians constitute less than one percent of the country’s population, but account for nine percent of the American physicians. One out of every seven doctors serving in the US health care system is of Indian heritage. These Indian origin Physicians provide medical care to over 40 million American population living in rural and underserved areas,” added Dr. Pavan Panchavati, Co-Chair, AAPI Committee on Green Card Backlog.
Dr. Ravi Kolli, Secretary of AAPI, said, “Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. was already facing a serious shortage of physicians largely due to growth, aging of the population and the impending retirements of many physicians.” Raj Bhayani, Treasurer of AAPI, pointed out, “This shortage was dramatically highlighted by the lack of physicians in certain key areas during the COVID-19 pandemic which forced states to recall retired physicians, expand physicians’ scope of practice, and amend out of state licensing laws.”
AAPI has recently heard calls from New York , New Jersey and California for physicians from out of state to help them care for patients, and there will be more areas of need in these states and also nationally who certainly will need additional physician force for staffing their hospitals, fever clinics, COVID care centers and Emergency rooms in near future.
According to Dr. Suresh Reddy, “AAPI has been consistent in bringing many important health care issues faced by the physician community and raising our voice unitedly before the US Congress members. we have been able to discover our own potential and have been playing an important role in shaping the health of each patient with a focus on health maintenance rather than disease intervention. AAPI is also instrumental in crafting the health care delivery in the most efficient manner and has been striving for equality in health care globally.”
For more details on AAPI and its legislative agenda, please visit: www.aapiusa.org
Biden Leads Nationally and in Crucial Swing States
Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, leads President Trump in most national polls, and surveys conducted even this far out have tended to roughly resemble the eventual general election results, as FiveThirtyEight’s Geoffrey Skelley explained in an article this week. Of course, national polls measure the national popular vote, which is really only indirectly related to who will win the White House — Democrats have won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College in two of the last seven elections and could do so again in 2020. U.S. presidential elections are really a contest of states.
Several polling firms released surveys of Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin in April. Former President Barack Obama carried all four states in 2012. Trump flipped all four in 2016 (as well as Ohio and Iowa, neither of which has much recent polling.) And Biden appears to lead in all four now. (North Carolina, which has gone Republican in both of the last two cycles, was also polled pretty often in April, with Trump and Biden looking basically tied there.)
A new Marquette Law School poll finds former Vice President Joe Biden with a 46% to 43% lead over President Donald Trump in Wisconsin, reports CNN. The poll matches the last poll from Marquette, which also had Biden up by 3 points in Wisconsin.
One of the big questions when we look at national polls is whether or not they’re an accurate representation of what is going on at the state level. One of the easiest ways to check is to compare state poll results to the past presidential vote in a given state. I did so for all telephone polls that called cell phones since the beginning of April. When we average out these state polls, they suggest that Biden’s running about 6 points ahead of Hillary Clinton’s final margin.
“In other words, the state level polls suggest that Biden has a national lead of around 8 points.
That’s actually a little greater than the 6.6 points Biden has in the high quality national polling average taken during the same period,” wrote Harry Enten, CNN. “I should note that if we weight the average of state polls to each state’s population, we get a margin just north of that 6.6 point mark. (Weighting by population leaves us somewhat more susceptible to outlier polls, as we have fewer polls from the most populated states.) Either way, all methods agree that Biden has a fairly sizable national advantage.”
Examining the state polls has the advantage of having a lot more data points to play with, so I feel fairly secure that they’re giving us a decent snapshot. We’re looking at more than 20 polls and more than 15,000 interviews. The aggregate margin of error is small.
The presidential race in key states according to early polls
Average margin in states where at least 3 polls were conducted in April
State | Number of polls | Biden | Trump | Average Margin |
North Carolina | 5 | 47% | 46% | D+1.0 |
Wisconsin | 4 | 48 | 44 | D+3.3 |
Florida | 4 | 47 | 43 | D+3.5 |
Pennsylvania | 5 | 48 | 43 | D+5.4 |
Michigan | 8 | 49 | 43 | D+6.1 |
U.S. | 50 | 48 | 42 | D+6.4 |
Includes polls conducted partly in March 2020 but finished in April. Polls that released results among multiple populations were included only once, counting the narrowest sample — registered voters over adults, and likely voters over registered voters.
Source: Polls
Additionally, we can look at states we expect to be at least somewhat competitive (i.e. those where the margin was within 10 points last time) and those that we don’t think will be close in 2020.
In the competitive states (where most of the state polling has been conducted), there has been an average swing of 6 points toward Biden compared to Clinton’s 2016 result. The same is true in the non-competitive states.
At least from this state level data, it does not seem that either candidate is running up the score disproportionately in areas that were already friendly to him.
Biden has posted leads of greater than 5 points in places like Michigan and Pennsylvania. He is ahead in more than enough states to capture 270 electoral votes, if the election were held today.
We can test our data, too, to see what would happen if the polls are underestimating Trump like they did in 2016.
Biden would still be ahead, even with a 2016 sized mishap. The polls underestimated Trump by 1 point (RealClearPolitics) or 2 points (FiveThirtyEight) in the aggregate of the states we currently have polling from. Applying that 2016 bias to our current data, Biden would have a 6- to 7-point lead nationally.
Biden’s margins in these states are slightly smaller than his advantage in national polls. It’s worth thinking about the race at the state level in these relative terms because there’s still so much time for things to shift. If Biden’s lead nationally narrowed to 2 to 3 percentage points, these states would likely be much closer, if not lean toward Trump. Also, as The New York Times’ Nate Cohn wrote recently, Trump is likely to look stronger when pollsters start limiting their results to “likely voters.” Most of the April surveys in these four states were conducted among registered voters or all adults, two groups that include some people who may not vote in November.4
In other words, this data suggests Trump may have an Electoral College advantage again — he could lose the popular vote and win the election. Of course, this data also suggests that if Biden is winning overall by a margin similar to his advantage now, Trump’s potential Electoral College edge really won’t matter.
Concentrating on just the competitive states, the polls undersold Trump by 2 points (RealClearPolitics) or 3 points (FiveThirtyEight). If the polls in the competitive states were off by as much as they were at the end in 2016, Biden would still be ahead in states like Florida, Michigan and Pennsylvania.
Of course, it may not be wise to expect a 2016-sized polling era in 2020. The polls in these states that had major statewide contests in 2018 were pretty much unbiased. No matter what set of states (all or just competitive) and which aggregate, the polls were not more favorable to Republicans than the final result.
In a state like Wisconsin, the final 2018 Marquette poll nailed the final Senate margin and underestimated the Democratic candidate for governor’s margin by 1 point.
The bottom line is Biden’s ahead right now nationally and in the competitive states. The good news for Trump is he has about six months to change the course of the campaign, which is more than enough time to do so.
Coronavirus: Trump’s ‘inconsistent and incoherent’ response’ slammed by The Lancet
Editorial calls for the president to be voted out(Courtesy: The Independent)
One of the world’s oldest and best-known medical journals slammed Donald Trump’s “inconsistent and incoherent national response” to the novel coronavirus pandemic and accused the administration of relegating the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to a “nominal” role.
The unsigned editorial from The Lancet concluded that Mr Trump should be replaced. “Americans must put a president in the White House come January, 2021, who will understand that public health should not be guided by partisan politics,” said the journal, which was founded in Britain in 1823.
The strongly worded critique highlights mounting frustration with the administration’s response among some of the world’s top medical researchers. Medical journals sometimes run signed editorials that take political stances, but rarely do publications with The Lancet’s influence use the full weight of their editorial boards to call for a president to be voted out of office.
“It’s not common for a journal to do that – but the scientific community is getting increasingly concerned with the dangerous politicization of science during this pandemic crisis,” said Benjamin Corb, public affairs director for the nonprofit American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. “We watch as political leaders tout unproven medics advice, and public health and science experts are vilified as partisans – all while people continue to get sick and die.”
The Lancet published the editorial as the death toll in the United States surpassed 85,000 and many states moved to reopen businesses and ease coronavirus restrictions that experts say are necessary to contain the virus.
The journal said that while infection and death rates have declined in hard-hit states such as New York and New Jersey after two months of virus restrictions, new outbreaks in Minnesota and Iowa have raised questions about the efficacy of the Trump administration’s response.
The authors accused the administration of undermining some of the CDC’s top officials, saying the agency “has seen its role minimized and become an ineffective and nominal adviser”. They said the agency, which is supposed to be the primary contact for health authorities during crises, had been hamstrung by years of budget cuts that have made it harder to combat infectious diseases. The editorial also alleged the administration left an “intelligence vacuum” in China when it pulled the last CDC officer from the country in July.
The Lancet took the CDC to task too, criticizing its botched rollout of diagnostic testing in the critical early weeks when the virus began to spread in the United States. The country remains ill-equipped to provide basic surveillance or laboratory testing to combat the disease, the journal said.
“There is no doubt that the CDC has made mistakes, especially on testing in the early stages of the pandemic,” the editorial said. “But punishing the agency by marginalizing and hobbling it is not the solution.”
“The Administration is obsessed with magic bullets – vaccines, new medicines, or a hope that the virus will simply disappear,” it continued. “But only a steadfast reliance on basic public health principles, like test, trace, and isolate, will see the emergency brought to an end, and this requires an effective national public health agency.” A White House spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Friday morning.
The Lancet editorial board has criticized the actions of government officials before, although rarely, if ever, has it waded into electoral politics. During the Obama administration, a 2015 editorial from the publication demanded an independent investigation into a US military airstrike on a Doctors Without Borders hospital in northern Afghanistan that killed 42 people. The Lancet called the attack a violation of the Geneva Conventions and dismissed then-president Barack Obama’s apology for the bombing.
Editor of The Lancet Richard Horton has decried the British government’s response to the pandemic in editorials and public statements published under his name. In a tweet earlier this week, he said Boris Johnson had “dropped the ball” in containing the virus.
Beyond Trump — US, UN & Global Health Governance
Lawrence Surendra, an environmental economist, is former staff member of UN-ESCAP and has worked with UNU and UNESCO. He advises on the UN SDGs and currently a Council Member of TSP Asia (www.tspasia.org) and lives in South India.
(IPS) – US President Donald Trump’s battle with the World Health Organization (WHO) hides two important issues. One, the long running love-hate relationship between the US and the UN, and two, a better understanding of how global public health is governed and in the overall context of global governance.
We must first recognize, that notwithstanding Trump’s disdain for multilateralism and international institutions especially the UN, his behavior is basically consistent with history of the US threatening UN institutions periodically by withholding financial contributions.
One should not therefore let the impression gain, especially among younger generations not familiar with global and international politics, that the US as a power is innocent and Trump is but a bull in the China shop of international governance and global public policy.
As for the love-hate relationship of the US with the UN, just rewind back to the days of President Reagan in the 1980s and which saw the peak of such hostility to the UN. Advised by the conservative Heritage Foundation, the US pulled out of the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).
The latter decision though, was only a shadow play; behind the scenes the US severely undermined the work of important UN agencies like the International Labour Organization (ILO) and the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). The UN Centre on Transnational Corporations (UNCTC) seen as opposed to US multinationals was dismantled. The resignation letter of Peter Hansen, the Danish Director of UNCTC then made him a cause celebre.
UN agencies such as UNCTC, working on a Code of Conduct for TNCs and WHO with its Drugs for All policy were viewed with suspicion by US corporate interests especially US pharmaceutical and agribusiness companies. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) was not spared either.
The US made sure that the FAO was under the influence of US multinational companies especially US agribusiness and in critical areas such as the International Board for Plant Genetic Resources of the FAO and in the Codex Alimentarius to weaken and undermine regulation of US TNCs.
One cannot forget, the ignominious manner in which Dr. Gamani Corea the eminent Sri Lankan economist was asked to quit as Secretary General of UNCTAD by the US. Countries like India were singled out and the role they played at the UN monitored.
India’s independent international public policy then while seen as valuable for the international community was viewed as a threat to US domination of international institutions and attacked. India’s role at the UN was relevant to not only India’s national interests and the developing world but also to Europe and Scandinavian Countries.
India made significant contributions, for example, in the creation of the South Centre, an institution, that was relevant in contributing to the international public policy of developing countries; its relevance continues even more so in the context of issues such as global taxation regimes and how India, as well as developing countries are being deprived of taxes from TNCs.
The Reagan and Thatcher domination of the international arena in the 1980s saw the North-South dialogue being scuttled. Mrs. Gandhi, a trusted leader of developing countries and the global South, played a major role on their behalf, in trying to bring the North-South Dialogue back on track. She did this, even while India was facing the brunt of US pressure including in strategic and national security terms.
A meeting of world leaders in Cancun, Mexico, in 1981, was possibly the last of the North-South Dialogue meeting, where Mrs Gandhi met with Reagan to work out a compromise. However, what resulted was the South being thrust with the Uruguay Round of GATT negotiations instead of the North-South Dialogue.
The Uruguay Round, after a decade or more of tortuous negotiations led by the US, and for US dominance in world trade though projected as promoting free trade, produced an elephant in the form of the WTO. The latter seems to have now metamorphosed to a mouse.
As for Trump and WHO, let us not make the mistake that withdrawal of US funding means any less influence of the US or its corporate interests in the WHO. More so in influencing global public health policies.
A must read and very relevant in this regard is the book by Chelsea Clinton (yes President Clinton’s only daughter) and Devi Sridhar, Professor at the University of Edinburgh’s Medical School, who holds the Chair in Global Public Health.
The book was published in 2017, as if anticipating the unique global public health crisis of today. Appropriately titled, ‘Governing Global Health’ with an even more piercing sub title, “Who Runs the World and Why?’, the book tells us as a lot about what is happening regarding how Public Health is governed globally.
In the Preface, they present a clear case as to why such a book now, and point out, that we live in the best of times as well as the worst of times and give reasons for saying so. The book deserves an in-depth review, but for now in the present conjecture of COVID 19 it is important to first bring the book to public notice.
The Covid Pandemic, has also kept social media abuzz with conspiracy theories especially around Bill Gates his Foundation and the profits to be made in the vaccines to be developed. This given the Gates Foundation’s large financial contributions to the GAVI (Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization) and the Global Fund.
While there may be grains of truth as in all conspiracy theories, unfortunately their wild allegations also damage serious important initiatives such as the UN SDGs (especially SDG 3) and the 2030 Road Map by making them part of these conspiracies.
Another reason to read this book, and be informed not only who the actors in global public health governance are, but more importantly how global public health governance has shifted from UN institutions governed by Member States to Global Public Health International NGOs and private companies.
This is especially so with the rise of this nebulous and ubiquitous practice (recognised by the authors) of Public Private Partnerships (PPP) and its increasing dominance in international cooperation and governance including ironically the UN.
It might be nice to repeat the oft repeated statements of present and past UN bureaucrats about UN institutions being governed by Member States but they all miss a major reality of today’s world. A reality succinctly captured by Kofi Annan in 1999 and quoted in the book.
He has noted that, “our post War institutions were built for an international world, but we now live in a global world”. Negotiating this “global world” is not easy for nation states and more so for international and UN institutions. In this world crisis we need the UN more than ever before.
At this moment of deep crisis for global public health and global governance, we are fortunate that like the late Kofi Annan and Ban Ki-Moon of the past, we now have a Secretary General, in the person of Antonio Guterres who commands both respect and legitimacy. Even before the pandemic, he was faced with the unenviable task of steering the UN through massive financial constraints that it was already in”
The challenge for the UN and its agencies including the WHO is far greater now including establishing their legitimacy. The implementation of the UN Sustainable Development Goals which is in its fifth year of its launch will be seriously affected.
The role of the UN as a global public goods organization can be reclaimed by using the SDGs and thus also gain greater legitimacy for the work of the UN. This is the route to be taken for the UN’s own survival, not the narrow public-private partnerships that excludes wider partnership with other actors and will make a big difference.
UN staff, in an age of ‘ultra-nationalism’ should keeping with their allegiance to the UN and its Charter, vaccinate themselves from such toxic nationalism, and remind themselves that they are International Civil Servants serving the needs of global public goods.
They should reassure themselves that the shrinking budget of the UN for a global institution needed in a crisis, is no more than that of a small European City Municipality and the budget of the WHO is perhaps as much as a medium sized New York hospital and rededicate themselves with a new sense of ethics and purpose and work on synergy, coherence and partnership as the core thrust of their work.
AAPI Supports Bipartisan Legislation, Healthcare Workforce Resilience Act
“AAPI supports the Bill, Healthcare Workforce Resilience Act, announced by Senators Durbin, Perdue, Young, Coons To Introduce Bipartisan Bill Addressing Shortage Of Doctors, Nurses, and urges the Congress to approve the Bill and allow the thousands of Indian American Docors on the backlog list for Green Card List to be abel to serve their patients whole-heartedly without disruption,” said Dr. Sure Reddy, President of AAPI.
Dr. Reddy was responding to a Bill announced by U.S. Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Immigration Subcommittee, along with Senators David Perdue (R-GA), Todd Young (R-IN), and Chris Coons (D-DE) stating that they will introduce bipartisan legislation, the Healthcare Workforce Resilience Act, to provide a temporary stopgap to quickly address our nation’s shortage of doctors and nurses, which poses a significant risk to our ability to effectively respond to the COVID-19 crisis.
Healthcare continues to be at the center of the national debate, especially in the context of the global Corona Virus pandemic affecting millions of people in the United States and having taken the lives of several healthcare professionals who have been the forefront caring for the hundreds of thousands of patients diagnosed with the deadly virus.
An estimated 800,000 immigrants who are working legally in the United States are waiting for a green card, an unprecedented backlog in employment-based immigration that has fueled a bitter policy debate but has been largely ignored by the Congress. Most of those waiting for employment-based green cards that would allow them to stay in the United States permanently are Indian nationals. And the backlog among this group is so acute that an Indian national who applies for a green card now can expect to wait up to 50 years to get one. The wait is largely the result of an annual quota unchanged since 1990, and per-country limits enacted decades before the tech boom made India the top source of employment-based green card-seekers.
According to AAPI, there is an ongoing physician shortage, which affects the quality of care provided to American patients. There are patients who face lengthy delays in various specialties, a situation which will worsen over time.
In a detailed Report on Green Card delays affecting Indian American physicians, the Green Card Backlog Task Force by AAPI had pointed out that there are over 10,000 Physicians waiting for Green Card for decades. AAPI members would like to see the Green Card backlog addressed, which it says has adversely impacted the Indian American community. During their annual Legislative Day on Capitol Hill, they have stressed the need for bipartisan efforts that will provide Green Cards to those serving in America’s under-served and rural communities.
Thousands of Indian-American Physicians have been affected by the backlog for Green Card, impacting their ability to work and provided the much needed services for the people affected by the pandemic across the nation. They constitute less than one percent of the country’s population, but account for nine percent of the American physicians. One out of every seven doctors serving in the US is of Indian heritage, providing medical care to over 40 million of US population.
The Senators’ proposal, to be introduced when the Senate reconvenes, would recapture 25,000 unused immigrant visas for nurses and 15,000 unused immigrant visas for doctors that Congress has previously authorized and allocate those visas to doctors and nurses who can help in the fight against COVID-19.
“Consider this: one-sixth of our health care workforce is foreign-born. Immigrant nurses and doctors play a vital role in our health care system, and their contributions are now more crucial than ever. Where would we be in this pandemic without them? It is unacceptable that thousands of doctors currently working in the U.S. on temporary visas are stuck in the green card backlog, putting their futures in jeopardy and limiting their ability to contribute to the fight against COVID-19,” said Durbin.
“This bipartisan, targeted, and timely legislation will strengthen our health care workforce and improve health care access for Americans in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support these vital health care workers.”
“The growing shortage of doctors and nurses over the past decade has been exacerbated by the COVID-19 crisis,” said Sen. Perdue. “Fortunately, there are thousands of trained health professionals who want to practice in the United States. This proposal would simply reallocate a limited number of unused visas from prior years for doctors and nurses who are qualified to help in our fight against COVID-19. This shortage is critical and needs immediate attention so that our healthcare facilities are not overwhelmed in this crisis.”
Specifically, the Senators’ proposal:
Recaptures unused visas from previous fiscal years for doctors, nurses, and their families
Exempts these visas from country caps
Requires employers to attest that immigrants from overseas who receive these visas will not displace an American worker
Requires the Department of Homeland Security and State Department to expedite the processing of recaptured visas
Limits the filing period for recaptured visas to 90 days following the termination of the President’s COVID-19 emergency declaration
“AAPI joins other similar organizations including Illinois Health and Hospital Association, American Hospital Association, American Organization for Nursing Leadership, Physicians for American Healthcare Access, American Immigration Lawyers Association, FWD.us, and National Immigration Forum, that have come in support of The Healthcare Workforce Resilience Act,” said Dr. Sampat Shivangi, Chair of AAPI’s Legislative Committee. .
Dr. Seema Arora, Chair of the Board of Trustees of AAPI, urged the members of Congress to include physicians graduating from U.S. residency programs for Green Cards in the comprehensive immigration reform bill. “Physicians graduating from accredited U.S. residency programs should also receive similar treatment. Such a proposal would enable more physicians to be eligible for Green Cards and address the ongoing physician shortage,” she said.
Dr. Sudhakar Jonnalgadda, President-elect of AAPI, said, “AAPI has once again succeeded in bringing to the forefront the many important health care issues facing the physician community and raising our voice unitedly before the US Congress members.”
“AAPI welcomes this bipartisan legislation introduced by Senators Perdue, Durbin, Young and Coons; the bill would help address the critical healthcare shortage in the United States, a weakness that has been evident during the COVID-19 national emergency,” said Dr. Anupama Gotimukula, Vice President of AAPI.
“The Healthcare Workforce Resilience Act recognizes the importance and the need of immigrant doctors and nurses and their families. At this critical time, addressing shortages in the health care workforce is imperative. By ensuring unused visas do not go to waste, the bill will help doctors and nurses and their families, who have been waiting in line, immigrate sooner,” said Dr. Ravi Kolli, Secretary of AAPI.
Dr. Suresh Reddy, President of AAPI, said, “AAPI has been consistent in bringing to the forefront the many important health care issues facing the physician community and raising our voice unitedly before the US Congress members. And we have been able to discover our own potential to be a player in shaping the health of each patient with a focus on health maintenance than disease intervention and to be a player in crafting the delivery of health care in the most efficient manner as well as to strive for equality in health globally.”
Full text of the bill is available here. A summary of the legislation is available here. A section-by-section of the legislation is available here. For more details on AAPI and its legislative agenda, please visit: www.aapiusa.org
Biden Leads Trump in Latest Poll By 9 Points
In the first national survey asking voters about the allegations, Joe Biden widened his lead over President Trump in a head-to-head matchup that has continued to grow in the last couple of months.
Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s lead over President Trump is growing nationwide even though most voters are aware of a sexual assault allegation against him, according to a Monmouth University poll released Wednesday. It is the first major national survey to ask voters about the allegation by a former Senate aide against the former vice president.
All told, 50 percent of voters said they would vote for Mr. Biden in a head-to-head matchup, and 41 percent said they would vote for Mr. Trump. In an Monmouth poll in April, Mr. Biden led the president by just four percentage points; in March, he led by three. The margin of error in the new poll was plus or minus 3.6 percentage points.A large majority of voters — 86 percent — were aware of the allegation that Mr. Biden sexually assaulted a Senate aide, Tara Reade, in 1993. Ms. Reade says he pinned her to a wall, reached under her clothing and penetrated her with his fingers.After Mr. Biden publicly denied Ms. Reade’s accusation on Friday, Monmouth added a question to the poll already in progress, asking whether voters had heard about the allegation and whether they thought it was true.Of course, national polls measure the national popular vote, which is really only indirectly related to who will win the White House — Democrats have won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College in two of the last seven elections and could do so again in 2020. U.S. presidential elections are really a contest of states.
Several polling firms released surveys of Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin in April. Former President Barack Obama carried all four states in 2012. Trump flipped all four in 2016 (as well as Ohio and Iowa, neither of which has much recent polling.) And Biden appears to lead in all four now. (North Carolina, which has gone Republican in both of the last two cycles, was also polled pretty often in April, with Trump and Biden looking basically tied there.)
The presidential race in key states according to early polls
Average margin in states where at least 3 polls were conducted in April
State | Number of polls | Biden | Trump | Average Margin |
North Carolina | 5 | 47% | 46% | D+1.0 |
Wisconsin | 4 | 48 | 44 | D+3.3 |
Florida | 4 | 47 | 43 | D+3.5 |
Pennsylvania | 5 | 48 | 43 | D+5.4 |
Michigan | 8 | 49 | 43 | D+6.1 |
U.S. | 50 | 48 | 42 | D+6.4 |
Includes polls conducted partly in March 2020 but finished in April. Polls that released results among multiple populations were included only once, counting the narrowest sample — registered voters over adults, and likely voters over registered voters.
This data highlights a few things. First, at least at the moment, Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are very close to the national tipping point — so they’re likely to be among the more determinative states this November. Second, the former vice president’s lead nationally is big enough to carry these states. This is important — if Biden wins all of the states Hillary Clinton won in 2016 plus any combination of three of these four, he would be elected president.
But crucially, Biden’s margins in these states are slightly smaller than his advantage in national polls. It’s worth thinking about the race at the state level in these relative terms because there’s still so much time for things to shift. If Biden’s lead nationally narrowed to 2 to 3 percentage points, these states would likely be much closer, if not lean toward Trump. Also, as The New York Times’ Nate Cohn wrote recently, Trump is likely to look stronger when pollsters start limiting their results to “likely voters.” Most of the April surveys in these four states were conducted among registered voters or all adults, two groups that include some people who may not vote in November.
Manisha Singh sworn in as New Assistant Secretary in Trump Administration
US President Donald Trump has nominated senior Indian-American diplomat Manisha Singh as his envoy to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
Currently Assistant Secretary of State for Economic and Business Affairs at the State Department, Singh will be the US representative to OECD with the rank of an Ambassador, according to the nomination sent to the Senate by the White House.
Paris-based OECD is an intergovernmental economic organisation with 36 member countries to stimulate economic progress and world trade.
On April 27, Trump had announced his intent to nominate Singh for this position.
Singh, who is in her late 40s, previously served as the acting under secretary of Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment and as a deputy assistant secretary in the Bureau of Economic, Energy and Business Affairs at the State Department.
She also previously served as the deputy chief counsel to the United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Singh, who is in her late 40s, previously served as the acting under secretary of Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment and as a deputy assistant secretary in the Bureau of Economic, Energy and Business Affairs at the State Department.
She also previously served as the deputy chief counsel to the United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Singh was the Senior Fellow for International Economic Affairs at the American Foreign Policy Council and was a term member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
According to the White House, her private sector experience includes practicing law at multinational law firms and working in-house at an investment bank.
She earned an LL.M. in International Legal Studies from the American University Washington College of Law, a J.D. (Juris Doctor) from the University of Florida College of Law, and a B.A. from the University of Miami. In addition, she studied at the University of Leiden Law School in the Netherlands.
Green card bill would bring more foreign doctors, nurses to US
Sens. Durbin, Perdue teamed up on the bill to bring relief to US health care professionals
A bipartisan group of senators introduced new legislation Thursday to grant 40,000 unused green card slots to foreign health care workers needed to help U.S. medical professionals fight the coronavirus pandemic.
Sen. Richard J. Durbin, D-Ill., a longtime stalwart of immigration-related legislation, unveiled the bill with his colleagues, Sens. David Perdue, R-Ga., Todd Young, R-Ind., and Chris Coons, D-Del.
The bill would authorize up to 25,000 immigrant visas to go to foreign nurses and up to 15,000 for doctors who are eligible to come to the United States or who are already here on temporary work visas. These immigrant visas would lead to employment-based green cards. The legislation would also allow U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to give out slots from a pool of previously unclaimed green cards for the families of these medical workers.
“Consider this: One-sixth of our health care workforce is foreign-born. Immigrant nurses and doctors play a vital role in our healthcare system, and their contributions are now more crucial than ever. Where would we be in this pandemic without them?” said Durbin, the Democratic whip, in a statement. “This bipartisan, targeted, and timely legislation will strengthen our health care workforce and improve health care access for Americans in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic.”
Perdue noted that a growing shortage of doctors and nurses in the United States over the past decade has been exacerbated by the COVID-19 crisis.
“Fortunately, there are thousands of trained health professionals who want to practice in the United States,” he said. “This proposal would simply reallocate a limited number of unused visas from prior years for doctors and nurses who are qualified to help in our fight against COVID-19.”
Every year, 160,000 employment-based green cards are slated to be given out, but not all of the slots get filled. The ones that don’t get used get taken off the table for that year.
That has let to an accumulation of about 200,000 such unused green cards over the last three decades. Under the legislation introduced Thursday, the government would be allowed to “recapture” around 40,000 of those visas.
“I think this is a really surgical intervention, to use a relevant term,” said Bruce Morrison, a former congressman who lobbies for the American Hospital Association.
“At a time when the problem we have on the front lines of our response to the pandemic is that there aren’t enough resources, doctors and nurses,” he said. “This is a tailored and targeted response to precisely that problem.”
Currently, there are more than 10,000 medical residents already in the country on nonimmigrant J-1 visas and H-1B visas, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges.
Those residents are American-trained health care workers, but their strict visa requirements often do not afford them the flexibility to serve changing needs amid the coronavirus crisis. For example, they are not allowed to take on telehealth appointments or take shifts at hospitals other than the ones that have specifically sponsored their visas.
Foreign nurses, on the other hand, often are approved to come to America on employment-based green cards. But even after their applications are approved, many get stuck in their home countries due to U.S. processing delays and backlogs.
The new Senate bill would circumvent the politics that typically bog down immigration-related legislation in Congress, Morrison said.
“It is very easy to keep something from happening in Washington — it’s the skill that is very prevalent,” he said. “This is not a change that the so-called restrictionists may be concerned about.”
AAPI writes to President of US, Governors and Lawmakers urging for Plasma Drive

AAPI’s Covid Plasma Government Policies Committee is being headed by Dr. Dalsukh Madia with the task of “Writing Letters to the President, Governors and Senators and other Government officials urging them to encourage individuals and medical facilities to harness this much needed resource.
AAPI’s Covid Plasma Local Hospital Administrators committee is being chaired by Dr. Binod Sinha, who will contact the hospital administrators for the policy implementation in all the hospitals in the country.
AAPI’s Covid Plasma Collection committee is led by Dr. Madhavi Gorusu, who is responsible for coordinating with the Red Cross and other agencies to work with Plasma Donations and donors.
“Following the recommendations for disbursements of AAPI Covid 19 funds. approved by the fund committee, comprising of Dr. Jayesh Shah (chair), Dr. Suresh Reddy, Dr. Seema Arora, Dr. Sajani Shah, Dr. Sudhakar Johnlaggada, Dr. Anupama Gotimukula, Dr. Chander Kapasi, Dr. Surendra Purohit, AAPI has distributed funds to the locations based on local needs,” Dr. Seema Arora, Chair of AAPI’s BOT, announced here.

All applications have to come through Regional Directors or Chapter Presidents who would be responsible for fair disbursement of funds to each chapter and will provide proof of disbursement with all receipts. There is no matching contribution needed by chapters. Individual member can fill out the form too but it is recommended that they work with regional director. This very transparent process will be closely monitored by the fund committee, Dr. Arora stated.

Responding to the national/world-wide shortage of masks and other personal protective equipment, American Physicians of Indian Origin (AAPI), the largest ethnic medical organization in the United States, has raised funds, donated money, purchased and donated masks to several Medical Institutions across the United States.
Coronavirus: Could Donald Trump delay the presidential election?
As the coronavirus pandemic grinds much of the US economy to a halt, it is also playing havoc with the American democratic process during a national election year.
Primary contests have been delayed or disrupted, with in-person polling places closed and absentee balloting processes thrown into doubt. Politicians have engaged in contentious fights over the electoral process in legislatures and the courts.
In November voters are scheduled to head to the polls to select the next president, much of Congress and thousands of state-government candidates. But what could Election Day look like – or if it will even be held on schedule – is very much the subject of debate.
Here are answers to some key questions.
Could President Trump postpone the election?
A total of 15 states have delayed their presidential primaries at this point, with most pushing them back until at least June. That presents the pressing question of whether the presidential election in November itself could be delayed.
Under a law dating back to 1845, the US presidential election is slated for the Tuesday after the first Monday of November every four years – 3 November in 2020. It would take an act of Congress – approved by majorities in the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives and the Republican-controlled Senate – to change that.
The prospect of a bipartisan legislative consensus signing off on any delay is unlikely in the extreme.
Image copyright Getty Images Image caption The pandemic did not stop South Korea holding parliamentary elections
What’s more, even if the voting day were changed, the US Constitution mandates that a presidential administration only last four years. In other words, Donald Trump’s first term will expire at noon on 20 January, 2021, one way or another.
He might get another four years if he’s re-elected. He could be replaced by Democrat Joe Biden if he’s defeated. But the clock is ticking down, and a postponed vote won’t stop it.
South Koreans vote in masks and at virus clinics
What happens if the election is delayed?
If there hasn’t been an election before the scheduled inauguration day, the presidential line of succession kicks in. Second up is Vice-President Mike Pence, and given that his term in office also ends on that day, he’s in the same boat as the president.
Next in line is the Speaker of the House – currently Democrat Nancy Pelosi – but her two-year term is up at the end of December. The senior-most official eligible for the presidency in such a doomsday scenario would be 86-year-old Republican Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the president pro tem of the Senate. That’s assuming Republicans still control the Senate after a third of its 100 seats are vacated because of their own term expirations.
All in all, this is much more in the realm of political suspense novels than political reality.
But could the virus disrupt the election?
While an outright change of the presidential election date is unlikely, that doesn’t mean the process isn’t at risk of significant disruption.
According to University of California Irvine Professor Richard L Hasen, an election-law expert, Trump or state governments could use their emergency powers to drastically curtail in-person voting locations.
In the recently concluded Wisconsin primary, for instance, concerns about exposure to the virus, along with a shortage of volunteer poll-workers and election supplies, led to the closure of 175 of the 180 polling places in Milwaukee, the state’s largest city.
If such a move were done with political interests in mind – perhaps by targeting an opponent’s electoral strongholds – it could have an impact on the results of an election.
All you need to know about US election
Could states contest the results?
Hasen also suggests another more extraordinary, albeit unlikely, scenario. Legislatures, citing concerns about the virus, could take back the power to determine which candidate wins their state in the general election. There is no constitutional obligation that a state support the presidential candidate who wins a plurality of its vote – or that the state hold a vote for president at all.
It’s all about the Electoral College, that archaic US institution in which each state has “electors” who cast their ballots for president. In normal times, those electors (almost always) support whoever wins the popular vote in their respective states.
It doesn’t necessarily have to work that way, however. In the 1800 election, for example, several state legislatures told their electors how to vote, popular will be damned.
If a state made such a “hardball” move today, Hasen admits, it would probably lead to mass demonstrations in the streets. That is, if mass demonstrations are permitted given quarantines and social-distancing edicts.
Will there be legal challenges?
The recent experience in the Wisconsin primary could serve as an ominous warning for electoral disruption to come – and not just because of the long lines for in-person voting at limited polling places, staffed by volunteers and national guard soldiers in protective clothing.
Prior to primary day, Democratic governor Tony Evers and Republicans who control the state legislature engaged in high-stakes legal battles, one of which was ultimately decided by the US Supreme Court, over whether the governor had the legal power to postpone the vote until June or extend the absentee balloting deadline.
Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Hand sanitiser before voting in Wisconsin
In March Republican Ohio Governor Mike DeWine had a similar court battle before his successful move to delay his state’s primary.
A federal judge in Texas on Wednesday issued an order that made fear of contracting the coronavirus a valid reason to request an absentee ballot in November. The state’s requirements for mail-in voting had been some of the most stringent in the nation.
What changes could reduce the risk?
In a recent opinion survey conducted by the Pew Research Center, 66% of Americans said they wouldn’t be comfortable going to a polling place to cast their ballot during the current public-health crisis.
Such concerns have increased pressure on states to expand the availability of mail-in ballots for all voters in order to minimise the risk of viral exposure from in-person voting.
While every state provides for some form of remote voting, the requirements to qualify vary greatly.
“We have a very decentralised system,” Hasen says. “The states have a lot of leeway in terms of how they do these things.”
Five states in the western US, including Washington, Oregon and Colorado, conduct their elections entirely via mail-in ballot. Others, like California, provide a postal ballot to anyone who requests it.
Why don’t some states like postal-voting?
On the other end of the spectrum, 17 states require voters to provide a valid reason why they are unable to vote in-person in order to qualify for an absentee ballot. These states have faced calls to relax their requirements to make absentee ballots easier to obtain – although some leaders are resisting.
Mike Parson, the Republican governor of Missouri, said on Tuesday that expanding absentee ballot access was a “political issue” and suggested that fear of contracting the virus is not, by itself, a reason to qualify for an absentee ballot.
Why are US election campaigns never-ending? Republicans in other states, including North Carolina and Georgia, have expressed similar sentiments.
Congress could step in and mandate that states provide some minimum level of absentee balloting or mail-voting system in national elections, but given the existing partisan gridlock at the US Capitol, chances of that are slim.
Do the parties agree on how to protect the election?
No. Given the intense polarisation of modern politics, it shouldn’t be surprising that whether – and how – to alter the way elections are conducted during a pandemic have become an increasingly contentious debate.
Donald Trump himself has weighed in against expanded mail-in voting, saying that it is more susceptible to fraud. He also has suggested that increased turnout from easing balloting restrictions could harm Republican candidates,
“They had levels of voting, that if you ever agreed to it, you’d never have a Republican elected in this country again,” he said in a recent Fox News interview.
But the evidence that conservatives are hurt more by mail-in voting is mixed, as Republicans frequently cast absentee ballots in greater numbers than Democrats.
Is US democracy at risk?
The coronavirus outbreak is affecting every aspect of American life. While Trump and other politicians are pushing for life to return to some semblance of normalcy, there’s no guarantee all will be well by June, when many states have rescheduled their primary votes, the August party conventions, the October scheduled presidential debates or even November’s election day.
In normal times, the months ahead would mark a drumbeat of national political interest and activity that grows to an election day crescendo. At this point, everything is in doubt – including, for some, the foundations of American democracy itself.
“Even before the virus hit, I was quite worried about people accepting the results of the 2020 election because we are very hyperpolarized and clogged with disinformation,” says Hasen, who wrote a recent book titled Election Meltdown: Dirty Tricks, Distrust, and the Threat to American Democracy. “The virus adds much more to this concern.”
The US economy has erased nearly all the job gains since the Great Recession
- The Labor Department reported that the number of Americans applying for state unemployment benefits totaled 5.245 million last week.
- Combined with the prior three jobless claims reports, the number of Americans who’ve filed for unemployment over the last four weeks is 22.025 million.
- That number is just below the 22.442 million jobs added to payrolls since November 2009, when the U.S. economy began to add jobs back after the recession.
It took only four weeks for the U.S. economy to wipe out nearly all the job gains in the last 11 years. The coronavirus and the forced closure of business throughout the country again fueled the number of Americans applying for state unemployment benefits, which last week totaled 5.245 million, the Labor Department reported.
Combined with the three prior jobless claims reports, the number of Americans who have filed for unemployment over the previous four weeks is 22.025 million. That number is just below the 22.442 million jobs added to nonfarm payrolls since November 2009, when the U.S. economy began to add jobs back to the economy after the Great Recession. Only 417,000 more U.S. workers need to file for unemployment benefits to erase all nonfarm gains since 2009, a figure likely to be easily surpassed this week.
The rapid nature of the job losses will be unprecedented, wiping out more than a decade’s worth of job gains in five weeks. We’ll find out for sure next Thursday when the national claims for this week are reported.
“While today’s jobless numbers are down on last week, they still mean that all the job gains since the financial crisis have been erased,” wrote Seema Shah, chief strategist at Principal Global Investors. “What’s more, with many workers, including those in the gig economy, not included in these numbers, labor market pains may be even worse than these numbers suggest.”
“Concerns for the second half of the year may be underestimated,” she added. “Although governments are looking to lift lockdowns, the re-opening of economies will be only gradual, compounding financial strains for businesses and households, suppressing demand and suggesting a slower economic recovery.”
The latest nonfarm report showed payrolls plunged by 701,000 in March, marking the first decline since 2010 and the worst fall since March 2009. The unemployment rate jumped nearly a full percentage point to 4.4% from 3.5%.
Trump’s approval ticks downward as economic worry mounts
A new CNN Poll of Polls finds President Donald Trump’s approval rating continuing to trend downward after he reached positive territory last month.
In the new average, 45% approve of the way Trump is handling his job nationwide and 51% disapprove.
The poll of polls includes the five most recent national telephone polls measuring the views of adults or registered voters. His downturn comes with political turmoil over the state of the economy, according to new polling.
Last week, 46% approved of how Trump was handling his job and 49% disapproved, ticking down from late March when he held at 47% approval.
Trump — whose approval rating has been relatively steady throughout his presidency — has seen higher-than-average ratings as the coronavirus pandemic swept through the US.
However, after a month of stay-at-home orders and an economic crash, Trump’s approval rating has gone from almost net even (-1 in late March), to leaning net negative (-3 last week), and down further in mid-April (-6 now).
A new Gallup poll out on Friday found a record drop in confidence on economic conditions, down from 54% who described the country’s economic conditions as being excellent or good in March to 27% in April. Gallup reported this is the largest drop in economic confidence dating back to 1992.
The percentage who call the economy “poor” has more than tripled, rising from 11% to 39%.
About three-quarters (74%) say they think the economy is getting worse right now, up from 47% who felt that way in March and just 33% in February. Only 22% say the economy is getting better right now, and the gap between those who think things are improving vs. those who say it is worsening is the largest it has been since the Great Recession.
And there’s been a massive decline in the percentage who say now is a good time to find a quality job. While 68% in January said it was a good time to find a quality job, just 22% feel that way now, the worst read since 2013.
The CNN Poll of Polls is an average of the five most recent non-partisan, live operator, national telephone surveys on Trump’s approval rating. All polls were conducted among either adults or registered voters. The Poll of Polls includes: The Gallup poll conducted April 1-14; the Fox News poll conducted April 4-7; the Quinnipiac University poll conducted April 2-6; the CNN poll conducted by SSRS April 3-6; and the Monmouth University poll conducted April 3-7. The poll of polls does not have a margin of sampling error.
The Gallup poll was conducted April 1-14 by telephone among a random sample of 1,017 adults. For results based on the total sample of national adults, the margin of sampling error is 4 percentage points.
Most Americans Say Trump Was Too Slow in Initial Response to Coronavirus Threat – Wide concern that states will lift COVID-19 restrictions too quickly
As the death toll from the novel coronavirus pandemic continues to spiral, most Americans do not foresee a quick end to the crisis. In fact, 73% of U.S. adults say that in thinking about the problems the country is facing from the coronavirus outbreak, the worst is still to come.
With the Trump administration and many state governors actively considering ways to revive the stalled U.S. economy, the public strikes a decidedly cautious note on easing strict limits on public activity. About twice as many Americans say their greater concern is that state governments will lift restrictions on public activity too quickly (66%) as say it will not happen quickly enough (32%).
President Donald Trump’s handling of the coronavirus outbreak – especially his response to initial reports of coronavirus cases overseas – is widely criticized. Nearly two-thirds of Americans (65%) say Trump was too slow to take major steps to address the threat to the United States when cases of the disease were first reported in other countries.
Opinions about Trump’s initial response to the coronavirus – as well as concerns about whether state governments will act too quickly or slowly in easing restrictions – are deeply divided along partisan lines. These attitudes stand in stark contrast to the assessments of how officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and at the state and local level are addressing the outbreak, which are largely positive among members of both parties.
Democrats are largely united in their concerns over state governments easing bans on public activity; 81% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents say their greater concern is that governments will lift these restrictions too quickly. Yet Republicans and Republican leaners are evenly divided. About half (51%) say their bigger concern is that state governments will act too quickly while slightly fewer (46%) worry more that restrictions on public movement will not be lifted quickly enough.
The new national survey by Pew Research Center, conducted April 7 to 12 among 4,917 U.S. adults on the American Trends Panel, finds that Republicans also are divided in opinions about whether it is acceptable for elected officials to criticize the Trump administration’s response to the coronavirus outbreak.
Nearly half of Republicans (47%) say it is acceptable for officials to fault the administration’s response, while slightly more (52%) find this unacceptable. Democrats overwhelmingly think it is acceptable for elected officials to criticize how the administration has addressed the outbreak (85% say this).
The survey finds that while Trump is widely viewed as having acted too slowly in the initial phase of the crisis, Americans have more positive views of how he is currently handling some aspects of the coronavirus outbreak. About half (51%) say he is doing an excellent or good job in addressing the economic needs of businesses facing financial difficulties.
However, fewer Americans say Trump has done well in addressing the financial needs of ordinary people who have lost jobs or income (46%), working with governors and meeting the needs of hospitals, doctors and nurses (45%). And 42% say Trump has done well providing the public with accurate information about the coronavirus. Public opinion about the coronavirus outbreak can be explored further by using the Election News Pathways data tool.
Trump’s overall job rating has changed little since late March (March 19-24); it remains among the highest ratings of his presidency. Currently, 44% approve of the way Trump is handling his job as president, while 53% disapprove.
The survey – most of which took place after Bernie Sanders announced April 8 that he was suspending his presidential campaign, but before he endorsed Biden on April 13 – finds that early preferences for the general election are closely divided: 47% of registered voters say if the presidential election were held today, they would vote for Biden or lean toward supporting Biden, while 45% support or lean toward Trump; 8% favor neither Biden nor Trump or prefer another candidate.
With Biden now the party’s presumptive nominee, Democrats generally think that the party will unite around the former vice president. About six-in-ten Democratic and Democratic-leaning registered voters (63%) say the party will unite around Biden as the nominee, while 36% say differences and disagreements will keep many Democrats from supporting Biden.
Notably, Democrats who supported Sanders for the party’s nomination in January are the most skeptical that the party will unite around Biden. Nearly half of Democratic voters who supported Sanders for the nomination (47%) say that differences will keep many in the party from backing Biden.
Here are the other major findings from the new survey:
Fewer than half of Americans say Trump portrays coronavirus situation “about as it really is.” Just 39% say in his public comments on the coronavirus outbreak, Trump is presenting the situation about as it really is. About half (52%) say he is making the situation seem better than it really is, while 8% say he is making things seem worse than they really are.
Negative job ratings for Pelosi and McConnell. Just 36% of Americans approve of the way Nancy Pelosi is handling her job as speaker of the House, while an identical percentage approves of Mitch McConnell’s performance as Senate majority leader. Majorities disapprove of the job performance of Pelosi (61%) and McConnell (59%). Job ratings for both congressional leaders are deeply partisan.
Majority sees increased partisan divisions, but fewer do so than last fall. The public has long believed that the nation’s partisan divisions have widened. But the share saying divisions between Republicans and Democrats, while large, has declined since last September. Currently, 65% say divisions between Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. are growing, compared with 78% who said this last fall.
Joe Biden Is presumptive Democratic Party Nominee – Releases plans to expand Medicare, forgive student debt
With Sen. Bernie Sanders’ decision to drop out of the race, Joe Biden has become the presumptive nominee to lead the Democratic Party into the November Elections in the US. By adding some of the policies advocated by Sanders, the former Vice President Biden is seeking to win over his rival’s loyal band of progressive supporters, many of whom lack enthusiasm for the former vice president and his establishment brand of politics.
Joe Biden, faced with the daunting task of uniting and energizing a party that has been through a long, divisive primary, and is now distracted by the fears and daily challenges of a global pandemic and world economic collapse, said, .“It’s time to come together and unite around our presumptive nominee,” Democratic Party Chairman Tom Perez said Wednesday.
Biden issued a statement last week that praised the Vermont senator’s leadership and welcomed his followers to his camp, and invoked Sanders’ campaign slogan. “I’ll be reaching out to you. You will be heard by me. As you say: Not me. Us,” Biden said.
In his efforts to win over the supporters of Sanders, Former Vice President Joe Biden released plans to expand Medicare eligibility and forgive some student debt as he works to unite a fractured Democratic base behind his presumptive 2020 presidential nomination.
Progressives say Biden will have to do far more — by way of policy, personnel and choice of vice president — to broaden his support on the left, especially among young people.
“They are looking for something more than just, ‘We have to stop Trump,’” said Ben Wessel, executive director of NextGen America, a progressive super PAC that is on track to register 300,000 young voters in 11 battleground states this election cycle. “He has to recognize the new reality we are in right now, especially with coronavirus. We have a bunch of young people feeling like their economic future is completely screwed.”
Sanders’ exit now allows Biden to work with the Democratic National Committee to raise money. They have plans to launch a joint fundraising committee that can solicit checks from donors in the tens of thousands of dollars. Contributions to the campaign itself have a $2,800 federal limit.
One avenue for Biden to energize and unify the party could be his choice of a running mate. He’s committed to picking a woman, and his campaign is expected to set up an operation for vetting candidates as soon as next week.
If Biden chooses a progressive like Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, a former rival, it could help fire up the left and young people. He is also under pressure from some quarters to pick a woman of color. Other Democrats believe a strong progressive on the ticket could be a liability in a general election and would favor a more centrist woman like Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer or another former rival, Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar.
A recent Washington Post/ABC News poll illustrated the political risk to Biden if he does not bring Sanders supporters into the fold between now and election day. The poll found that if Biden were the Democratic nominee, 80% of Sanders supporters would vote for Biden, and 15% would go to Trump. That would be a slightly higher rate of defection than in 2016, when post-election analysis found that 12% of those who voted for Sanders over Hillary Clinton in the primary went with Trump in the general election.
Biden, however, is drawing support from the anti-Trump wing of the GOP: The Lincoln Project, an organization of disaffected Republicans, endorsed Biden. At a virtual fundraiser, Biden invited former GOP Sen. Chuck Hagel to headline the event with him. That won’t go over well with some progressives and young people who think his call for bipartisanship is naive.
Senior Biden aides have been opening lines of communication with progressive groups, including old-line organizations such as Planned Parenthood and activist start-ups like Indivisible.
But many other Sanders supporters are more wary. A letter to Biden from several large progressive advocacy groups including NextGen, Justice Democrats and the Sunrise Movement urged Biden to quickly pivot off a “return to normalcy” campaign theme. “For so many young people, going back to the way things were ‘before Trump’ isn’t a motivating enough reason to cast a ballot in November,” the letter said.
Biden announced last week that he would lower the Medicare eligibility age to 60 and forgive federal student debt for low-income and middle-class people who attended public colleges and universities, historically black colleges and universities (HBCU), and underfunded minority-serving institution (MSI).
The proposals mark an initial olive branch to supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), some of whom have expressed skepticism at Biden’s centrist brand of politics and were dismayed when the Vermont progressive withdrew from the race Wednesday. Biden specifically referenced Sanders’s advocacy for the two issues in a Medium post announcing his plans.
“I believe that as we are being plunged into what is likely to be one of the most volatile and difficult economic times in this country’s recent history, we can take these critical steps to help make it easier for working people to make ends meet,” Biden wrote. “Senator Sanders and his supporters can take pride in their work in laying the groundwork for these ideas, and I’m proud to adopt them as part of my campaign at this critical moment in responding to the coronavirus crisis.”
Under Biden’s plan, Americans would have the option of opting into Medicare when they are 60 or stick with the plans provided by their employers. The proposal is intended to complement Biden’s overall health care plan to provide a public option to any American who wants it while expanding the Affordable Care Act.
Biden’s student debt plan calls for forgiving all federal undergraduate student loans from two- and four-year public colleges and universities and any private HBCUs or MSIs for debt-holders earning up to $125,000. The plan builds on Biden’s existing student loan plan to cancel $10,000 of student debt per person, forgive federal student loans after 20 years and more.
A Biden administration would pay for the student debt plan by repealing the “excess business losses” tax cut in the recently passed $2.2 trillion coronavirus relief package. The former vice president said in a statement he will be releasing further details for his proposals “in the future.”
The Future of India-U.S. Relations: Trump Versus Biden
As the coronavirus pandemic dominates global news in the United States, progress toward the next presidential election scheduled to be held on Nov. 3 moves slowly forward. President Donald Trump had no real opposition in the Republican party and is running for re-election. And it has now become apparent that former Vice President Joe Biden will be his opponent as the Democratic candidate for president.
What would a Trump victory bode for the future of U.S.-India relations? What would a Biden victory bode? Let me answer each of those questions in turn.
Given the love fests of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s ‘Howdy Modi’ event in Houston, Texas, in which Trump participated in September of 2019, and Trump’s ‘Namaste Trump’ event hosted by Modi in India in February of this year, it might be assumed that the future for U.S.-India relations is a splendid one. This would be an incorrect assumption.
Both of these events were more symbolic than substantive. Trump’s participation in them undoubtedly helped to persuade some – perhaps many – Indian American Modi supporters who voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 to cast their ballots for Trump in 2020. Trump’s campaign team took steps to ensure this by holding an event at his Mar-a-Lago resort in which a group of prominent Indian Americans announced their plans to work for his re-election and to mobilize Indian Americans on his behalf.
To understand the future potential of India’s relations with the U.S. with Trump as president, however, it is necessary to look beyond these political moves and to examine the present state of those relations and Trump’s personal style.
In a word, the best way to characterize the current relations between the U.S. and India is “functional.” The relationship was relatively good for the first two years of Trump’s presidency. In fact, near the end of 2018, Alice Wells, the Acting Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia, was quoted in the media as saying: “This has been a landmark year for U.S.-India ties as we build out stronger relationships across the board.”
Then, in 2019, the relations went off the track in the first half of the year after the U.S. and India got into a tit-for-tat tariff war after the U.S. terminated India’s Generalized System of Preferences which allowed India to send certain goods to the U.S. duty-free. There have been continuing efforts to structure a “modest” trade deal since then. It was thought there might be some type of deal done in September of 2019 while Modi was in the U.S. by year’s end, and then during Trump’s India visit. But, as of today, there is still no deal.
This inability to get any meaningful trade agreement in place speaks volumes about India’s potential future relations with India with Trump as president. So, too does Trump’s style.
Trump’s campaign slogans this time around are “Keep America Great” and “Promises Made, Promises Kept.” Trump is not a policy wonk and most of his effort will go toward “America First.” This involves making the U.S. more isolated by withdrawing from international agreements, restructuring trade agreements, emphasizing building walls to stop immigrants at the border, using tariffs to block trade with countries who are taking away American jobs, and confronting businesses who are allegedly stealing American trade secrets.
This perspective suggests what India can expect for its relations with the U.S. if it has to deal with Trump for a second term as president. The relations will stay functional at best. As I have said before, that’s because the words partnership, cooperation and collaboration are not in Trump’s vocabulary. Nationalism, isolationism and protectionism are.
Joe Biden stands in stark contrast to President Trump both professionally and personally. Biden is a strategic thinker and doer with a solid eight-year track record of leadership experience as vice-president in forging alliances that have made a difference around the world and he has also been a long-standing friend of India.
He was chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a leading advocate for the Congressional passage of the Indo-US civic nuclear deal in 2005.
At a dinner convened 10 years later in 2015 by the Confederation of Indian Industry and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Vice President Biden discussed the tremendous joint progress that had been made by the two countries in the past and declared, “We are on the cusp of a sea change decade.”
Early in his campaign for the Democratic nomination for president in July of 2019, in laying out his foreign policy vision, Biden stated that the U.S. had to reach out to India and other Asian partners to strengthen ties with them. The items on Biden’s foreign policy agenda for strengthening which are of importance for India include climate change, nuclear proliferation and cyberwarfare.
During his vice presidency, Biden worked side by side with President Barack Obama to do things that would contribute to achieving Obama’s vision stated in 2010 of India and America being “indispensable partners in meeting the challenges of our time.” In 2020, those challenges are even greater than they were a decade ago.
That is why it is so essential that India and the U.S. develop a strategic relationship that enables them to become those indispensable partners. That can happen if Biden assumes the presidency on January 20, 2021. It cannot happen if Donald Trump remains as president for a second term.
The results of this upcoming election in the U.S. matter greatly for the future of the United States. They matter greatly for the future of India-U.S. relations as well. Time and the American electorate will tell what that future will be.
(Frank F. Islam is an Indian American entrepreneur, civic and thought leader based in Washington, DC. The views expressed here are personal.)
AAPI Urges President Trump to enhance the existing national registry of COVID-19 recovered patients to collect their convalescent plasma

The Odds for the presidency: Donald Trump’s Odds Get a Boost
Joe Biden was expected to give Donald Trump a run for his money in the 2020 US Elections, but unexpected recent events could be turning the tables on the two-term vice president and the Democratic party’s hope to paint the White House blue: the coronavirus pandemic and New York governor Andrew Cuomo’s rising stock.
Donald Trump is installed as the short-odds-on favourite to win the 2020 US Elections, which are slated for Tuesday, November 3. Trump is the -110 favourite to win the keys to the White House for a second (and last) term, while Biden, who is Trump’s most prominent threat to the presidency according to most political analysts, is tipped at +125. Senator Bernie Sanders, meanwhile, is the longshot of the triplet at far flung +2500 odds in political betting markets.
By the odds for the presidency, one can infer Trump’s probability of winning is higher than Biden’s. This notion is further underscored by the president’s approval rating, which has experienced a renaissance of late (reaching nearly 50%) as he navigates the nation through the coronavirus pandemic that is having a deadly impact across the country.
In a recent interview with ‘Fox & Friends,’ Trump reiterated his hope that he’s ‘going to win.’ Even referencing the aforementioned polls that are in his favour, when he said, “I’ve gotten great marks also. We want to always make sure we have a great president; we have somebody that’s capable.”
Senator Sanders’ campaign took a big hit after Super Tuesday propelled Biden towards a majority in national delegates. What prompted many political obituaries on Sanders’ campaign to surface and his odds in political betting markets to plummet. But the 78-year-old senator isn’t going away quietly. He’s adamant about continuing the fight.
Biden, meanwhile, is leading the race for the party nomination and appears to have it practically in the bag. He has 1,174 delegates to Sanders’ 862 delegates. A total of 1,991 delegates are needed in order to become the Democratic party’s standard-bearer.
The novel coronavirus outbreak forced four primaries that were scheduled for April 4 – Alaska, Wyoming, Hawaii and Louisiana – to be pushed back into June at the earliest. That said Wisconsin is the lone primary election on the schedule for April 7, which is still planning on going ahead amid the deadly coronavirus pandemic.
Sanders reportedly hopes to have another debate with Biden in April, although none are confirmed or scheduled to date. Moreover, Biden doesn’t appear keen to have any more debates. In his words, “I haven’t thought about any more debates. I think we’ve had enough debates. I think we should get on with this,” he said.
Biden’s sense of urgency may be in part due to the global pandemic that has turned electioneering on its head, but there’s an even stronger case against dragging the Democratic primary process out because it could weaken the party’s position entirely come November. It could weaken Biden’s position, no less.
Biden has more than a 300 delegate edge over Sanders but the 77-year-old’s momentum appears to be waning in recent weeks, within the party and the broad spectrum of the elections. Ever since Super Tuesday on March 17, Biden is steadily fading in the national conversation.
Sanders, who’s a dab hand at virtual campaigning, is managing to stay relevant with his supporters. Hosting daily live streams from his home in Vermont, including fireside chats and virtual rallies and phonebanks, the 78-year-old is pioneering virtual campaigning; unlike Biden, who is struggling to strike an audible chord. After a few unsuccessful virtual events, Biden’s team seems content with infrequent TV appearances and interviews that are mostly controlled and remote.
This is part of the virtual town hall the Biden campaign wouldn’t post; Garbled/cut out audio, blank screens, randomly going live to unsuspecting participants
What nobody could have anticipated is the Democratic landscape turning upside down with the skyrocketing popularity of New York governor Andrew Cuomo against a backdrop of the ‘war’ on coronavirus. How the DNC reconciles its choice of Biden and Sanders now in light of Cuomo’s appeal remains to be seen.
The 62-year-old governor isn’t officially in the race nor does he intend to run in the 2020 Elections. Politics couldn’t be further from the governor’s mind, according to Monday’s briefing with the press. “There is no politics, there is no red and blue, We are red, white and blue!. So, let’s get over it and lead by example,” he said.
NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo on Pres. Trump: “I am not engaging the president in politics. My only goal is to engage the president in partnership…I’m not going to get into a political dispute with the president.”
Yet, in spite of claim to the contrary, sportsbooks roll out odds for Cuomo. He is now the second best bet to win the Democratic nomination at +1000, ahead of Sanders but behind Biden. (When Cuomo isn’t officially even in the race that’s telling). Cuomo is also the third best bet after Trump and Biden in the race for the presidency, albeit at +2000.
When Trump was asked about a hypothetical Cuomo bid, he seemed to relish the idea, even going so far as saying he would be a better candidate than ‘Sleepy Joe,’ who Trump doesn’t think is ‘capable’ of being president.
Seemingly overnight, Cuomo’s rising star steals the spotlight and encourages re-evaluating the measure of Biden and Sanders’ candidacy for the 2020 US Elections. A right spanner in the works for the Democratic party but potentially an advantage for Trump, whose odds received a boost recently.
San Diego Tunnel Task Force uncovers sophisticated cross-border drug tunnel under the U.S./Mexico border
Federal agents seize 4,400 pounds of illicit drugs from the tunnel’s exit in the U.S
Federal agents on the San Diego Tunnel Task Force uncovered a sophisticated drug smuggling tunnel on Thursday, March 19, which extends under the United States-Mexico border to a warehouse in a commercial complex in the Otay Mesa area of San Diego. The discovery of the tunnel resulted from an ongoing investigation by members on the San Diego Tunnel Task Force, which include Homeland Security Investigations, U.S. Border Patrol, the Drug Enforcement Administration and the United States Attorney’s Office.
Agents on the San Diego Tunnel Task Force developed information about a transnational criminal organization suspected of smuggling narcotics into the U.S. via a cross-border tunnel. As the investigation progressed, agents worked in cooperation with the Fiscalia General de la Republica and Secretaria de la Defensa Nacional to locate the tunnel entrance in Mexico. Agents subsequently presented evidence to a U.S. federal judge and obtained a federal search warrant for the warehouse in Otay Mesa. The U.S. exit point was discovered subsequent to the execution of the warrant.
Agents seized approximately 1,300 pounds of cocaine, 86 pounds of methamphetamine, 17 pounds of heroin, 3,000 pounds of marijuana and more than two pounds of fentanyl from the tunnel. The large seizure of mixed drugs represents the first time in San Diego’s history where five different types of drugs were found inside a tunnel. The total street value of the drugs seized from the tunnel is estimated at $29.6 million.
The tunnel extends for more than 2,000 feet underground from a warehouse in Tijuana, Mexico to a warehouse in the Otay Mesa area of San Diego. The tunnel has an average depth of 31 feet and is three-feet wide through most of the passageway.
Agents estimate the tunnel has been in existence for several months due to the advanced construction observed in several portions of the passageway, which included reinforced walls, ventilation, lighting and an underground rail system.
“I’m proud of the excellent work performed by Homeland Security Investigations agents, as well as U.S. Border Patrol and Drug Enforcement Administration agents as integrated partners of the San Diego Tunnel Task Force. Their tenacity made the difference in shutting down this tunnel,” said HSI San Diego Acting Special Agent in Charge Cardell T. Morant. “I hope this sends a clear message that despite the ongoing public health crisis, HSI and our law enforcement partners will remain resilient and continue to pursue criminal organizations responsible for the cross-border smuggling of narcotics into the United States.”
“Several months ago, agents on the San Diego Tunnel Task Force announced the seizure of the longest cross-border tunnel and today we announce the discovery of another sophisticated tunnel with large quantities of drugs seized from within,” said DEA Special Agent in Charge John W. Callery. “These tunnels show the determination of drug trafficking organizations to subvert our border controls and smuggle deadly drugs into our community. But these recent tunnel seizures also show the dedication of our amazing partners on the San Diego Tunnel Task Force to locate and shut down these tunnels to keep our communities safe. Despite the current COVID-19 pandemic, DEA employees continue to work tirelessly to serve and protect the community.”
“I’m immensely proud of the dedication and diligence of agents on the task force to shut down this tunnel,” said Chief Patrol Agent Aaron M. Heitke. “Cross-border tunnels represent one of the most significant threats to our national security. Criminal organizations can use these tunnels to introduce anything they want into the U.S. This is especially concerning during a global pandemic.”
“If cartels keep spending millions of dollars building tunnels, we will keep finding and filling them,” said U.S. Attorney Robert Brewer. “This time, we seized a jaw-dropping $30 million worth of dangerous drugs that aren’t going to reach the streets. This is the most valuable single-day tunnel seizure in recent memory, and it is the largest seizure of multiple drugs in a single tunnel. This takedown is even more significant in the face of a global pandemic, where stopping the movement of unauthorized people and packages across international borders is of utmost importance.” Brewer praised the excellent work of the San Diego Tunnel Task Force in locating and dismantling yet another cross-border drug tunnel, especially the efforts of AUSA Orlando Gutierrez.
Throughout the investigation, the San Diego Tunnel Task Force received substantial support from the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department.
“The Sheriff’s Department remains committed to protecting the citizens of San Diego County from the dangers associated with the importation, sales, and use of illegal drugs, as well as the violent crimes associated with them,” said San Diego Sheriff William Gore. “By working collaboratively with agencies like Homeland Security Investigations, and groups like the Tunnel Task Force, we work tirelessly to achieve this mission. These partnerships are key to achieving these goals. We would like to recognize the hard work and dedication of these detectives and agents who worked tirelessly on this case. We thank them for their efforts.”
The San Diego Tunnel Task Force would like to thank the Government of Mexico authorities for their cooperation in this bi-lateral investigation.
Tunnels like this bring large quantities of dangerous drugs and violence into our communities. Law enforcement often relies on the public’s assistance in identifying the location of these tunnels. Anyone may anonymously report suspicious activity to the Tunnel Task Force at 1-877-9TUNNEL (1-877-988-6635).
$2 Trillion Relief Bill as U.S. Becomes Coronavirus Epicenter
President Trump on Friday signed into law the largest economic stimulus package in modern American history, backing a $2 trillion measure designed to respond to the coronavirus, COVID 19 pandemic while the number of coronavirus cases in the U.S. surpassed 100,000.
Under the law, the government will deliver direct payments and jobless benefits for individuals, money for states and a huge bailout fund for businesses battered by the crisis. The legislation will send direct payments of $1,200 to millions of Americans, including those earning up to $75,000, and an additional $500 per child. It will substantially expand jobless aid, providing an additional 13 weeks and a four-month enhancement of benefits, and for the first time will extend the payments to freelancers and gig workers.The deadly disease broke the longest bull-market in history and caused 3.3 million Americans to lose their jobs last week.
Trump signed the measure in the Oval Office hours after the House approved it by voice vote and less than two days after the Senate unanimously passed it. “We’re so pleased to be able to have passed on the floor—practically unanimously—this important bill, CARES. And we want to demonstrate that we do care for the American people in every way,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Ca.) said after the bill was passed by voice vote.
While majority support for the measure didn’t appear threatened, House members are currently scattered across the country and with domestic air travel schedules slashed due to plummeting demand. This was the logistical and procedural obstacle that Pelosi had hoped to avoid.
The U.S. is now the global center of the coronavirus outbreak, with the more than 100,000 American diagnoses passing the number of cases in China. The disease’s devastating spread in the U.S. and the economic toll that countermeasures to contain it have wrought led Pelosi to begin on Thursday to talk about the contents of another aid bill that would come after the one the House is currently working to pass.
The measure will also offer $377 billion in federally guaranteed loans to small businesses and establish a $500 billion government lending program for distressed companies reeling from the crisis, including allowing the administration the ability to take equity stakes in airlines that received aid to help compensate taxpayers. It will also send $100 billion to hospitals on the front lines of the pandemic.
The law was the product of days of talks between members of Mr. Trump’s administration and Democratic and Republican leaders in Congress. And even before Mr. Trump held a bill signing on Friday afternoon, congressional leaders said they expected to negotiate more legislative responses to the pandemic in the coming months.
Pelosi said in an interview Thursday that in the next recovery package, she wants to go above and beyond the current bill’s level of direct cash payments to Americans. The bill passed by the Senate provides for $1,200 per taxpayer and $500 per child.
“We do want to see more direct payments” to Americans, Pelosi said on Bloomberg TV Thursday afternoon. “We had much higher direct payments in our House bill, and we would hope to see that we could do that again.” Family and medical leave and workplace safety would also be a focus for the House in the next aid bill, she said.
For an update on the fast growing pandemic, please visit: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/situation-reports
Will Indian American Sara Gideon Give Senate Majority to Democrats in November?
In the crowded field of June 9 Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate from Maine, Indian American Sara Gideon, the current State House Speaker, seems to be raising hope for winning the primary and ultimately claiming the US Senate seat in the general election from incumbent Republican Senator Susan Collins.
The 47-year-old daughter of an Indian immigrant father and a second-generation Armenian mother wants to change what she believes are too many politicians in Washington focused more on the special interests than the interests of those they represent.
Senator Susan Collins’ hard-won reputation as an independent-minded Republican moderate devoted to Maine — an image that enabled her to continue on as New England’s last surviving GOP senator — is being put to the test this year in the most difficult reelection race of her career. And with control of the Senate at stake, it’s become one of the highest-profile Senate races in the country, already prompting millions of dollars in spending by outside political groups.
Susan Collins — one of the few remaining senators on either side of the aisle willing to buck their party on key votes — objects to the idea that she has changed. Six years ago, Collins won more than two-thirds of the vote. But a Colby College poll of Maine voters last month found a statistical dead heat between Collins and Gideon, with 56% of women reporting an unfavorable opinion of Collins, likely a result of her support for Bret Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court seat.
“One of the most surprising findings is how poorly Senator Collins is doing with women,” Dan Shea, Colby College professor of government and the lead researcher on the poll, was quoted as saying in Sun Journal.
“She had a 42 percent approval rating overall but that drops to 36 percent for women. Further yet, it drops to 25 percent for women under 50. My best guess is this is residual impact on her vote for (U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett) Kavanaugh.”
Sara says, she is running for U.S. Senate because she believes too many politicians in Washington are focused more on the special interests than the interests of the people they’re supposed to serve. Besides Gideon, other democrats in the fray are Michael Bunker, Bre Kidman, Ross LaJeunesse and Betsy Sweet.
Sara is a leading voice in the legislature to draw attention to and deliver resources to combat Maine’s opioid epidemic. Sara’s work has been credited with giving law enforcement and families the tools they need to help save lives. And when former Governor LePage vetoed Sara’s opioid legislation and mocked those suffering from the crisis, Sara did not back down. Instead, she brought Democrats and Republicans together and defeated the veto from the Governor.
Sara has prioritized listening to Mainers and then working with others to get things done. And under Governors of both parties, Sara has shown an ability to deliver results while standing up for Democratic Whether as a member of her local town council, as a State Representative and now Speaker of the House, Sara has focused on trying to use her office to improve the lives of Maine
Democrats are building a case that Collins — despite her support for abortion rights and vote to uphold Obamacare — is following her party’s rightward shift. In particular, they point to her refusal to stand up to President Trump and her siding with the party on the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh. Many legal experts expect Kavanaugh to support efforts to undermine Roe vs. Wade, though he’s never directly ruled on the issue and Collins has said she is confident he won’t.
“In Maine, Senator Collins’ race is very important for Democrats. Her vote for Kavanaugh confirmation made them really angry, and Maine obviously is one of the key races for them, if the Democrats have to take back the senate. Naturally, the Democrats have targeted the seat in a big way and there is a lot of money and energy that are going to come in. This will be one of the prime races that needs to be watched,” Sanjay Puri, chairman and founder of U.S.-India Political Action Committee (USINPAC), a bipartisan, political organization representing the interests of more than 3.2 million Indian Americans, told this correspondent.
“To win the Senate, the Democrats need to win three important seats and this one is the potential pick-up along with Colorado and Arizona where they won the last cycle and Colorado is going to be a close race. Democrats have a good chance of taking the Senate if they win in these three key Senate races,” Puri said.
In light of those votes, Gideon suggested that Collins hasn’t kept up with a changing political environment. “Wherever we have been in the state, people will come up to us and say, what do you think happened to Susan Collins?” Sara Gideon, the Democratic front-runner in the Senate race, told a crowd in Maine. “We really hear that question posed in that way all of the time. It feels like she is making decisions that are in somebody else’s interest, not in ours.”
Collins predicts she will prevail after a tough race — citing Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer’s (D-N.Y.) interest in unseating her as a way to regain Democratic control of the chamber.
In late February, six labor unions announced their endorsement of Gideon in the Maine U.S. Senate race, highlighting her record of fighting for Maine’s working families and her commitment to supporting them in the Senate.
In January Planned Parenthood endorsed Gideon, saying Collins “turned her back” on women and citing her vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court as well as other judicial nominees who oppose abortion.
On the face of it, the battle for Gideon may be an uphill one, despite the fact that Collins has disappointed those on the left since Trump took office by voting for the Republican tax bill, and by voting to confirm Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.
Maine’s politics have a decidedly anti-Establishment bent. As Gideon pointed out in her campaign ad that Collins has been in the Senate for 22 years and voters might be ready for a fresh, and more progressive, approach.
In June last year. Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, Chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, endorsed Gideon, saying she has proven that she will listen to and fight for all Mainers by bringing people together to lift up hardworking families and refusing to let partisanship and politics stand in the way of progress.
“In the Senate, Sara will build on her impressive record to bring down health care costs, combat the opioid epidemic, and boost economic opportunities — and she’ll always answer to her constituents. Mainers can trust Sara to fight for them, and we look forward to supporting her campaign,” DSCC said in a statement.
Puri said the USINPAC is keeping a close eye on the Maine race. “She (Gideon) has a good background and she’s getting a lot of support from the people and her polls are good showing her neck to neck with Collins. I think she really has good opportunity, but it is too early at this stage to say anything about the outcome.”
Gideon supports Medicaid expansion and expanded health care for women and has vowed to continue the fight to protect and expand reproductive rights. “Reproductive health care is under assault by the Trump Administration and far-right judges, and Senator Collins has sided with Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump on nearly every judicial nominee,” her campaign said March 4 in a press statement. “From birth control to cancer screenings to abortion, Mainers and Americans rely on organizations like Planned Parenthood for essential health care — and as Maine’s Senator, I will always defend their reproductive rights.”
The Worst-Case Estimate for U.S. Coronavirus Deaths
Officials at the C.D.C. and epidemic experts conferred last month about what could happen in the U.S.
The C.D.C. scenarios have not been publicly disclosed. Without an understanding of how experts view the threat, it remains unclear how far Americans will go in adopting socially disruptive steps that could help avert deaths.
Officials at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and epidemic experts from universities around the world conferred last month about what might happen if the new coronavirus gained a foothold in the United States. How many people might die? How many would be infected and need hospitalization?
One of the agency’s top disease modelers, Matthew Biggerstaff, presented the group on the phone call with four possible scenarios — A, B, C and D — based on characteristics of the virus, including estimates of how transmissible it is and the severity of the illness it can cause. The assumptions, reviewed by The New York Times, were shared with about 50 expert teams to model how the virus could tear through the population — and what might stop it.
The C.D.C.’s scenarios were depicted in terms of percentages of the population. Translated into absolute numbers by independent experts using simple models of how viruses spread, the worst-case figures would be staggering if no actions were taken to slow transmission.
Between 160 million and 214 million people in the U.S. could be infected over the course of the epidemic, according to one projection. That could last months or even over a year, with infections concentrated in shorter periods, staggered across time in different communities, experts said. As many as 200,000 to 1.7 million people could die.
And, the calculations based on the C.D.C.’s scenarios suggested, 2.4 million to 21 million people in the U.S. could require hospitalization, potentially crushing the nation’s medical system, which has only about 925,000 staffed hospital beds. Fewer than a tenth of those are for people who are critically ill.
The assumptions fueling those scenarios are mitigated by the fact that cities, states, businesses and individuals are beginning to take steps to slow transmission, even if some are acting less aggressively than others. The C.D.C.-led effort is developing more sophisticated models showing how interventions might decrease the worst-case numbers, though their projections have not been made public.
“When people change their behavior,” said Lauren Gardner, an associate professor at the Johns Hopkins Whiting School of Engineering who models epidemics, “those model parameters are no longer applicable,” so short-term forecasts are likely to be more accurate. “There is a lot of room for improvement if we act appropriately.”
Those actions include testing for the virus, tracing contacts, and reducing human interactions by stopping mass gatherings, working from home and curbing travel. In just the last two days, multiple schools and colleges closed, sports events were halted or delayed, Broadway theaters went dark, companies barred employees from going to the office and more people said they were following hygiene recommendations.
The Times obtained screenshots of the C.D.C. presentation, which has not been released publicly, from someone not involved in the meetings. The Times then verified the data with several scientists who did participate. The scenarios were marked valid until Feb. 28, but remain “roughly the same,” according to Ira Longini, co-director of the Center for Statistics and Quantitative Infectious Diseases at the University of Florida. He has joined in meetings of the group.
The coronavirus has touched a diverse collection of countries and cultures, but a number of shared experiences have emerged — from grieving the dead to writing songs.
The C.D.C. declined interview requests about the modeling effort and referred a request for comment to the White House Coronavirus Task Force. Devin O’Malley, a spokesman for the task force, said that senior health officials had not presented the findings to the group.
The assumptions in the C.D.C.’s four scenarios, and the new numerical projections, fall in the range of others developed by independent experts.
Dr. Longini said the scenarios he helped the C.D.C. refine had not been publicly disclosed because there remained uncertainty about certain key aspects, including how much transmission could occur from people who showed no symptoms or had only mild ones.
“We’re being very, very careful to make sure we have scientifically valid modeling that’s drawing properly on the epidemic and what’s known about the virus,” he said, warning that simple calculations could be misleading or even dangerous. “You can’t win. If you overdo it, you panic everybody. If you underdo it, they get complacent. You have to be careful.”
But without an understanding of how the nation’s top experts believe the virus could ravage the country, and what measures could slow it, it remains unclear how far Americans will go in adopting — or accepting — socially disruptive steps that could also avert deaths. And how quickly they will act.
Studies of previous epidemics have shown that the longer officials waited to encourage people to distance and protect themselves, the less useful those measures were in saving lives and preventing infections.
What’s at stake in this coronavirus pandemic? How many Americans can become infected? How many might die? The answers depend on the actions we take — and, crucially, on when we take them. Working with infectious disease epidemiologists, we developed this interactive tool that lets you see what may lie ahead in the United States and how much of a difference it could make if officials act quickly. (The figures are for America, but the lessons are broadly applicable to any country.)
Coronavirus: A Major Threat To Donald Trump’s Re-Election
The biggest threat to Donald Trump’s re-election in 2020 may be COVID-19. The spread of the novel coronavirus is shaping up as a test of Trump’s core pitch to voters: that they are better off than they were when he took office. Sharp drops in the stock market, school and office closures, crashing oil prices and widespread disruptions to other major industries have some Trump supporters concerned that the virus is triggering a new financial crisis that could hurt Trump’s bid for a second term more than any political test he’s faced so far.
“The economic ramifications of the coronavirus are increasingly likely to weigh heavily on Trump’s re-election chances and quite possibly could cost him re-election,” says Republican donor Dan Eberhart.
One recent historical precedent in particular troubles Trump’s close allies. After the housing bubble precipitated an economic meltdown in 2008, voters turned from incumbent Republicans to opposition Democrats in that fall’s election, voting Barack Obama into the White House and sending Democratic majorities to both the House and the Senate. The parallels to 2008 “are especially frightening from my vantage point right now,” Eberhart says.
Some Republicans privately concede that the Administration’s response has not inspired confidence. Trump has repeatedly downplayed the threat from the virus in press briefings, saying on Feb. 26, for example, that the risk to Americans “remains very low” and “may not get bigger.” He contradicted his own experts in saying that the the virus can be contained and its spread in the U.S. is not inevitable. U.S. public health officials were late to pivot from a strategy of containing to virus to one of mitigating its impact, and Trump Administration officials fell behind understanding how pervasive the virus is inside the U.S. because the initial set of tests designed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) didn’t work well enough.
“If he can’t and his government doesn’t get a handle on this thing and start to show some competence, yeah, there could absolutely be electoral fallout in November,” says Reed Galen, an independent political strategist who was deputy campaign manager for John McCain’s unsuccessful 2008 presidential campaign, which was hampered by McCain’s mishandling of the economic swoon that fall.
Trump’s re-election campaign is emphasizing the actions the President has taken to contain the virus so far, from tapping Vice President Mike Pence to lead the government response to the virus to restricting travel to the U.S. from China, South Korea, Italy and Iran. Public health officials, including Anne Schuchat, the principal deputy director at the CDC, believe the travel restrictions bought valuable time for the U.S. to prepare for the rise in COVID-19 cases. But some of that time was squandered by a flawed roll out of test kits, which has limited the U.S. ability to detect the domestic spread of the virus. State and local labs are still facing shortages of tests.
if there was any doubt that the virus will be a key campaign issue, polling shows that COVID-19 has already become one of the top news events of the last 10 years in Americans’ minds, according to a Public Opinion Strategies poll published Monday. So far, public opinion is mixed on whether the country is prepared for a broader outbreak, with 49% of Americans believing the country is ready and 46% saying they don’t believe the nation is prepared.
Trump has been keenly focused on the number of COVID-19 cases in the U.S. On Friday, while touring the CDC headquarters in Atlanta, Trump said he would rather the passengers aboard the Grand Princess cruise ship remained aboard offshore, even as public health officials planned for the ship to dock and passengers to disembark. “I like the numbers being where they are. I don’t need to have the numbers double because of one ship,” Trump said.
Trump has pushed White House aides to develop a package of aggressive measures to stimulate the economy, including a payroll tax cut, relief for hourly wage workers, loans for small businesses, and bailouts for the cruise-ship industry and airlines, he told reporters in the White House briefing room Monday night. Those steps, which weren’t ready to release Monday, will be presented to lawmakers on Tuesday, Trump said, and will be “very dramatic.”
“We are going to take care of and have been taking care of the American public and the American economy,” Trump said, adding: “It’s not our country’s fault. This is something we were thrown into and we’re going to handle it.”
Trump has been resistant to scaling back his activities as a precaution even as several Republican officials have announced plans to self-quarantine — including Trump’s newly named chief of staff, former North Carolina Rep. Mark Meadows — following interactions at the recent Conservative Political Action Conference with an infected individual. Trump himself had contact with two Republican congressman, Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia and Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida, before both lawmakers announced on Monday they were isolating themselves for 14 days. Collins shook hands with Trump at the CDC on Friday and Gaetz rode on Air Force One with Trump on Monday. White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham said Monday evening that Trump hasn’t been tested for COVID-19 because “he has neither had prolonged close contact with any known confirmed COVID-19 patients, nor does he have any symptoms.”
Nor has Trump slowed down his campaign activities at a moment when many big public events are being canceled to stem the spread of the virus. On Monday, Trump attended a $4 million fundraiser with 300 people at a private home in Longwood, Fla. He’s held six rallies in the past month. When he toured the CDC on Friday, his red campaign hat was perched on his head, Trump said he’d continue to hold rallies and it doesn’t bother him to have thousands of supporters standing close together in an arena. “The campaign is proceeding as normal,” said Tim Murtaugh, director of communications for Trump’s re-election campaign. “We announce events when they are ready to be announced. The President held a rally last week, then a town hall, and fundraisers this week and over the weekend.”
Trump’s campaign strategy involves boosting turnout among Republicans, but if the public health crisis extends to Election Day on Nov. 3, it could potentially suppress the number of voters willing to go to the polls. In the meantime, the campaign has sought to blame Democrats for criticizing the Trump Administration’s handling of the virus response. “What is not helpful is the politicization of the coronavirus, which is exactly what Democrats are doing on Capitol Hill and on the campaign trail. Once again, we see politicians trying to scare people to score political points. It’s reckless and irresponsible,” said Kayleigh McEnany, the Trump campaign’s national press secretary, in an email.
What’s clear is that a President who has been in permanent campaign mode since the first day of his term is keenly aware of the stakes. “What we know is from natural disasters is the way a political leader handles a disaster can make or break a campaign,” says Whit Ayers, a Republican pollster at North Star Opinion Research. “Focus on the performance and the poll numbers will take care of themselves.” Trump’s performance is still unfolding, but one thing he knows for certain is that voters are watching.
Americans return to long waits for entry screenings at US airports
As weary travelers returned to the U.S. amid coronavirus-related travel restrictions, they were greeted with packed, hourslong waits for required medical screenings at airports.
Posts on social media indicated passengers at Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport waited upward of four hours in winding lines, eliciting criticism from elected Illinois officials.
Gov. J.B. Pritzker tweeted at President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence, noting that the customs process is under federal jurisdiction and demanding they take action to address the crowds. His concerns were echoed on Twitter by his fellow Democrats, Illinois Sens. Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth.
“This is unacceptable, counterproductive and exactly the opposite of what we need to do to prevent #COVID19,” Duckworth tweeted. “The Trump Administration must send more support to O’Hare immediately.”
While U.S. citizens, green card holders and some others are allowed to return home, travelers from Europe are being funneled to one of 13 U.S. airports where they’re subject to health screenings and quarantine orders.
Acknowledging the long lines at those airports in tweets posted just after midnight, the Department of Homeland Security’s acting secretary said the screenings take about a minute per passenger.
“Right now we are working to add additional screening capacity and working with the airlines to expedite the process,” Chad Wolf tweeted. “I understand this is very stressful. In these unprecedented times, we ask for your patience.”
The dense crowds at the selected airports — among the busiest across the country — formed even as public health officials call for “social distancing” to stem the spread of the virus.
“I’m less concerned about having to stand here for the amount of time that I am, and more concerned about where the people are traveling from that are around me and what they may or may not have been exposed to,” Dorothy Lowe told WFAA-TV at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, where some waits stretched to three hours.
The Texas airport’s Twitter account responded to passengers who raised concerns about the cramped conditions, saying its customer experience team was taking “extra precautions” and that hand sanitizer was available in all terminals. Meanwhile, O’Hare and Chicago police offered queuers bottled water and snacks, according to the airport’s Twitter account.
For most people, the new coronavirus causes only mild or moderate symptoms, such as fever and cough. For some, especially older adults and people with existing health problems, it can cause more severe illness, including pneumonia.
The vast majority of people recover from the new virus. According to the World Health Organization, people with mild illness recover in about two weeks, while those with more severe illness may take three to six weeks to recover.
Travelers from restricted countries in Europe, China and Iran are being advised to self-quarantine for 14 days after reaching their final destination in the U.S. “If you don’t have to travel, I wouldn’t do it,” Trump said.
Joe Biden Bounces Back Leading in Delegates Count
A couple of week ago, former Vice President Joe Biden’s presidential campaign was on life support. On Saturday, February 29th, Biden won a commanding victory in the South Carolina primary, a state whose demographic makeup truly reflects the diversity of the Democratic Party base, gave him a boost that he badly needed.
South Carolina was always at the heart of Biden’s electoral strategy — his first opportunity to establish himself as the clear choice of the party, positioned right before the critical delegate binge of Super Tuesday.
Joe Biden reclaimed his status as a Democratic front-runner with stunning victories on Super Tuesday and opened a clear path to amassing enough delegates to clinch the nomination by the Democratic National Convention.
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders had an advantage on Super Tuesday he will not see again: many early votes cast before moderates coalesced around one candidate. Bernie Sanders, the left wing’s champion, has dodged a knockout blow for now. While he has lost his lead in pledged delegates, he remains competitive and he has probably stopped Biden well short of an overall majority of delegates awarded on Super Tuesday.
But the results nonetheless leave reason to doubt whether Sanders can fare well enough to amass a majority of pledged delegates by the convention without yet another big turn in the race, this time in his favor. He was largely swept in the Eastern half of the country, where most of the delegates awarded after Super Tuesday are at stake. And in many states he was assisted by large numbers of early voters who cast ballots before the South Carolina race, when the party’s moderate voters were still divided. He will no longer have that advantage.
Biden swept the South with expected, overwhelming support among African-American voters, who backed him by a margin of 56 percent to 19 percent across the Super Tuesday states, according to exit polls. His success among white voters was less expected and allowed him to extend his strength well beyond the South.
He ran even or ahead among white voters in every state east of the Mississippi River, except for Sanders’s home state of Vermont, according to the exit polls, and won decisive victories in the affluent suburbs around Boston, Washington and Minneapolis. He even carried much of the old, moderate rural vote that Sanders swept four years earlier.
Biden rapidly consolidated moderate-leaning voters in the days after his landslide victory in the South Carolina primary. Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar left the race and endorsed him, with the result that he appeared to add nearly all their former supporters. His strength across the rural North and in affluent suburbs mirrored their strengths in the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary.
Biden got an additional lift as his leading moderate rival, Mike Bloomberg, dropped out of the race, and it seems Bloomberg will be willing to use his considerable wealth to support him.
Texas offered a different test. The state’s Democratic electorate is a mix of African-Americans and more conservative and affluent white voters who tend to back Mr. Biden, and younger, urban and Latino voters who tend to back Mr. Sanders. According to the exit polls, Mr. Sanders won Latinos by a margin of 50 percent to 24 percent across the Super Tuesday states, with a margin of 41 percent to 24 percent in Texas.
In an election night count that reflected the shift in the national political environment over the last week, Biden eventually overtook Sanders in the Texas returns, with a wide advantage among late-deciding voters who cast their ballots on Election Day. In a telling indication of how quickly moderate voters had coalesced behind Biden, the exit polls across the Super Tuesday states found that among voters who decided in just the last few days, Biden won by a margin of 48 percent to 21 percent.
Sanders denied Biden a more sweeping victory because of the West, where Sanders can count on his strengths among Latinos, liberals and younger, urban voters without fully facing his weakness among African-American voters and conservative rural whites. The West also has the highest rate of early voting in the country, which helped blunt Biden’s surge.
Buttigieg and Klobuchar combined for 22 percent support in the exit poll in Colorado, where advance voters represented the largest share of the vote of any state on Tuesday. Their support was not recorded in the election night tabulation because they withdrew from the race, but both candidates routinely breached 10 percent in early voting elsewhere in the country, including in California.
The large early and absentee vote in some of the states most favorable to Sanders helped him in the delegate count. Over all, Biden holds only 45 percent of pledged delegates after Super Tuesday, according to preliminary Upshot estimates, while Sanders is expected to finish with around 39 percent. These tallies could change depending on the eventual result in California (which might not become official for weeks), but if they hold, Biden’s delegate lead would be far from irreversible. In fact, Sanders would need to defeat Biden by only three points in the remaining two-thirds of the country to overtake him.
A three-point deficit is not a daunting handicap, certainly not when Biden was polling 20 points lower just a few days ago. But the Super Tuesday results do not augur well for Sanders’s odds of pulling it off. He remained so competitive on Super Tuesday in part because of the large number of early and absentee voters who cast ballots before it became apparent that Biden was the viable moderate candidate.
The rest of the country may not be so favorable to Sanders, either. With Texas and California off the board, most of the remaining populous states lie in the East, where Sanders tended to lose, often badly. They also tend to have a below-average Latino share of the vote.
The states where Latino voters do represent roughly an average share of the electorate do not seem likely to be as favorable to Sanders as California or Texas. Arizona, New Mexico, New York and Florida allow only registered Democrats to vote, and therefore exclude a disproportionate number of young Hispanic voters — many of them registered as independents — who are likeliest to back Sanders. These closed primaries will exclude many young non-Latino voters as well, posing a broader challenge to Sanders that he did not overcome in 2016 and has not yet had to face in 2020.
Biden, in contrast, will continue to find many states in the next few weeks where black voters represent an average or above-average share of the population. He needs somewhere around 54 percent of the remaining delegates to claim a majority heading into the Democratic nomination, and his path to accomplishing this might be as simple as repeating the same outcome as Super Tuesday under a more favorable set of states, without the burden of early votes cast long before he emerged as the top rival to Sanders.
A decision by Elizabeth Warren on whether to stay in the race will affect whether it becomes easier for Biden or Sanders to amass a delegate majority, just as Bloomberg’s decision to drop out already has. Each was on track to win about 14 percent of the national vote, enough to often cross the 15 percent threshold for viability and therefore win delegates that might have otherwise gone to the front-runners. In doing so, they dragged both Biden and Sanders farther from 50 percent of pledged delegates.
It is hard to evaluate how much Biden or Sanders will be helped or hurt if Warren is out of the race. One thing was clear Tuesday night: The longer she stayed in the race, the more likely it was that no candidate would win a majority of delegates before the convention.
Mike Bloomberg, the billionaire former mayor of New York who had hoped to self-fund his way to the Democratic presidential nomination but was spurned by voters in Tuesday’s balloting, dropped out of the race Wednesday. Bloomberg endorsed Joe Biden, saying the former vice president had the best chance to win in November.
“I’ve always believed that defeating Donald Trump starts with uniting behind the candidate with the best shot to do it. After yesterday’s vote, it is clear that candidate is my friend and a great American, Joe Biden,” Bloomberg said in a statement.
Sri Preston Kulkarni wins Democratic primary in Texas to run for Congress
Sri Preston Kulkarni, an Indian American has won the Democratic Party primary for Congress in Texas and will run in the November election for a seat held by the Republican Party.
He defeated two rivals with over half the votes polled in the party election on Tuesday for the constituency that covers suburbs of Houston. Kulkarni lost the 2018 election by five per cent to Pete Olson, who is retiring.
Pierce Bush, a grandson of former President George H.W. Bush, was one of those who contested the Republican primary for nomination to contest the seat.
But he lost and since none of the Republican candidates got more than 50 per cent of the votes, a runoff is to be held later this month with the two top vote-getters to select the nominee to challenge Kulkarni.
Kulkarni is a former US Foreign Service officer, who served in Iraq, Russia, Israel and Taiwan. Currently, there are four Indian Americans in the House of Representatives and one in the Senate.
Kulkarni thanked his volunteers for their unflinching support. “None of this would have been possible without our hundreds of volunteers, from middle-schoolers to senior citizens, and, of course, the thousands of voters who participated in this election,” he said.
“I am beyond thankful to be in this fight with you. I look forward to working with you all to make sure our communities and our families get the representation they deserve in Congress,” he said.
Trump Given Rousing Welcome in India
President Trump was on a state visit to India on February 24 and 25 at the invitation of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. He was accompanied by First Lady Melania Trump.
Trump’s two-day visit was designed to partially tickle his vanity, but, as importantly, it was to boost his chances of returning to office in the 2020 US general election, trying to gain the support both politically and finically among the affluent Indian American community.
He visited three cities in India: the national capital, Delhi; Agra, where he saw the Taj Mahal; and Ahmedabad, the main city in the western state of Gujarat, where he addressed an audience of more than 100,000 people in an event aptly called “Namaste Trump”.
President Trump and first lady Melania visited the Taj Mahal Monday, hours after the U.S. leader gave a rousing speech to more than 110,000 at a cricket stadium in Ahmedabad, India.
The president and first lady strolled around the grounds of India’s most famous attraction, taking in the sights. It was a rare occasion of the president visiting a cultural site on an international visit.
Trump, who once owned the Trump Taj Mahal Hotel and Casino in Atlantic City, N.J. and foreclosed the same after declaring bankruptcy, had never visited the Indian site until now. The president’s daughter Ivanka Trump and her husband Jared Kushner were also on hand, taking photos in front of the building.
The first day of the visit was all about optics – tens of thousands, if not ten million, lined up the streets to greet him on his way from the Ahmedabad airport to the Motera cricket stadium in Gujarat, the home state of Modi.
At the stadium, he addressed more than 100,000 people. He evoked Bollywood, cricket and saints – good enough topics to get Indians interested. The rally, titled “Namaste Trump,” was a sequel to the “Howdy, Modi” event Trump held with prime minister Narendra Modi in Houston last September.
Mentioning Pakistan and Kashmir is a line foreign leaders try not to cross when visiting India – but Trump did. He said he had excellent relations with Pakistani PM Imran Khan and once again offered to mediate in the Kashmir issue.
Trump’s motorcade passed seemingly endless crowds in Ahmedabad with many cheering and waving American flags on the way to the 110,000 capacity Sardar Patel Stadium where the rally was conducted. Large billboards were spread throughout the route showing Modi alongside Trump and his wife Melania.
When Modi handed the podium to Trump, the president thanked those in attendance for the welcome he received, adding that he and Melania would remember the hospitality given.
Mentioning Pakistan and Kashmir is a line foreign leaders try not to cross when visiting India – but Trump did. He said he had excellent relations with Pakistani PM Imran Khan and once again offered to mediate in the Kashmir issue.
Trump was in India this week visiting a nation that is increasingly subsumed by Hindu nationalist fervor. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, now a Trump ally, has been linked with the movement since he was chief minister of the Indian state of Gujarat.
Modi is accused of attempting to establish a Hindu-dominated society there, where Muslims would effectively be second-class citizens, and of complicity in a 2002 riot that reportedly led to the deaths of 1,000 Muslims. Since he was elected prime minister in 2014, the movement has spread nationally.
Modi is now pushing a citizenship law that specifically discriminates against Muslims. India’s status as the world’s largest secular democracy is very much in the balance.
As President Trump and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi sat down to a dinner on Tuesday of cajun-spiced salmon, mutton biryani, marinated leg of lamb and hazelnut apple pie, protesters took to the streets to voice dissent against the proposed citizenship law—and were greeted by police and Hindu counter-protesters.
New Delhi became a battlefield for the worst communal violence the city has seen in decades, and there was a dissonant and surreal spectacle of toasts and chumminess unfolding at the regal Rashtrapati Bhavan presidential palace, where Trump was being hosted.
“America will always be faithful and loyal friends to the Indian people,” Trump said. He announced that he will sell $3 billion worth of state of art helicopters and other equipment to the country.
Trump also refused to comment on the ongoing protests and religious intolerance. In fact, he went a step further than expected. He praised Modi’s efforts in giving religious freedom to every community in India. Trump insisted that Modi, who hosted the U.S. president at a huge rally in India on Monday, “wants people to have religious freedom.”
“The prime minister was incredible in what he told me. He wants people to have religious freedom and very strongly,” Trump told reporters at a press conference toward the end of his two-day trip to India.
“He said that, in India, they have worked very hard to have great and open religious freedom. And if you look back and you look at what’s going on, relative to other places especially, but they have really worked hard on religious freedom,” Trump added.
Just as when White nationalist shot and killed dozens in a Black majority Church, and Trump failed to condemn such violence, it was not unusual for him to condemn the violence in India, during his visit.
The strength of secular democracies, like the United States and India, is that they theoretically grant the full rights of citizenship to anyone who subscribes to ideas about human life and flourishing that transcend religious and ethnic divides. But in this age of extreme inequality and growing tribalism, we are beginning to lose our grip on the American—and, perhaps, the Indian—Idea. As Orwell told us, this descent into unreason is at the core of nationalist fervor.
But these visits are not just about theatrics and atmospherics. They are also about forcing a change in American leaders’ general approach to India.
Trump wanted to show people in the US that he was hugely popular abroad and that he was capable of negotiating good deals out of a country he once described as the “king of tariffs”.
On the other hand, the Indian PM desperately needed some good headlines after being under the spotlight due to his controversial decision to revoke Kashmir’s autonomy and the ongoing protests against his new citizenship law. In the end, both leaders had their wishes fulfilled despite not achieving much that would benefit either country and the peoples of these two great nations.
Punch 111 for Mark Kalish as state representative of 16th House District, IL
Chicago IL: Meet & Greet, Mark Kalish as state representative of 16th House District, Illinois was on Friday – February 21, 2020 at 3775 W Arthur Ave, Lincolnwood, IL. Event was organized by Bhavesh Patel from Sahil and Nick Patel from LA TAN. Bhavesh and Nick is pioneer in USA for organizing big shows of Bollywood star in Chicagoland area. Ray Nanato; Political Consultant, many leaders from many different fields such as medical, sports entertainment, political, teaching spiritual leaders and prominent community leader were present at Meet & Greet.
Yehiel “Mark” Kalish is a Democratic member of the Illinois General Assembly, presiding over the 16th House district which includes parts of Skokie, Morton Grove, Lincolnwood, and Chicago’s 50th Ward. He has an extensive background in non-profit work and government advocacy.
His work in the Illinois legislature includes voting for and passing bills that deal with mental health parity, the rising cost of health care premiums and prescription drugs with the inclusion of pre-existing conditions, the Equal Pay Act, as well as common-sense gun laws likes the Fix the FOID Act. Kalish is one of ten Democrats to serve on the House Firearms Public Awareness Task Force.
Now law, Kalish also chief sponsored and fought hard for a bill that ensures the protection of victims of sexual assault.
As a resident of the 50th Ward, Kalish experienced firsthand its lack of representation in the statehouse and has been working hard to make changes in that regard to ensure that all parts of his district are represented equally.
Kalish knows that Democrats are far Better Together than divided. Despite nuanced differences, Kalish understands that progress can only be achieved when we promote inclusivity while welcoming a difference of opinions within the party.
Representative Kalish is willing to put petty politics aside and is emphatic about keeping the Democratic Party united in order to keep legislative majorities throughout the country.
We urge all Voters to Punch 111 for Mark Kalish as state representative of 16th House District, IL on March 17, 2020 Election
Indian Christians face at least 10 attacks in the last 3 days, nine over the weekend
Even as India prepared to welcome the American President Donald J Trump, who on his two day visit to India reportedly plans to discuss, among other things, the issue of religious freedom in India with Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the Religious Liberty Commission of the Evangelical Fellowship of India registered nine incidents of hate crime and violence on Indian Christians over the weekend.
Between 21 to 23 February 2020, the RLC recorded nine incidents targeting Christians and their congregations including disruption of worship services, intimidation from police machinery, mob violence, etc. Such incidents around weekends and especially on Sunday have become a regular phenomenon for Christians in many parts of our country.
One incident was also reported from Chhattisgarh on Thursday evening taking the total number of incidents to ten in the last 3 days. The Commission condemns such dastardly acts that encroach upon the rights of the Christian minority to practice and profess its faith.
Not surprisingly, majority of the incidents took place in Uttar Pradesh which recently has been a hot bed as far as targeting of minorities is concerned. The state ruled by Yogi Adityanath, who is also a serving Abbot of a Math (Temple) in Gorakhpur, recorded 5 incidents out of the 10. Tamil Nadu followed with two incidents while one incident each was reported from Telangana, Rajasthan and Chhattisgarh.
Most Americans will need a new ID to fly, starting in October
Think your driver’s license is enough to get you through airport security in the United States and onto your domestic flight? Maybe not.
Some two-thirds of US state driver’s licenses are not compliant with a post-9/11 security law set to go into effect on October 1. Those who are not compliant will not be able to fly if they don’t have other forms of “REAL ID-compliant” identification.
Concerned about the impact on travel, the head of the US Department of Homeland Security loosened the restrictions this week, allowing the various state agencies to accept identity documents electronically.
“Ensuring every state is REAL ID compliant by October is one of the Department’s top priorities,” said DHS Acting Secretary Chad Wolf, in a press release. “While progress has been made, the real work is still ahead because approximately two-thirds of all licenses are presently not compliant with REAL ID.
“Rest assured, our Department will continue to examine other viable options to improve upon this process and continues doing everything it can to inform Americans of the requirement to obtain a REAL ID before the full enforcement deadline later this year.”
While Wolf says this “pre-submission” of documents will result in a faster application process, it’s not clear how much faster it will be.
That’s because, as Wolf says, “an in-person visit is still required, as is showing up with physical copies of your documents.”
Starting October 1, travelers must have a “REAL ID-compliant” driver’s license, US passport, US military ID or other acceptable identification to fly within the United States.
The REAL ID Act, which established minimum security standards for the issuing of state licenses and their production, prohibits federal agencies from accepting licenses from states not meeting those minimum standards for certain activities.
To get a REAL ID-compliant state driver’s license, the DHS requires applicants provide documentation showing their full legal name, their date of birth, their Social Security number, two proofs of address of principal residence and lawful status. States may impose more requirements.
If you can’t produce acceptable identification, your US airport’s Transportation Security Administration (TSA) checkpoint will not clear you for flight. The TSA is part of the Department of Homeland Security. That could lead to serious backups at US airports starting October 1.
While many states have been issuing compliant documents for years, travelers shouldn’t assume their driver’s licenses and other documents meet the requirements. For example, Georgia became compliant in 2012 and California became compliant in 2018, but their driver’s licenses issued prior to those times in those states are not compliant.
Check if your state driver’s license or identification card is REAL ID compliant simply by looking for a star in the upper right-hand corner. Some state departments of motor vehicles will confirm REAL ID status online.
Still a backlog
The Department of Homeland Security reported this week that 48 of 50 states in the US are REAL ID compliant, up from January 2017, when only 26 states were. The two remaining states that haven’t started issuing new IDs are Oklahoma and Oregon.
Collectively, those 48 states have issued more than 95 million REAL ID-compliant driver’s licenses and ID cards.
While the US Travel Association applauded the government’s “pre-submission,” decision, “the challenge remains that tens of millions of Americans do not yet possess REAL ID-compliant identification,” said Tori Emerson Barnes, USTA executive vice president of public affairs and policy, in a statement.
A post 9/11 measure
The REAL ID Act’s requirement were part of the 9/11 Commission’s recommendation that the federal government set standards for the issuance of sources of identification, according to the Department of Homeland Security.
Since the act’s 2005 passage, the federal government has implemented TSA Pre-Check and other programs that offer more security than REAL ID, said Barnes. That’s why the USTA is lobbying federal authorities to accept membership in those programs as a substitute for REAL ID. (DHS hasn’t said yes, at least not yet.)
US House Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-Arizona) and Rep. Stephanie Murphy (D-Florida) have introduced legislation that would allow the TSA to accept membership in its Pre-Check program as a substitute for REAL ID.
Officials at USTA, which represents major airlines, hotels, state and local tourism boards and other travel industry members, worry that their members will lose customers who suddenly can’t fly within the US starting October 1, 2020.
A US passport qualifies as a REAL ID.
Jeff Haynes/AFP/Getty Images
- REAL ID-compliant state driver’s licenses or other state photo identity cards
- US passport
- US passport card
- DHS trusted traveler cards (Global Entry, NEXUS, SENTRI, FAST)
- US Department of Defense ID, including IDs issued to dependents
- Permanent resident card
- Border crossing card
- State-issued Enhanced Driver’s License
- Federally recognized, tribal-issued photo ID
- HSPD-12 PIV card
- Foreign government-issued passport
- Canadian provincial driver’s license or Indian and Northern Affairs Canada card
- Transportation worker identification credential
- US Citizenship and Immigration Services Employment Authorization Card (I-766)
- US Merchant Mariner Credential
Check the Department of Homeland Security website for more information.
Migrants to face tougher US green-card hurdle under new rule
How Modi keeps the American Christian leadership at bay while befriending Trump
On the surface, President Trump appears committed fully to the idea of Religious Freedom. He has been very vocal about the issue on many forums that include the United Nations. To his credit, he has appointed Mr. Sam Brownback, a conservative Catholic, to the position at the State Department as the Ambassador of Religious freedom. Evangelical leaders in the U.S. are some of the most ardent supporters of this President anywhere because of his clear commitment to the cause. To the delight of his Evangelical base, he has not only spoken against the ‘Johnson Amendment’ that prohibits Clergy from commenting on politics from the pulpit but also issued an Executive order that lessens its enforcement power and limits its bureaucratic oversight.
However, a different picture emerges if one delves deeply into the inner workings of this President concerning this very issue. As someone who has participated in the Religious Freedom Conference in Washington, D.C., I witnessed the selective application of this issue firsthand that suits his political purposes. There were many speakers from countries like China and Iran who detailed the suppression of religious freedom in those countries and the persecution of the faithful by the authorities. However, India rather conspicuously was missing any representation at the conference.
The weaponization of religion by the current Administration – so they can preserve their power -has reached a fever pitch in India, where minorities are being lynched for their dietary habits and churches are being torched by the Hindutva radicals. When questioned about this absence, an official of the State Department could only respond by saying that India was invited but declined to participate. It is hard to believe that speakers from authoritarian regimes of China and Iran somehow found their way to the conference, but Indian representatives willing to speak on the matter could not be found! Upon questioning, Mr. Brownback feigned his ignorance in this regard and said someone from India should have been present. However, according to several sources, White House appears to have given special instructions to the State Department not to bring the current BJP government’s shabby record on religious freedom to the table.
Now that President Trump is on the way to India to meet with Prime Minister Modi, whom he considers his strategic partner, it is important to examine how the wellbeing of the minority Christians in India, as well as the interests of American Christian leadership, may have been undermined by this Administration for either political expediency or plain business interests.
Firstly, let us take the case of ‘Compassion International,’ a Christian Charitable organization in the U.S. that has done incredible work around the World, including India, by clothing, feeding, and educating impoverished children by allowing their upward mobility. The Modi Government has decided to throw out the organization while knowing fully well that they are jeopardizing the futures of 145000 poor children only because the organization is considered ‘Christian.’ If the country is so opposed to foreign funding, why then the Hindu organizations like ‘Eka Vidyalaya,’ a Sangh Parivar affiliated outfit in the U.S. continue to collect funds from all Americans including Christians?
To add insult to injury, Mr. S. Jaishankar, the diplomat, turned politician who is the current Minister of External Affairs, is said to have invited the lead attorney for the organization and gave him a tongue-lashing at his office lambasting the organization and accusing its leadership of engaging in proselytizing. The organization had vehemently denied these charges often raised by anti-minority zealots who could care less about the lives of the lower caste and poor folks around them. Moreover, it is genuinely disappointing to see a diplomat who had such a rich multi-cultural global experience, including being Ambassador to the United States, to behave with such arrogance and lack of empathy.
Another arena where American Christian leadership is unfairly treated by India is in the issuance of visas to those who aspire to visit their fellow Christians to attend a conference or a convention. In a shocking display of bad faith, only a few months ago, nine leaders from the New York Council of Christian churches headed by Rev. Peter Cook, who traveled to India with valid visas were denied entry at the Chennai airport. And after subjugating them to a grueling 12-hour questioning, they were deported back to the United States. ‘The team was there to meet some people and learn,’ said Mr. Cook, who is also the Executive Director of the New York State Council of Churches. They were even denied the basic courtesy of making a phone call to their would-be hosts. According to one of the team members, an immigration official went as far as to pronounce, ‘we don’t want Christians to come here’!
Visas are indeed considered a privilege, not a right; however, protocol and courtesy call for reciprocity. Hindu religious leaders from India appear to have unlimited access to visit or serve their fellow faithful in this country. The number of religious visas issued to Hindu temples and other religious institutions by the U.S. stand at an all-time high. However, an American Christian leader does not even have an option to apply for a visa on such a ground. If one dares to take a tourist visa and attend any of the church meetings, he/she risks not only being deported but will be banned from an entry back to India for their lifetime.
It is not only the American Christian leadership that is put under the grind but also Indians who have immigrated to this country and acquired U.S. Citizenship. Many of them took the opportunity to avail themselves of the Overseas Citizenship (OCI) card, believing that it would give them privileges on par with Indian citizens except for voting or owning agricultural lands. However, as Dr. Christo Philip from Houston found out, one of his frequent trips to India turned out to be a nightmare. He was stopped at the airport and deported back to Spain, where the flight originated, ending up in prison for a day and losing his OCI status. He was falsely accused of evangelizing though, as a medical doctor, his primary interest was to serve the needy people over their health concerns at some of the remotest parts of India. Although the Delhi high court has finally restored his OCI status, the Judge involved may have paid a higher price and said to have been reassigned since then.
The current OCI application contains obvious conditions preventing ‘Missionary work’ and ‘Journalism’ and combined with the provision in the newly passed Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) empowering the bureaucracy to cancel OCI card for any ‘violation of the law’ has sent shivers down the spine in the Indian Christian leadership in America. Mere participation of religious activity while visiting India could now be construed as a violation of the OCI agreement, and there are plenty folks in the RSS cadre and in the bureaucracy who are more than willing to collude in making such a participation a violation of the law that may also be beyond any judicial review. The provision of ‘journalism’ may shield the Government from any form of criticism from OCI cardholders who may want to pen their experiences in any of the media outlets.
Let me also quote from a letter recently sent by a multi-faith group to President Trump highlighting the plight of an American Pastor named Bryan Nerren that shows Religious persecution is not restricted to Indian citizens only. “In October 2019, police arrested U.S. pastor Bryan Nerren in Bagdogra airport in India. The police arrested him on the grounds of failing to declare funds, this followed after the officers in New Delhi interrogated him, asking him if he was Christian and if the money was for Christians or Hindus, they cleared him at the airport in New Delhi only to have him arrested in Bagdogra. The pastor was compliant and said he would fill out the customs form but was instead arrested. Authorities confiscated the pastor’s funds and passport, and while he has now been released, he is still waiting to receive his passport. Senator Alexander and Senator Blackburn are working on his case. The boldness of the authorities’ arrest and discrimination of a U.S. national because of his faith – shows that actors of religious persecution in India, afforded government impunity, further embolden state and non-state extremists to continue their discriminatory and abusive actions towards non-Hindus”.
The ill-treatment of the Christian leadership by the officials is not just limited to American Christians but includes leaders from other countries as well. Considering that India, which has 30 million of its citizens living abroad and more at home are looking for opportunities around the World, what the Modi government has done to a Spanish Nun who lived in India for five decades and serving the poor is deeply shameful. Sister Enedina, 86 years old, a member of the Daughters of Charity, was denied the renewal of her visa and was told by the Government that she had ten days to leave the country. She flew August 20 from New Delhi to Spain. It should also be noted that the Modi administration has so far not extended an invitation to Pope Francis, who is eager for such a visit, despite appeals from various Christian and secular quarters.
In many of the incidents highlighted above, so far, Trump Administration appears to have taken a wait and see attitude in dealing with the Modi Administration. In light of President’s remarks at the United Nations General Assembly that it is necessary to “increase the prosecution and punishment of crimes against religious communities”, the world is waiting to see whether he will raise the issue privately with Modi during the state visit, make a public statement in support of constitutional rights similar to Obama, or remain silent. Then we will have a much clearer idea whether religious freedom is merely a political football or a sincere goal of the Trump Administration.
(Writer is a former Chief Technology Officer of the United Nations)
Popularity of Trump on rise in India but some of his policies not-so-welcome: Pew survey
The popularity of US President Donald Trump in India is on the rise but some of his policies and trade attitudes do not garner the same warm reception(Bloomberg)
The popularity of US President Donald Trump in India is on the rise but some of his policies and trade attitudes do not garner the same warm reception, a latest Pew Research survey said on Thursday ahead of his maiden presidential trip to the country.
President Trump will pay a state visit to India on February 24 and 25 at the invitation of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. He would be accompanied by First Lady Melania Trump.
Based on face-to-face interviews, 2019 Global Attitudes Survey of 2,476 respondents conducted from June 24-October 2, 2019 in India, Pew said that the majority of Indians have confidence in Trump to do the right thing when it comes to the world affairs.
“And while Trump himself receives positive marks from the Indian populace, Indian public opinion toward some of his specific policies and trade attitudes in general do not garner the same warm reception,” Pew Research said in a survey report released on Thursday.
According to the report, Trump’s image in India has gained favour since his candidacy in 2016, jumping from 14 per cent confidence to 56 per cent over three years. Much of this movement is accompanied by more people now offering an opinion about the US president, it added.
“These latest numbers resemble those of Trump’s predecessor: Before Barack Obama left office, 58 per cent of Indians had confidence in him in world affairs, while nine per cent had no confidence and 33 per cent did not offer an opinion,” Pew said.
Those who associate more with the BJP are more likely than supporters of the Indian National Congress opposition party to voice confidence in Trump, it said.
However, when asked about their views of Trump’s policy on increasing tariffs or fees on imported goods from other countries, about half of Indians (48 per cent) say they disapprove. A quarter approve, and roughly another quarter do not offer an opinion.
Those who most identify with the BJP are just as likely as the Congress supporters to disapprove of this measure and less likely to provide an answer, Pew said.
The Pew Research Center is a non-partisan American think-tank based in Washington. It provides information on social issues, public opinion, and demographic trends shaping the US and the world.
India Awaits Trump Visit
Dr. Sampat Shivangi, A Veteran AAPI Leader, Among NRIs To Accompany President Trump During India Visit
Dr. Sampat Shivangi, a physician, an influential Indian-American community leader, Chair of Mississippi State Board of Mental Health, and a veteran leader of the American Association of Physicians of Indian Origin (AAPI) , along with several high profile Indians will be accompanying US President Donald Trump during his visit to India. Dr. Sampat Shivangi was recently appointed by the US Health and Human Services Secretary Alex M Azar to serve on the United States Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s (SAMHSA) Center for Mental Health Services National Advisory Council.
Vanila Singh, who was chief medical officer in the US department of health from 2017 to 2019, too says Indian Americans in top government positions will see Trump’s India visit as an opportunity to send a message to the immigrant community in the US. “The president has a team which is driven to produce results. Many of his team members of Indian origin are certainly advising him on his strategic engagements in India in trade, entrepreneurship and health,” she told the media.
Sri Srinivasan assumes charge as the Chief Justice of U.S. Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia
Justice Sri Srinivasan has taken charge as the Chief Justice of U.S. Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia, the nation’s second highest court on February 13, after Judge Merrick Garland, 67, the Chief Judge of this influential court, completing his seven year term, formally stepped down and passed on the gavel to Srinivasan, making him the first South Asian American to lead a powerful federal circuit court.
Ascension to the post was based on age and years of service on the bench. Srinivasan will turn 53 on Feb. 23. Srinivasan, who was also Obama’s shortlist for the Supreme Court, according to the Washington Post, “shares Garland’s moderate style in his rulings and in his demeanor in questioning lawyers who argue before the court.” It said that Srinivasan “is similarly well-liked by colleagues and is viewed as slow to talk but quick to listen on a court known for its collegiality.”
Trump Nominates Saritha Komatireddy for Judgeship in New York
Trump to Visit India Feb. 24-25
Sabrina Singh named Bloomberg’s presidential campaign spokesperson
Indian-American Sabrina Singh, who served as a former top aide to New Jersey Senator Cory Booker’s unsuccessful White House bid, has been appointed as the national spokesperson for Democratic candidate Michael Bloomberg’s presidential campaign.
Singh, who also previously served as a spokeswoman for the Democratic National Committee (DNC), took to Twitter to announce her new innings with a vow to help defeat President Donald Trump, The American Bazaar said in a report.
“Some personal news… I have joined @MikeBloomberg @Mike2020 as national spokesperson! I’m beyond excited to work with this incredible team to defeat Donald Trump,” she tweeted.
She put up a photo of Bloomberg, the former New York Mayor who announced his bif last November, at a campaign event, saying: “My first all staff and @MikeBloomberg is rallying the troops with some jokes.”
The Bloomberg campaign also issued a statement welcoming Singh on board, saying: “We are thrilled to have Sabrina on board – she’s a veteran of multiple races who will add to our talented team as we continue to grow in the run-up to Super Tuesday.”
Even though Bloomberg would miss the next Democratic debate on February 7, his campaign is actively targeting the Super Tuesday Democratic primary on March 3.
Singh also served as a regional communications director for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign in 2016, said the American Bazaar report.
She comes with a varied experience in politics. Besides being a top aide to DNC Chairman Tom Perez, Singh has also overseen party’s coalition programs and several other important activities.
Singh comes from a family deep-rooted in American politics. Her grandfather J.J. Singh was the head of India League of America. Back in the 1940s, he along with a group of Indians, channeled a campaign against racially discriminatory policies in the US.
US Senate Fails To Impeach Trump – Democrats and White House Rest Cases as Impeachment Process Remains Partisan
US lawmakers hail contribution of Sikhs in American milieu
A book, highlighting the contributions of the 50 Sikhs, was released and the author of this book, Prabhleen Singh from Punjabi University, presented a copy to each of the US Representatives.
More than a dozen Congressmen gathered at the US Capitol this week to celebrate immense contributions of the small but vibrant Sikh community in American milieu.
Sikhs are America’s exemplary community, said the Congressmen addressing a gathering of more than 200 members of the community.
“History was made when Dalip Singh Saund was elected as the first Asian in the US Congress. It is about time another Sikh American runs for congressional seat,” said Indian American Congressman Ro Khanna.
“Sikhs have added to the richness of my district and of America,” said Congressman Jim Costa, at the event organised by the Sikh Council On Religion and Education marking the 550th birth anniversary of Guru Nanak and to honour 50 prominent Sikhs in USA.
A book, highlighting the contributions of the 50 Sikhs, was released and the author of this book, Prabhleen Singh from Punjabi University, presented a copy to each of the US Representatives.
“We are always here to speak for your rights and issues,” said Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney. “You can count on us for support. You have contributed to make America strong,” said Congressman Peter King.
Among other lawmakers who attended the event were Congressmen Ami Bera, Greg Stanton, Grace Meng, John Garamendi, Haley Stevens, Raja Krishnamoorthi, Pramila Jayapal, Steve Cohen, Peter King, Tom Suozzi, Jerry McNerney, Judy Chu, and former Congressman Joe Crowley.
“This shows the hard work of Sikh men and women throughout the United States and how they have impacted the communities around the country. This shows how our elected officials are impressed how Sikhs are making this country strong and prosperous,” said Rajwant Singh.
Homeless US student population ‘highest in over a decade’ – The number of homeless students in the US is the highest in over a decade according to a new study
Most of the 1.5 million homeless schoolchildren stayed with other families or friends after losing their homes. But 7% lived in abandoned buildings or cars, the report by the National Centre for Homeless Education showed.
It is often caused by job insecurity, unaffordable housing, domestic violence and recently the opioid crisis. Living without a fixed address seriously impacts children’s education and health.
Less than a third of homeless students were able to read adequately, and scored even lower in mathematics and science, the report showed.
The most recent data was recorded in 2017-18 and was more than double the nearly 680,000 homeless students reported in 2004-05, the director of National Centre for Homeless Education told the New York Times.
The research measures the number of children in schools who report being homeless at some point during an academic year as as such does not show the total population of homeless young people in the US.
Why is student homelessness increasing?
Homelessness is a growing problem in the US, usually linked to the national housing crisis.
Millions of people spend more than half their income on housing, and many report they cannot afford to buy a house.
- A deepening crisis on the streets of America
- Alabama police sorry for ‘homeless quilt’ photo
- The city with no homeless on its streets
Increasing rents and a housing shortage has forced thousands of people in California to live in caravans or inadequate housing.
A changing economy, with factories closing down or the rise of the insecure gig economy, also leaves parents unable to pay rent.
The opioid crisis, in which almost 2 million people are addicted to prescription drugs, is also causing some families to break up or children to be removed from their homes.
A disproportionate number of homeless youth are LGBT, according to University of California Williams Institute.
Nearly seven in 10 said that family rejection was a major cause of becoming homeless, and abuse at home was another major reason.
Most homelessness experts say the solution lies in providing more housing at affordable rates, as well as providing support to families who may be affected by trauma or addiction.
New rule could make it more difficult for pregnant women to get U.S. visas
The U.S. State Department plans to issue new guidance that could make it more difficult for some pregnant women to obtain visas to visit the United States, a department official and a congressional aide said Wednesday.
The forthcoming regulations are aimed at cracking down on what the Trump administration calls “birth tourism,” the latest in a series of government efforts to restrict foreign travelers from reaching U.S. soil.
Most people who are born in the United States are entitled to U.S. citizenship, even if their parents are not citizens. It is unclear how many people travel to the United States to give birth each year with the intention of obtaining citizenship for their children; the U.S. government does not publish statistics on “birth tourism.”
Officials with the Department of Homeland Security declined to comment Wednesday, referring questions to the State Department.
The new rule, first reported by BuzzFeed, is expected to appear “shortly” in the Federal Register, according to the State Department official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the official was not authorized to discuss the rule before it is issued. A congressional aide briefed by the department also confirmed the new rule.
The guidelines, which the State Department will circulate to U.S. consular officers, will affect B1 and B2 nonimmigrant visas, otherwise known as temporary visas for business, tourism or medical treatment. The U.S. government issued 5.7 million B1 and B2 visas in fiscal year 2018.
The official said the new guidelines will not prohibit pregnant women from obtaining visas but will extend discretion to consular officers, who will have to determine whether a woman is planning a visit to the United States solely for the purpose of giving birth. It is unclear how they would make that determination or whether they will try to verify pregnancies.
A congressional staffer, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a regulation that has not yet been published, said the State Department had a conference call Wednesday to tell lawmakers the broad strokes of the policy. The Trump administration is concerned that pregnant women are coming to the United States to give birth and instantly claim U.S. citizenship for their children. Consular officers would use their judgment when screening cases, the staffer said, and would not ask every woman applying for a visa – some of which are valid for years – whether they are pregnant.
Consular officers already interview visa applicants about their reasons for travel and are expected to determine that their stay in the United States will be limited in duration before issuing visas.
The Center for Immigration Studies, a right-wing think tank that advocates for lower immigration levels, estimated that there are about 33,000 births per year to women who arrived in the United States on tourist visas and then left the country. The organization said its estimate was “based on a combined analysis of birth certificate records and data collected by the U.S. Census Bureau. Both estimates represent a rough approximation, based on limited data, of the possible number of births to women who came to America specifically to have a child and then left once the child was born.” According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there were 3.8 million live births in the United States in 2018.
US Senate Begins Trump Impeachment Trial
The Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court John Roberts was sworn in as the presiding officer and senators swore to do “impartial justice,” as the Senate opened the third presidential impeachment trial in U.S. history.
The United States Senate formally opened the impeachment trial of President Trump on Thursday, January 16th as the Senators accepted the promise to deliver “impartial justice” and installed Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. as the presiding officer.
The steps marked the official start of the trial, only the third such proceeding against a president in U.S. history. At least two-thirds of the senators would have to vote to convict Mr. Trump to remove him from office.
In a somber ceremony that has happened only twice before in the nation’s history, Chief Justice Roberts vowed to conduct Trump’s impeachment trial “according to the Constitution and the laws.” He then administered the same, 222-year-old oath of impartiality and adherence to the Constitution to the senators, setting in motion the final step in a bitter and divisive effort by the president’s adversaries to remove him from office.
Even as the antiquated ritual unfolded, with senators signing their names one by one in an oath book near the marble Senate rostrum, new evidence was trickling out about Mr. Trump’s pressure campaign on Ukraine that is at the heart of the charges against him.
House managers, who will act as prosecutors during the trial, arrived at the ornate doors of the Senate at noon. They walked in two-by-two, led by Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D., Calif.) and Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D., N.Y.). Freshman Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D., Texas) trailed as the seventh. A Democratic aide said the order was chosen according to seniority.
All managers carried large blue folders containing their own copy of the articles of impeachment passed by the House last month and the resolution passed on Jan 15th authorizing them as managers. They were followed by Texas Democratic Rep. Al Green, who has been a longtime voice in calling for Mr. Trump’s removal from office. He wasn’t an official part of the procession.
Silence fell and phones disappeared as the House sergeant at arms warned senators to keep quiet “on pain of imprisonment.” Then Mr. Schiff, the lead manager, began reading the articles aloud from a podium in the well of the Senate. “Resolved, that Donald John Trump, president of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors,” he said.
“President Trump,” Mr. Schiff said, “warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.”
The charges detailed the case against the president: that Mr. Trump pressured Ukraine for investigations into his political rivals, withholding $391 million in military aid as leverage, and that he obstructed Congress by blocking the inquiry into his conduct.
Meanwhile, a trove of newly released texts, voice mail messages, calendar entries and other records handed over by Lev Parnas, an associate of the president’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani, offered new details about the scheme. And the Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan federal watchdog, found that Mr. Trump’s decision to withhold nearly $400 million in military aid from Ukraine was an illegal breach of a law that limits a president’s power to block the spending of money allocated by Congress.
Two hours before the oath-taking on the Senate floor, seven House members made a solemn march to the chamber to read aloud the charges against Mr. Trump. His words echoing from the well of the Senate, Representative Adam B. Schiff of California accused the president of abusing the power of his office and obstructing Congress by trying to cover up his actions.
The evidence provided by Mr. Parnas adds significant new detail to the public record about how the pressure campaign played out. On Wednesday, Mr. Parnas told The New York Times that he believed Mr. Trump knew about the efforts to dig up dirt on his political rivals.
Just hours before the formal start of the trial, the Government Accountability Office said the decision by the White House Office of Management and Budget to withhold the aid violated the Impoundment Control Act, concluding that “faithful execution of the law does not permit the president to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law.” Mr. Trump directed the freeze on the Ukraine aid, and administration officials testified during the course of the impeachment inquiry that they had repeatedly warned that doing so could violate the law, but their concerns were not heeded.
And the Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan congressional watchdog, said Thursday that the Trump administration violated the law when it withheld Ukraine security aid that Congress has appropriated.
That evidence is likely to be incorporated into the House Democratic case against the President, which they will begin presenting next Tuesday when the substance of the trial gets underway. Democrats charge that Trump withheld the security aid and a White House meeting from Ukraine while pushing for an investigation into the Bidens.
The trial began this week after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi withheld the formal sending of the articles for four weeks while Democrats pushed for Republicans to agree to calling witnesses and obtaining new documents for the trial.
Pelosi said at her weekly press conference Thursday that Senate Republicans are “afraid of the truth,” when asked what her response is to Senate Republicans who say they shouldn’t have to consider new evidence like the Parnas material because it wasn’t included in the House investigation.
The outcome of the trial is all but determined, as the two-thirds vote required to remove the President would need 20 Republican senators to break ranks. But that doesn’t mean the trial itself won’t have twists and turns — and potentially some surprises — as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell navigates the demands of his Senate conference, pressures from Democrats and the whims of Trump and his Twitter account.
Trump to visit India after impeachment trial begins
In the midst of Impeachment trial and as though seeking to divert attention from the fallout, President Donald Trump is reported to be visiting India next month for the first time since he joined office and before he goes to elections for a second term later this year.
Top sources told media that New Delhi and Washington DC are in the process of finalizing dates. “We are working on mutually agreed dates. It is likely to happen soon,” an official of the Ministry of External Affairs said.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Trump share a strong relationship, a glimpse of which was displayed last year in Houston where the two leaders endorsed each other before a massive Indian diaspora.
Though, majority of Indians in the US have historically and traditionally been Democrat voters, the ‘Howdy Modi’ event in Texas, may have struck a new political dynamic. Republicans in the US hope to swing Indian votes in their favour in the next presidential elections.
President Trump’s visit to India, sources said, will most likely be finalized after his impeachment trial begins in the Senate next week. The trial is an outcome of the initiative of the House of Representatives which voted in favour of impeaching President Trump allegedly for seeking help from Ukraine to influence the 2020 presidential elections.
The last US President who visited India was Barack Obama in 2015. New Delhi and Washington DC are expected to sign a trade deal pending since 2018, amid an economic slowdown in India.
Officials from New Delhi and Washington are in touch to work out mutually convenient dates for US President Donald Trump’s visit to India on a standing invitation, a year after he expressed his inability to attend the Republic Day parade in the Indian capital, people aware of the developments said.
According to a person familiar with the planning of the tour, the visit could take place as early as the second half of February. However, the timing will depend on the duration of the US Senate trial, expected to start this week, to determine if Trump should be removed from office in impeachment proceedings, the person added.
The US President was unable to participate as the chief guest of the Republic Day celebrations due to scheduling constraints, the White House said in October 2018, after Prime Minister Narendra Modi invited him for a bilateral visit during their talks in Washington.
An Indian official who spoke on condition of anonymity said: “Both sides are in touch to work out mutually convenient dates for the visit.” He did not elaborate on the timeline of the state visit.
There has been a standing invitation to Trump after he expressed his inability to visit India last year, essentially in view of his State of the Union speech, the annual presidential address to a joint sitting of the US congress.
“He wants me to go there,” Trump told reporters in November last year to a question about the invitation from the Indian Prime Minister. “I will be going at some point to India,” he added.
The Indian invitation to Trump was reiterated last month by defence minister Rajnath Singh and external affairs minister S Jaishankar, when they called on the US President at the White House after their meeting with their American counterparts Mark Esper and Mike Pompeo.
The US President gave a positive response, the first person said, adding that planning picked up for the visit along with progress in trade talks that have been touted to be “close” to being formalized between the two countries.
India and the US have indicated that a short-term deal is in sight and could be signed soon, with a more ambitious longer-term agreement set for a later date. The two sides have been in talks to resolve trade differences and the dialogue could lay the ground for an ambitious Free Trade Agreement.
A trade deal with India, though not of the same size as the one the US and China are scheduled to announce in Washington this week, will be an important achievement of the Trump administration, especially in an election year, with the US President seeking a second term in November.
Escalating US Conflict With Iran: What’s Next?
The US assassination of Iran’s top general, Qasem Soleimani, has escalated a “shadow war” in the Middle East between the US and Iran. US President Donald Trump authorized the airstrike against Soleimani without congressional approval, citing “imminent and sinister attacks.”
Soleimani was killed in a targeted, Jan. 3 airstrike near Baghdad International Airport in Iraq. His death has brought about massive demonstrations against the US and a warning that Iran will retaliate. The incident has led to raising the stakes in its conflict with Washington amid concerns of a wider war in the Middle East.
The assassination of Major General Qassem Suleimani, arguably Iran’s second most powerful figure, by an order by Donald Trump, has marked a major escalation in the long-simmering conflict between the Iran and the United States. and sparked fear of turmoil throughout the region.
Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, addressing a gathering of Iranians chanting “Death to America,” says the attacks are a “slap on the face” of the United States and that US troops should leave the region.
Tehran’s foreign minister says Iran took “proportionate measures” in self-defense and did not seek to escalate the confrontation. “God the Almighty has promised to take martyr Soleimani’s revenge,” Gen. Esmail Ghaani, Soleimani’s successor as commander of the Quds Force, told Iranian state television. “Certainly, actions will be taken.”
While Republicans largely united behind the president’s actions, many Democratic politicians raised concerns over what consequences the assassination will have, particularly the threat to Americans abroad and the likelihood of sparking another war in the Middle East.
The United States has no plans to pull its troops out of Iraq, Defense Secretary Mark Esper said on Monday, following reports by Reuters and other media of an American military letter informing Iraqi officials about repositioning troops in preparation for leaving the country.
Longtime foes Tehran and Washington have been in a war of words since the assassination of the Iranian military commander Qasem Soleimani, widely seen as Iran’s second most powerful figure behind Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Iran’s demand for US forces to withdraw from the region gained traction on Sunday when Iraq’s parliament passed a resolution calling for all foreign troops to leave the country.
The leaked American military letter said US-led coalition forces would use helicopters to evacuate. Several were heard flying over Baghdad on Monday night, although it was not immediately clear if that was related.
How did we get here, and what’s happening next? The World is tracking recent developments in this timeline, which will continue to be updated. Despite some periods of cooperation, the US and Iran have long been in conflict. Indeed, the longest currently active US national emergency concerns sanctions on Iran issued by former President Jimmy Carter in 1979. But significant US involvement dates back to 1953, when the US orchestrated a coup to overthrow Iran’s prime minister. Here’s a brief timeline of major events in US-Iranian relations.
This escalation doesn’t come without a backstory. The US-Iran relationship has faced many ups and downs over the past century. More recent tensions have risen after Trump walked away from the Iran nuclear deal and reimposed crippling sanctions on the country in 2018. The United States has also grown increasingly concerned about Iran’s influence in Iraq, the government of which has faced months of popular protest.
Iran’s U.S.-educated foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, has been denied a visa by the United States to attend a United Nations Security Council meeting this week. Last April, he appeared at Asia Society New York for a wide-ranging conversation with Asia Society President and CEO Josette Sheeran.
Less than a year after President Donald Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Iran Nuclear Deal, Zarif told Sheeran that he did not think the president wanted conflict — but that Trump was mistaken if he thought his “maximum pressure” approach to Iran would work.
Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, Iran’s top security and intelligence commander and arguably the country’s second-most powerful leader after Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was killed last week at Baghdad International Airport in Iraq by a U.S. drone strike. The attack — to which Tehran vowed to retaliate — marks a striking escalation in the long-simmering conflict between Iran and the United States.
In May 2018, President Donald Trump withdrew the United States from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), otherwise known as the Iran Nuclear Deal, which mandated that Iran curtail its nuclear weapons program in exchange for relief from economic sanctions.
Last April, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif appeared at Asia Society New York for a conversation with Asia Society President and CEO Josette Sheeran. In an excerpt embedded above, Zarif explains why Trump’s attempt to maximize pressure on Iran won’t work:
“I doubt that President Trump wants conflict. He ran on a campaign promise — and it seems to me that he’s very careful to at least try to implement his campaign promises — not to waste another $7 trillion in our region in order to make the situation even worse. So, I guess he wants to stick to that commitment.
He thinks through further pressure on Iran — the so-called “maximum pressure” policy — he can bring us to our knees. He’s mistaken. We have 7,000 years of history. We’ve had battles. We’ve had losses. We’ve had victories. Usually, we haven’t come to our knees. And this won’t be an aberration of that.
“We don’t look at history in terms of two, four, and six years, as [Americans] usually do with congress, or in the administration, or in the senate. We look at history in millennia. And our dignity is not up for sale. We have 7,000 years of history,” Zarif said. “We’ve had battles. We’ve had losses. We’ve had victories. Usually, we haven’t come to our knees. And this won’t be an aberration of that.”
Net International Migration Projected to Fall to Lowest Levels in the United States
Net international migration added 595,000 to the U.S. population between 2018 and 2019, the lowest level this decade. This is a notable drop from this decade’s high of 1,047,000 between 2015 and 2016.
The U.S. Census Bureau’s Vintage 2019 population estimates released show that international migration added about 7.9 million people to the nation’s population since the last census in 2010. Annual growth in net international migration slowed between 2015 and 2016 and has been declining since.
Migration patterns measured since 2015 primarily reflect three major trends: declining immigration of the foreign born, increasing foreign-born emigration, and changes in Puerto Rican migration following Hurricane Maria in September 2017.
China replaced Mexico to become the largest sending country of foreign-born immigrants to the United States as of 2018.
The population estimates show that net migration from Puerto Rico to the 50 states and the District of Columbia, which rose after Hurricane Maria, reversed between 2018 and 2019. More people are moving to than away from Puerto Rico.
Foreign-born immigration is the largest contributor to net international migration and is measured based on the American Community Survey (ACS) estimate of the foreign born whose residence one year ago was outside the United States, Puerto Rico and U.S. Island Areas.
Foreign-born immigration this decade peaked at 1.46 million in 2016 and declined by 250,000 to 1.21 million in 2018, according to the ACS.
China replaced Mexico to become the largest sending country of foreign-born immigrants to the United States as of 2018. At the beginning of the decade, Mexico was the largest, but immigration from Mexico has dropped significantly since the recession at the end of the last decade.
Since 2010, immigration from China and India has either approached or surpassed Mexican immigration levels while immigration from Canada has remained relatively unchanged.
More People Moving to Than Leaving Puerto Rico
Estimates of net Puerto Rico migration are based on residence one year ago from the ACS and Puerto Rican Community Survey (PRCS).
The estimates also incorporate flight passenger data from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics to account for recent movement following Hurricane Maria.
Net migration from Puerto Rico to the 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia increased from 78,000 during the 2017 period (July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017) to 123,000 during the 2018 period (July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018), which covers the month Hurricane Maria made landfall.
However, it reversed during the 2019 period (July 1, 2018 to June 30, 2019), resulting in net in-migration of 8,000 people to Puerto Rico.
State Estimates
Florida, California, Texas, New York and Massachusetts typically gain the most migrants from abroad and comprise about half of net international migration for the nation most years.
Mid-decade estimates showed large increases in net international migration in Florida, California and Texas, but modest increases for New York and Massachusetts. Texas doubled from 59,000 to 118,000 between 2010 and 2015, which surpassed New York’s mid-decade estimate of 84,000 to become the third largest net migration state. Several states approached or dipped below 2010 levels this year.
Between the last census in 2010 and July 1, 2019, international migration added 1,107,000 people to Florida; 1,022,000 to California; 819,000 to Texas; 698,000 to New York; and 362,000 to Massachusetts.
What Does Migration Measure?
Migration occurs when a person changes their usual residence across a geographic boundary, regardless of citizenship or legal status, according to the Census Bureau.
International migration is the movement between the 50 states and the District of Columbia and abroad.
This excludes commuters, tourists and business visitors, but does include immigrants, temporary migrants and the native born moving between the United States and foreign countries, movers between the United States and Puerto Rico and deployed U.S. military personnel.
What Is “Net” Migration?
Net migration measures in-migration minus out-migration. It is positive when more people move into than leave a geographic area and negative when more people move out than move in.
Net international migration is a more complete measure than immigration for estimating population change since it accounts for people leaving the United States.
Who Are the Foreign Born?
The Census Bureau defines the foreign born as people who are not U.S. citizens at birth. The foreign born include naturalized citizens and non-citizens but not people born in a foreign country to U.S. citizens.
Net international migration in 2019 is a projection and is subject to revision as more recent data on foreign-born migration become available. In addition, previous years in the time series may be revised to include more recent data on people who leave the United States.
See the Vintage 2019 methodology statement for a description of input data and methods, as well as other migration components not highlighted in this story.
Vintage 2019 Population Estimates for metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas and counties will be released in the spring of 2020. Demographic characteristics will be released in the summer of 2020.
US election, global slowdown to dominate 2020
The year 2020 will be dominated by the American election and a global slowdown, says The Economist, adding that the most visible effects of the slowdown so far have been declining business confidence, global manufacturing slump and tepid inflation.
“Two of the world’s great cultures are butting heads. On one side is USA, Britain, Canada, Australia and new Zealand. On the other side is China. This battle is about two different types of societies trying to get along,” said “The World in 2020” report.
Trump’s tariff war with China is the biggest risk to the American economy over the next 12 months.
“China and America, the two largest economies will account for 40 per cent of the global GDP of $90 trillion,” it added.
According to the report, the global slowdown is a supply side slowdown since it has been primarily caused by the tariff war between USA and China.
“There is further global uncertainty in 2020 because of new global officials taking over the world – Christian Lagarde at the ECB, Kritalina at IMF and Andrew Bailey at the bank of England,” the report noted.
In a recession, employee costs get cut first.
In the last two recessions in America, wage bill was cut by 6 per cent.
“If this had not happened, profits would have been 24 per cent lower today. This flexibility is the hallmark of American capitalism,” said the report.
The report also touched upon other relevant issues that currently affect humanity.
“Across the world, two types of identity driven movements are increasingly clashing and feeding off each other. On the one hand you have separatist groups who want to break away and then there is the assertive and outraged nationalism,” it added.
Thanks to digital medium and yearly notes, many CEOS are signaling their position on politics and key issues.
“Business CEOs are motivated by idealism, vanity and calculated self interest. CEO activism has so far been cost free,” said the report.
Trump Impeached

Impeachment Hearings Pave Way for Steps to Removing Trump
A new CNN poll shows that half the country believes that President Donald Trump should be not only impeached by the House, but also removed from office by the Senate. 50% of the public believes Trump should be impeached and removed — almost double the amount who have said that about any of his three most recent predecessors, including one who was actually impeached by the House.
With growing public support, the House Judiciary Committee has invited President Donald Trump or his counsel to participate in the panel’s first impeachment hearing next week as the House moves another step closer to impeaching the President.
The committee announced that it would hold a hearing December 4 on the “constitutional grounds for presidential impeachment,” with a panel of expert witnesses testifying.
House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler sent a letter to Trump on Tuesday notifying him of the hearing and inviting the President or his counsel to participate, including asking questions of the witnesses.
“I write to ask if … you or your counsel plan to attend the hearing or make a request to question the witness panel,” the New York Democrat wrote.
In the letter, Nadler said the hearing would “serve as an opportunity to discuss the historical and constitutional basis of impeachment, as well as the Framers’ intent and understanding of terms like ‘high crimes and misdemeanors.’ ”
“We expect to discuss the constitutional framework through which the House may analyze the evidence gathered in the present inquiry,” Nadler added. “We will also discuss whether your alleged actions warrant the House’s exercising its authority to adopt articles of impeachment.”
Under the House resolution passed last month setting the rules of the impeachment proceedings, the President’s counsel can question witnesses and raise objections, though Nadler has plenty of discretion in the proceedings as chairman.
The resolution states that should the Trump administration refuse to cooperate in the impeachment proceedings — such as denying witnesses, which it has done — Nadler can “impose appropriate remedies, including by denying specific requests by the President or his counsel under these procedures to call or question witnesses.”
The Judiciary Committee hearing is the latest sign that House Democrats are moving forward with impeachment proceedings against the President following the two-month investigation led by the House Intelligence Committee into allegations that Trump pushed Ukraine to investigate his political rivals while a White House meeting and $400 million in security aid were withheld from Kiev.
The hearing announcement comes as the Intelligence Committee plans to release its report summarizing the findings of its investigation to the House Judiciary Committee soon after Congress returns from its Thanksgiving recess next week.
Democratic aides declined to say what additional hearings they will schedule as part of the impeachment proceedings.
The Judiciary Committee is expected to hold multiple hearings related to impeachment, and the panel would debate and approve articles of impeachment before a vote on the House floor.
The aides said the first hearing was a “legal hearing” that would include some history of impeachment, as well as evaluating the seriousness of the allegations and the evidence against the President.
Nadler asked Trump to respond by Sunday on whether the White House wanted to participate in the hearings, as well as who would act as the President’s counsel for the proceedings. The letter was copied to White House Counsel Pat Cipollone.
With Eyes on 2024 Presidential Run, Nikki Haley Tours Country With Book Release
Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley left the door open to running for the White House in 2024 after vowing to stump across the country to help re-elect President Trump next year. Haley, who also served as the Republican governor of South Carolina, made it clear that she has Trump’s back in 2020.
Haley, who discussed her book “With All Due Respect” at the 92nd Street Y Tuesday night, sought to deflect the question when asked by Fox News’ Dana Perino about a 2024 candidacy. “A year is a lifetime in politics,” Haley said. “It would be a waste of time to think about 2024 at this point.” But Haley then added, “Instead I want to do everything I do really well now and just see if doors open.”
In a well-thought out, strategic attempt to raise her profile even more nationally, coinciding with the release of her book on Nov. 12, Haley has engaged in a flurry of television interviews with networks and cable news anchors. She sought to endear herself further to Trump’s base by strongly defending her rationale for remaining loyal to the President against the apparent machinations of President Trump’s most senior aides — former secretary of state Rex Tillerson and erstwhile White House chief of staff John F. Kelly — who allegedly sought to recruit her to work around and subvert Trump. It is a clear attempt to make sure Trump’s cult-like support base will be in her corner in 2024 when she’s most likely to go toe to toe with Vice President Mike Pence in the GOP primary.
When Haley resigned in December last year, unlike the departure of other administration officials, either by firing or of their own volition, Haley’s departure was announced by Trump at an Oval Office meeting with them seated side by side with the White House press pool invited for what could only be described as a veritable love-fest between the President and Haley, where each lavished effusive praise on each other.
Both in her book and in all of her media interviews, Haley also burnished her foreign and security policy credentials, particularly her strong pro-Israel stand, claiming that she was the point person when it came to moving the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and tearing up the Iran nuclear deal — a major priority for the Israeli government and a campaign promise made by Trump — even as Tillerson and Kelly sought to undermine these efforts.
All of this, including her taking the lead in cutting U.S. aid to the Palestinian Authority for its “hostile rhetoric and even more hostile actions toward the United States,” as she states in her book, could only enhance her support and love she enjoys from the powerful AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) and major GOP donors like billionaire Sheldon Adelson, whose support was always conditioned on the moving of the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and is said to be an avid fan of Haley.
Although, Haley continues to decline to predict her political future or her White House ambitions, she told The Washington Post, “I’m not even thinking that way. I’m thinking more of, we need to do all we can to get the president reelected. And then from there, deciding how I will use the power of my voice,” Haley said, adding, “I know I’m too young to stop fighting, I know that. And I know that I need and want to be involved in some way that’s helpful.”
In her book, Haley wrote, “I realize there are many who will think this book is motivation for something in the future. I can’t help that. I can only say that facts are remembered and emotions fade, but it is the emotions that dictate the lessons we learn. I wanted all of you to know what I felt as I went through these times in my life. I don’t know what’s next, but I’ve learned some things along the way that will help me find it,” she said.
Talking about her UN tenure, she said, “My time at the UN certainly made me wiser about the world and sadder about parts of it. But it also made me more grateful about our country.”
“At the UN, I worked alongside the ambassadors of dictators and strongmen. I traveled to places most Americans will never go, and I saw things most Americans will never see.What I saw cut through the loud and polarizing voices in our country. I saw what sets America apart — what we must protect and preserve.”
Haley said, “People from all over the world are drawn to the United States by our exceptionalism — our freedom, our opportunity, and our belief in human dignity. My parents were among them.They came from India to rural South Carolina in the 1960s.My mother wore a sari. My father wore a turban. He still does today. We were different. We stood out. And my family felt the pain of being judged by our difference.”
Haley said, “Immigration is a source of American strength when it is conducted in accordance with our principles. But it must be a two-way street.We welcome immigrants who come to America in accordance with the rule of law.And we must call upon those immigrants to embrace our values and respect our laws in order to become Americans.”
Retirement Benefits Bill is stuck in Congress
Despite the partisan noise swirling around the impeachment hearings in Washington, D.C., supporters of at least one bill remain hopeful that the divide won’t derail its passage.
The Secure Act, as the measure is called, aims to increase the ranks of retirement savers and the amount they put away. While it cleared the House in May with broad backing from both sides of the aisle — the vote was 417 to 3 — the bill remains stalled in the Senate.
“Retirement has always been an issue with bipartisan support, and it still is,” said Paul Richman, chief government and political affairs officer at the Insured Retirement Institute, which is one of many groups — both industry and consumer — that support the legislation.
“It’s just getting caught up in the partisan politics in the House and Senate, and that has made it more complex to deal with than it would be in some other political environments,” Richman said.
The Secure Act, if passed by both chambers of Congress and signed into law by President Trump, would bring the biggest changes to the U.S. retirement system since 2006.
Among the provisions are: making it easier for small businesses to band together to offer 401(k) plans, requiring companies to let long-term, part-time workers become eligible for retirement benefits and repealing the maximum age (70½) for making contributions to traditional individual retirement accounts.
Additionally, the measure would raise the age to 72 from 70½, when the dreaded required minimum distributions, or RMDs, from certain retirement accounts must start. The bill would also allow more annuities in 401(k) plans.
It also would require most nonspouse beneficiaries to withdraw money from inherited retirement accounts within 10 years of the original owner’s death instead of spreading out withdrawals across their lifetime.
Bipartisan support hasn’t been enough to get the Secure Act across the finish line. After the bill passed the House in late May, the Senate moved to pass it under a process called unanimous consent, which would have essentially have fast-tracked the bill to passage — with no changes to it — if all lawmakers agreed.
That didn’t happen: Three Republican senators put “holds” on the bill, which remain in place. And, an effort by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, two weeks ago to consider the bill with both limited debate and amendments also was unsuccessful, with Democrats’ opposing any changes to the bill.
With those routes to passage not working, the Secure Act either has to go through the typical legislative debate process — which would consume floor time that the Senate has little of — or get attached to another bill that lawmakers view as “must-pass” legislation, Richman said.
“There are still a lot of opportunities for it to be attached to something that the Senate wants to move before the end of the year,” he said.
One possibility would be a budget bill. While Congress is expected to approve a so-called continuing resolution this week to keep the government open until Dec. 20, it means lawmakers would need to take action again before then to avoid a partial government shutdown. That could come in the form of another agreement that again temporarily funds the government, or as one large funding bill or several smaller ones that fully fund the 2020 budget (the end of the 2019 federal fiscal year was Sept. 30).
In other words, anyone opposed to the Secure Act at that point would have to oppose the budget bill — or any other, for that matter — that it was attached to. There also could be other must-pass bills, Richman said, including one that makes technical fixes to the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, or even a bill that establishes a new North American trade agreement.
In addition to being an election year, impeachment proceedings could also be a factor. If the Senate receives articles of impeachment from the House at some point in December — which some pundits expect — a trial would consume the Senate’s time in the early part of next year.
Richman sees that as working in the bill’s favor for passage before the calendar flips to 2020.
“Even if the House does send over articles of impeachment in late December, the Senate is talking about a January or February trial,” he said. “So they have time to act on things like the Secure Act this year.”
And could the impeachment process muck up President Trump’s assumed support of the bill? “We continue to be optimistic that the merits of this bill will weigh in the favor of passage in the Senate and the president signing it,” Richman said.
Bloomberg Seeking 2020 Democratic Nomination for President Changes Equation for Front Runners
Michael Bloomberg, the billionaire former mayor of New York City, has expressed his intention to a 2020 Democratic presidential campaign, warning that the current field of candidates is ill equipped to defeat President Donald Trump.
Bloomberg, according to media reports, is considering mounting a 2020 Democratic campaign, starting with at latest one state contest on Super Tuesday, March 3. Bloomberg has said in the past that if he ran for president he would be willing to spend $100 million of his own money. As of Friday, he was No. 8 on the Forbes billionaires list, with a net with a net worth of over $52 billion.
Bloomberg, the former New York City mayor and billionaire businessman, has been privately weighing a bid for the White House for weeks and has not yet made a final decision on whether to run, an adviser said. But in the first sign that he is seriously moving toward a campaign, Mr. Bloomberg has dispatched staffers to Alabama to gather signatures to qualify for the primary there. Though Alabama does not hold an early primary, it has a Friday deadline for candidates to formally enter the race.
Bloomberg and his advisers called a number of prominent Democrats on Thursday to tell them he was seriously considering the race, including former Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the retired majority leader who remains a dominant power broker in the early caucus state. Aides to Mr. Bloomberg also reached out to Gov. Gina Raimondo of Rhode Island, the chair of the Democratic Governors Association.
Bloomberg, who initially ruled out a 2020 run, has not made a final decision on whether to jump into the race. If he were to launch a campaign, it could dramatically reshape the Democratic contest less than three months before primary voting begins.
The 77-year-old has spent the past few weeks talking with prominent Democrats about the state of the 2020 field, expressing concerns about the steadiness of former Vice President Joe Biden’s campaign and the rise of liberal Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, according to people with knowledge of those discussions. In recent days, he took steps to keep his options open, including moving to get on the primary ballot in Alabama ahead of the state’s Friday filing deadline.
In a statement on Thursday, Bloomberg adviser Howard Wolfson said the former mayor believes Trump “represents an unprecedented threat to our nation” and must be defeated. “But Mike is increasingly concerned that the current field of candidates is not well positioned to do that,” Wolfson said.
Bloomberg’s moves come as the Democratic race enters a crucial phase. Biden’s front-runner status has been vigorously challenged by Warren and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who are flush with cash from small-dollar donors. But both are viewed by some Democrats as too liberal to win in a general election faceoff with Trump.
Despite a historically large field, some Democrats anxious about defeating Trump have been looking for other options. Former Attorney General Eric Holder and former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick have quietly had conversations with supporters urging them to consider a run, but neither appears likely to get in the race.
Bloomberg, a Republican-turned-independent who registered as a Democrat last year, has flirted with a presidential run before but ultimately backed down, including in 2016. He endorsed Hillary Clinton in that race and, in a speech at the Democratic Party convention, pummeled Trump as a con who has oversold his business successes.
Bloomberg plunged his efforts — and his money — into gun control advocacy and climate change initiatives. He again looked seriously at a presidential bid earlier this year, traveling to early voting states and conducting extensive polling, but decided not to run in part because of Biden’s perceived strength.
Biden did not address Bloomberg’s potential candidacy at a fundraiser Thursday night in Boston. With immense personal wealth, Bloomberg could quickly build out a robust campaign operation across the country. Still, his advisers acknowledge that his late entry to the race could make competing in states like Iowa and New Hampshire, which have been blanketed by candidates for nearly a year, difficult. Instead, they previewed a strategy that would focus more heavily on the March 3 “Super Tuesday” contests, including in delegate-rich California.
Some Democrats were skeptical there would be a groundswell of interest in the former New York mayor. “There are smart and influential people in the Democratic Party who think a candidate like Bloomberg is needed,” said Jennifer Palmieri, who advised Clinton’s 2016 campaign. “But there is zero evidence that rank-and-file voters in the early states of Iowa and New Hampshire feel the same.”
Still, others credited Bloomberg with taking on “some of America’s biggest challenges” and finding success. “While this is not an endorsement, Michael Bloomberg is a friend and I admire his track record as a successful business leader and Mayor who finds practical solutions to some of America’s biggest challenges, from creating good jobs to addressing the opioid crisis and fighting for common-sense gun safety,” said Rhode Island Gov. Gina Raimondo, a Democrat.
Bloomberg reached out to several prominent Democrats on Thursday, including Raimondo. One Democrat Bloomberg hasn’t spoken to as he’s reconsidered his run is former President Barack Obama. Bloomberg would pose an immediate ideological challenge to Biden, who is running as a moderate and hopes to appeal to independents and Republicans who have soured on Trump. But the billionaire media mogul with deep Wall Street ties could also energize supporters of Warren and Sanders, who have railed against income inequality and have vowed to ratchet up taxes on the wealthiest Americans.
Republicans Trying to Defend The Indefensible Trump With Strategies on Impeachment Shifting
Since the US House Vote on Party Lines to begin the process of Impeachment on Donald Trump, the president has shown how he and his allies intend to fight impeachment: with a blitzkrieg aimed at deflecting, distracting and discrediting. What he lacks in coherent strategy, he makes up for in shock and awe. Trump will send in the tanks and take no prisoners.
It appears that most Republicans are still willing to march behind him, not by defending what many see as indefensible – the president’s offer of a quid pro quo to Ukraine – but by throwing sand into the gears of the impeachment process. With the help of Fox News, they are set to intensify attacks on the legitimacy of the inquiry itself, demonising its leaders and sowing doubt wherever possible.
The great unknown is whether the approach will prove as effective as their efforts to undermine the special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation, potentially boosting Trump in the 2020 election, or the case against him will be so compelling that he will be removed from office or defeated at the polls.
The Democratic allegations at the heart of the ongoing impeachment inquiry are pretty simple: that Donald Trump used the power of the presidency to pressure a foreign government to improperly investigate Joe Biden. Or as Democrat Eric Swalwell of California summarized it on Nov. 7, “Defense dollars for dirt.”
The Republican response, by contrast, has been less straightforward. In the weeks since Sept. 24, when the White House released a rough transcript of Trump’s July 25 call with Ukrainian president Volodomyr Zelensky, the Republican defense has shifted dramatically, from denying the charges and then dismissing that they would be impeachable if true, to denigrating witnesses and evidence and attacking the impeachment process.
Democrats paint the changing defense as evidence of its weakness. Republicans attribute it to another source: disorganization. So far, they say, there’s been little coordination between the White House and Trump’s nominal allies on the Hill about a messaging strategy.
Here’s a look at how the defense of Donald Trump has changed since the impeachment proceedings began.
Since the moment he authorized the release of a transcript, Trump has maintained there was no quid pro quo in his withholding military aid from Ukraine while pushing the country to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden. In a tweet announcing the decision to publish the call, Trump said his conversation with President Zelensky was “totally appropriate,” that he applied “no pressure,” and that there was “NO quid pro quo.”
Trump has continued to chant this mantra at rallies, on Twitter and in interviews — a blanket defense of the core issue at the center of Democrats’ investigation. And it has been echoed by other top members of his Administration. “The transcript of the President’s phone call with President Zelensky… there was no quid pro quo,” Vice President Mike Pence said on Oct. 3. “There was no pressure.” Kellyanne Conway, counselor to the president, Larry Kudlow, Trump’s chief economic advisor, Steve Mnuchin, Treasury secretary, and others of Trump’s top allies have all repeated this line as well.
But this stance has become more complicated in recent days as witnesses have asserted explicitly to House investigators that there was, in fact, a quid pro quo.
“That was my clear understanding,” Bill Taylor, the top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine, testified last month. “Security assistance money would not come until the president [of Ukraine] committed to pursue the investigation,” Taylor continued, according to the transcript of his testimony. On Nov. 5, the U.S. Ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland, revised his original testimony to include that he had passed along such a message to a Zelensky advisor. “I said that resumption of the U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anticorruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks,” Sondland said in a written statement. Some aides have since adjusted their strategy, and been backing away from an unequivocal “no quid pro quo” defense.
Impeachment Inquiry Into Trump Presidency Begins With Vote in US Congress
IS has a New Leader After Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi killed in US Raid in Syria
Islamic State has confirmed the death of its leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and named Abu Ibrahim al-Hashimi al-Qurayshi as his replacement.
Baghdadi and the terror organisation’s spokesman, Abu Hassan al-Muhajir, were both killed in US operations in northern Syria at the weekend.
The group’s media arm, Amaq, made the announcements in an audio recording released on Thursday.
News of Baghdadi’s successor had been widely anticipated among the ranks of the terror organization following the weekend raid that traced Baghdadi to a remote corner of northern Syria after a hunt spanning more than half a decade.
The fugitive leader of the Islamic State (IS) group killed himself during a US military operation in north-west Syria, President Donald Trump has said. Speaking from the White House, Trump said Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi detonated his suicide vest after fleeing into a tunnel, chased by US military dogs.
Baghdadi came to prominence in 2014, when he announced the creation of a “caliphate” in areas of Iraq and Syria. IS carried out multiple atrocities that resulted in thousands of deaths.
The jihadist group imposed a brutal rule in the areas under its control and was behind many attacks around the world. Although the US declared the “caliphate” defeated earlier this year, IS militants remain active in the region and elsewhere.
Baghdadi’s death is a major victory for Trump as he faces heavy criticism for his decision to pull US troops out of northern Syria and fights an impeachment inquiry launched by Democrats.
In an unusual Sunday morning statement, Trump described the night-time operation in extraordinary detail, saying Baghdadi ran into a dead-end tunnel, “whimpering and crying and screaming”, while being chased by military dogs.
Baghdadi killed himself and three of his children by igniting his suicide vest, Mr Trump said, causing the tunnel to collapse. No US personnel were killed but one of the dogs was seriously injured in the explosion.
The blast mutilated Baghdadi’s body but, according to the president, an on-site DNA test confirmed his identity. The special forces spent two hours in the area and gathered “highly sensitive material”.
“The thug who tried so hard to intimidate others spent his last moments in utter fear, in total panic and dread, terrified of the American forces bearing down on him,” Mr Trump said.
Also on Sunday, the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) said IS spokesman Abu al-Hassan al-Muhajir, described as Baghdadi’s right-hand man, had been killed in a separate joint operation with the US military near the northern Syrian town of Jarablus.
What is known about the Baghdadi operation?
The location – the village of Barisha in Idlib province near the Turkish border – was far from where Baghdadi had been thought to be hiding along the Syria-Iraq border. Many parts of Idlib are under the control of jihadists opposed to IS but rival groups are suspected of sheltering IS members.
Baghdadi had been under surveillance for “a couple of weeks” and “two or three” raids had been cancelled because of his movements, Trump said, describing the IS leader’s move to Idlib as part of a plan to rebuild the group.
An undisclosed number of forces targeted the compound using eight helicopters, which were met with gunfire, Trump said. The commandos managed to land safely and entered the building by blowing holes in the wall, avoiding the main door which was believed to be booby-trapped. “He was a sick and depraved man,” Trump said. “He died like a dog, he died like a coward.”
US National Security Adviser Robert O’Brien said Baghdadi’s remains should be given the same treatment applied to those of former al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, whose body was buried at sea after he was killed in a raid in 2011.
A “large number” of Baghdadi’s followers also died while others were captured, the president said. The dead included two of Baghdadi’s wives who were both found wearing explosive vests that were not detonated. Eleven children were removed, uninjured, from the compound.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren is now leading the 2020 polls
Senator Elizabeth Warren‘s slow but steady rise through the 2020 ranks has officially put her at the top of the pack—albeit by a very small margin. The Massachusetts lawmaker officially overtook former Vice President Joe Biden in RealClearPolitics’ 2020 polling average, polling at 26.6% as compared with Biden’s 26.4%. Warren is also notably the only candidate whose polling has steadily gone up throughout the primary, while Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders, who holds a 14.6% polling average, have seen their popularity fluctuate and go down from their starting highs.
Warren’s new lead in national polls comes on the back of a Quinnipiac poll, released on last week, which shows her leading the Democratic field: 29 percent of registered Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters said they would vote for her if the primary were held today. Former Vice President Joe Biden, now in second place, received 26 percent of the vote in the same poll. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), typically considered the other frontrunner in the race, had 16 percent.
The poll’s questions about the Democratic primary had a margin of error of 4.7 percentage points, so Biden and Warren are in a very close race. Notably, Warren also appears to be the only candidate with a steady upward trend in the RealClearPolitics polling average.
Warren has led in four of the five most recent polls averaged by RealClearPolitics, although in many cases her lead is still within the margin of error.
Warren is outpacing Biden in the polls just as she’s also gaining a significant fundraising lead on the former vice president. In the third quarter of 2019, Warren raised just shy of $25 million dollars, placing her slightly behind Sanders’s fundraising total for the quarter and well ahead of Biden’s haul of only $15.2 million.
About six in 10 likely Democratic voters or caucusgoers say it’s more important to nominate a candidate with a strong chance of beating President Donald Trump than it is to nominate one who shares their views on the issues. And in both states, the group that is focused on beating Trump is more apt to favor Biden over Sanders. In Nevada, they are also more apt to favor Warren than are those focused on issues, her numbers are about the same across those groups in South Carolina.
Regardless of how they rate the importance of a candidate’s positions on the issues, Nevada and South Carolina Democrats seem to differ over who can best handle the top issues facing the field. On health care, South Carolina’s likely voters favor Biden — 34% say he’d do the best job on it vs. 17% for Sanders and 16% for Warren — while those in Nevada give Sanders an edge — 32% say the Vermonter would do the best job on health care, 25% Biden, 17% Warren.
Warren’s ascendance to front-runner status has spurred an uptick in criticism against the unabashed progressive in recent weeks, as Warren has started to face attacks on her policies from 2020 rivals like Yang and Pete Buttigieg, as well as mounting opposition from the factions her campaign is targeting. (Facebook head Mark Zuckerberg vowed to “fight” Warren’s plans to break up Big Tech, while Wall Street donors have threatened to sit out the election if she’s the nominee.)
But Warren has so far been uniquely able to use her detractors to her advantage, turning the corporate criticism against her into evidence of her progressive bona fides. “I’m not afraid of anonymous quotes, and wealthy donors don’t get to buy this process,” Warren tweeted in response to the Wall Street donors report.
U.S. lawmakers take a step against India on Kashmir – Senate panel adds appeal to end the “humanitarian crisis” in Kashmir in its report.
In what could become the first step towards legislative action by American lawmakers against India on the situation in Jammu and Kashmir, the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations has added an appeal to end what it calls a “humanitarian crisis” in Kashmir in its report ahead of the annual Foreign Appropriations Act for 2020.
The amendment was proposed by Senator Chris Van Hollen, who visited Delhi this week as a part of a congressional delegation that discussed the Kashmir situation as well as India-U.S. bilateral relations, trade ties and defence purchases with key officials.
According to the report, which was submitted to the Senate by Lindsey Graham, senior Senator and key Republican leader known for his close ties to President Donald Trump, the committee on Appropriations “notes with concern the current humanitarian crisis in Kashmir and calls on the Government of India to: fully restore telecommunications and Internet services; lift its lockdown and curfew; and release individuals detained pursuant to the Government’s revocation of Article 370 of the Indian constitution.”
What makes the report as well as the tough language on Kashmir more startling is that the document was submitted on September 26, while Prime Minister Narendra Modi was still in the US, and came just a few days after his joint address at the ‘Howdy, Modi!’ event in Houston with Mr. Trump, as well as their bilateral meeting in New York.
“This amendment, which was accepted unanimously by the bipartisan committee, is a strong expression of concern by the Senate about the situation in Kashmir and sends the signal that we are closely monitoring the human rights situation there, and would like to see the Government of India take those concerns seriously,” Mr. Van Hollen told The Hindu here, adding that he had “hoped to share his concerns privately” with Prime Minister Modi, but had not been able to meet him.
Van Hollen had met with External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar in Washington last week and Senator Bob Menendez, also a part of the delegation, met with Commerce and Industries Minister Piyush Goyal this week in Delhi. Both Senators have made public statements in the last two months on the Kashmir situation.
While it is unclear whether their concerns over Kashmir elicited any responses from the government, The Hindu has learnt that Senator Van Hollen was rebuffed when requested permission to visit Srinagar in an effort to assess the situation on the ground.
When asked, MEA officials said the Ministry of Home Affairs handled such requests. No diplomat or foreign journalist has yet been given clearance to visit Kashmir since the government’s decision on Article 370 on August 5.
Speaking at the World Economic Forum’s India Economic Summit in Delhi on Friday, Mr. Jaishankar said many key decision-makers in the US had been “misinformed by their media” and that he had spent considerable efforts in the past few weeks to clear misconceptions on the government’s decision to drop the “temporary” Article 370.
US House Begins Formal Impeachment Inquiry of Trump
Faced with new allegations against President Trump and his administration stonewalling, Democrats have ended months of caution with the US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announcing on Tuesday, September 25th that the House would initiate a formal impeachment inquiry against President Trump, charging him with betraying his oath of office and the nation’s security by seeking to enlist a foreign power to tarnish a rival for his own political gain.
The US House of Representatives speaker Nancy Pelosi on Tuesday launched a formal impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump, over a whistleblower allegation that he pressured Ukraine’s President into opening an enquiry on the son of a leading 2020 presidential hopeful from the Democratic Party.
Pelosi’s declaration, after months of reticence by Democrats who had feared the political consequences of impeaching a president many of them long ago concluded was unfit for office, was a stunning turn that set the stage for a history-making and exceedingly bitter confrontation between the Democrat-led House and a defiant president who has thumbed his nose at institutional norms.
“The actions taken to date by the president have seriously violated the Constitution,” Ms. Pelosi said in a brief speech invoking the nation’s founding principles. Mr. Trump, she added, “must be held accountable — no one is above the law.” She said the president’s conduct revealed his “betrayal of his oath of office, betrayal of our national security and betrayal of the integrity of our elections.”
The Wall Street Journal reported that Trump, in a phone call with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky, urged him to open an investigation into the son of former Vice President and 2020 presidential hopeful Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, over the latter’s businesses in Ukraine. The report came days after the Washington Post reported that a whistleblower from the US intelligence agencies had made a formal complaint over impropriety of phone call Trump had with a foreign leader. Joe Biden’s son Hunter is a director in a gas company in Ukraine. Later it was reported that Trump withheld a $391 million military aid the US grants to Ukraine a week or so before the phone call with Zelensky.
The reports once again raised the spectre of foreign influence into the US election, after the much-discussed Russian disinformation campaign over social media during the 2016 election. The stark difference here is Trump is alleged to have pressure a foreign leader into investigating a rival’s son. Trump’s lawyer had previously alleged that Biden’s son had improper business dealings in Ukraine, as Biden strengthened his position among other Democratic Party presidential hopefuls.
Transcript released: Trump on Tuesday tweeted that the inquiry is a “Presidential harassment” — in block letters. The White House later released the transcript of the phone call Trump had with Zelenksy, and it showed Trump did ask the Ukrainian President to “look into” the Biden case, as well as say his personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, will call to discuss it. Read the full transcript here. Trump has nevertheless defended his actions.
The US Congress has the power under the Constitution to remove a sitting president if enough lawmakers vote to say that they committed “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Only two Presidents have been impeached before — Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1998 — but both survived and completed the term after the Senate acquitted them. In 1974, Richard Nixon resigned to avoid being impeached.
Usually, the House Judiciary Committee first holds an investigation, and recommends impeachment to the House. And then the House votes to impeach. This was the process followed during Clinton case and Nixon case. Here, speaker Pelosi launched the inquiry. That is so because various House committees were already investigating Trump over impeachable offenses, a result of the allegation that Trump colluded with Russia in 2016. Note: Pelosi may still call on the House to vote on an inquiry, though experts are divided if that vote is mandatory or not.
The six House committees are expected to continue their probes, but with a focus on Ukraine. They will then submit their findings to the House Judiciary Committee. If the findings determine Trump committed an impeachable offence — treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors — the House will hold a vote. Currently, the Democratic party holds a majority in the House. If they impeachment vote is passed, it is then up to the Senate to hold a trial. After trial, Senate votes to convict the President. If two-thirds of Senate votes to convict, the President is removed from office. Currently, the Republican Party holds a majority in the Senate.
Ms. Pelosi’s decision to push forward with the most severe action that Congress can take against a sitting president could usher in a remarkable new chapter in American life, touching off a constitutional and political showdown with the potential to cleave an already divided nation, reshape Mr. Trump’s presidency and the country’s politics, and carry heavy risks both for him and for the Democrats who have decided to weigh his removal.
Trump and Modi address Indian-Americans at HowdyModi! Event in Houston
While praising their own achievements, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and U.S. President Donald Trump hailed the friendship between the world’s oldest and largest democracies at the HowdyModi! event at the NRG stadium Sept. 22, attended by over 50,000 people from across the nation.
For Modi, it was a political victory when the leader of the most powerful nation seemingly endorsed his position on Pakistan as a key problem in the fight against global terrorism, as well as the controversial step downgrading Article 370 relating to Kashmir’s special status; For Trump it was an opportunity to join Modi in showering high praise on the Indian-American community and its accomplishments, cashing in on an estimated 50,000-strong captive audience in an election year.
In his speech, Modi lashed out at Pakistan without naming it, for fomenting terrorism in South Asia, and justified his steps to end Kashmir’s special status saying it brought Kashmiris on par with the rest of Indians.
President Trump said that just as he had promised before his election, “You have never had a better friend than Donald Trump,” in the White House. Trump paid lavish compliments to Indian-Americans. “I’ve also come to express my profound gratitude to the nearly 4 million amazing Indian Americans all across our country. You enrich our culture, you uphold our values, you uplift our communities, and you are truly proud to be American. And we are proud to have you as Americans,” the President said in language typical of a campaign rally, adding, “We thank you. We love you. And I want you to know my administration is fighting for you each and every day.”
This rally has been called a win-win for both the leaders. For President Trump, it was a chance to court Indian-Americans for the 2020 presidential election race where Texas could emerge as a battleground state. For Mr Modi, a PR triumph and picture with the president of the United States may help him shrug off the criticism over his recent strong-arm polices at home.
Houston’s NRG Stadium, where the event was hosted, was the first stop for Mr Modi, whose Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) won a landslide victory in this year’s Indian elections.
Greeted by a standing ovation, Mr Trump used his speech to heap praise on Mr Modi, who he said was doing a “truly exceptional job for India” and its people.
Mr Trump also paid tribute to the Indian-American community, telling them “we are truly proud to have you as Americans”.
The US has a population of about 4 million Indians who are seen as an increasingly important vote bank in the country.
Apart from Mr Trump, organisers also invited Democrats to the event – House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer was among those who spoke.
The 2010 US census shows that Texas is home to the fourth-largest Indian-American population in the country after California, New York and New Jersey. Analysis of voting patterns shows the community tends overwhelmingly to support the Democrat party.
The rally gave Trump an opportunity to appeal to Indian-American voters in Harris County, which has been at the heart of Texas’ gradual shift from reliably Republican to competitive battleground. Modi, who is set to attend the United Nations General Assembly this week, could help give Trump a bump in his battle for reelection.
On stage, Modi introduced Trump as India’s “true friend” in the White House, and he invoked Trump in his signature campaign slogan, “Ab ki baar, Modi sarkar,” which translates to “This time, Modi government.” On stage, Modi replaced his name with Trump’s.
He commended the Trump administration for celebrating Diwali at the White House, and he invited Trump and his family to come to India.
Modi said he is “certain that some positive developments” will come out of upcoming talks at the UN. “President Trump calls me the top negotiator but he himself is great at the ‘Art of the deal’ and I am learning a lot from him,” he said.
The event was the first of two events on Sunday with foreign leaders in battleground states. After the rally, Trump flew to Wapakoneta, Ohio, to tour an Australian-owned cardboard manufacturing plant alongside Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison, who Trump feted with a state dinner on Friday.
The events were an opportunity for both Modi and Morrison to show the US President they can deliver in ways that are especially appealing to Trump.
The exhibition of bonhomie with lots of hand-holding and hugs, culminated in a victory lap with both leaders joining hands and intermittently holding their arms aloft, around the track of the stadium to standing ovation. Modi appeared in control of the agenda at the massive gathering, as according to some news reports, the walk around the stadium was unscripted and spontaneous.
For his part, Modi showered exuberant praise on President Trump while introducing him as the first speaker, saying the American President’s “every word is followed by tens of millions,” and that his name “is familiar to every person on the planet,” and even praised Trump for having “left a lasting impact everywhere.”
The Indian leader extended an invitation to Trump to visit India with his family, and Trump in his speech joked that he may suddenly land up to watch the first ever NBA match to be played in Mumbai next month.
Both India and the U.S. stand against “radical Islamic terrorism,” Trump said. “We’re especially grateful to be joined by over 50,000 incredible members of our nation’s thriving, prospering, flourishing, and hardworking Indian American community. Thank you,” said President Trump. He had more to say in a year when election campaigns are the order of the day. “Prime Minister Modi and I have come to Houston to celebrate everything that unites America and India: our shared dreams and bright futures,” Trump said.
Indian-Americans are the highest educated, highest earning minority in the country, and their rising importance in U.S. politics was more than clear when Trump sat through Modi’s nearly forty-minute speech after delivering his own.
Modi got his share of praise when Trump said he had done “a truly exceptional job for India and for all of the Indian people. Under Prime Minister Modi’s leadership, the world is witnessing a strong, sovereign, and thriving Republic of India. (Applause.) In a single decade, with the help of Prime Minister Modi’s pro-growth reforms, India has lifted nearly 300 million people out of poverty, and that is an incredible number. Incredible. That’s incredible. In the next decade, 140 million Indian household will rise to the middle class,” Trump said.
Close to 20 U.S. lawmakers representing both parties, jump-started the event by lining up on stage with brief speeches by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Maryland, and senior Texas Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas.
Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi, D-Illinois, was the only Indian-American lawmaker from among the four elected representatives currently in the House of Representatives, and an Indian-American Senator. Among other notable officials who attended were Reps. Carolyn Maloney, D-NY, Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, and Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas.
Cornyn said Texas was unmatched among the U.S. states, in engaging with India, and praised the large Indian-American community in Houston; Hoyer introduced Modi saying House Speaker Nancy Pelosi also welcomed him, and in being present, delinked domestic politics from international diplomacy, while keeping Kashmir out of the equation. Every speaker made mention of “common” values of democracy, the people-to-people ties, and the contributions of Indian-Americans to this country.
“Today we are seeing new history being made,” said Modi who spoke in Hindi. “And a new chemistry.” The presence of President Trump, the bipartisan lawmakers is a sign of the respect they hold for 1.3 billion Indians, he said. “Unity in diversity is our specialty. India’s diversity is proof of our democracy. It is our strength and our wish,” the Prime Minister said. “Wherever we go we take our diversity with us,” he added. “In this stadium, the more than 50,000 people represent our ancient history,” he said. “There are many among you who participated in the 2019 election,” which he noted saw 610 million come to the polling booth, two times the size of the American population.
A 21st Century India, Modi said, is impatient to become a “new India” and working to “challenge ourselves, we are changing ourselves.” He then trotted out figures to prove the expansion of electricity, cooking gas, rural road connectivity, bank accounts, to achieve “ease of living.” Modi also promised American investors India presented a “great opportunity” for them.
Outside the NRG Stadium, scores of protesters held placards and shouted slogans criticizing Modi, as did supporters of the Prime Minister. Two opposing opinions were also apparent in social media, and in statements released.
On the other side, were commentators like Houstonians Swati Narayan, director of the non-profit Culture of Health Advancing Together which works with immigrant and refugee families, and Manpreet K. Singh, director and trustee with the Texas chapter of the Sikh Coalition and the American Civil Liberties Union. They wrote an opinion on CNN, entitled, “Why we won’t be cheering Modi and Trump in Houston,” which condemned actions in Kashmir, saying, .. we want the people of Kashmir to have a voice in their own state, and we want democracy restored. And most of all, we want India to live up to the pluralist and secular society it claims to be.”
Biden Carries the Day at Democratic Party Debate
The Democratic candidates met in Houston on Thursday night for a third round of televised debates. This time the format was limited to a single night with 10 participants, which meant that for the first time, all the top-tier candidates were onstage together.
At the third Democratic party presidential candidates debate, the sparred over hot-button issues such as health care and immigration. Aside from Biden’s generally strong performance, he compellingly and convincingly delivered his core message of restoring, protecting and rebuilding the Obama-Biden record.
This was the first time that frontrunners Sen. Elizabeth Warren and former Vice President Joe Biden shared the debate stage. At the end of the night, Joe Biden emerged as the winner and Warren and Sen. Bernie Sanders were the surprise losers, according to many analysts.
Warren and Biden exhibited stark differences on style, policy and vision for the Democratic Party, embodying two opposing theories of what the party should be. This divide was apparent during an explosive debate over health care, during which Biden went on the attack against Warren, D-Mass., and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., for the hidden costs associated with their “Medicare-for-all plans.”
Warren deflected when asked if middle-class taxes will go up to pay for “Medicare for all,” saying total costs would go down – but not explicitly stating whether taxes for middle-class families would increase. “What we’re talking about here is what’s going to happen in families’ pockets,” Warren said. “This is about candor, honesty,” Biden retorted. “There will be a deductible – in your paycheck … someone making 60 grand with three kids, they’re going to end up paying $5,000 more.”
Though many were watching Warren expecting her to deliver a knockout performance, the senator fell somewhat short of that expectation. While this will likely not impact Warren’s standing in the presidential race at this early stage – which according to most polls is a close second behind Biden – she did not have the debate moment that many were anticipating. She was a surprise loser when the evening was over.
Unlike prior debates, where Biden struggled for words and seemed surprised by criticism from fellow Democrats, he largely delivered crisp, aggressive responses. He called Sanders “a socialist,” a label that could remind voters of the senator’s embrace of democratic socialism. And Biden slapped at Warren’s proposed wealth tax.
A two-term vice president under Barack Obama, Biden unequivocally defended his former boss, who came under criticism from some candidates for deporting immigrants and not going far enough on health care reform.
“I stand with Barack Obama all eight years, good, bad and indifferent,” Biden declared. His vulnerabilities surfaced, however, in the final minutes of the debate, when he was pressed on a decades-old statement regarding school integration. Biden rambled in talking about his support of teachers, the lack of resources for educators and at one point seemed to encourage parents to play records for their children to expand their vocabulary before segueing into talk of Latin America.
Sen. Kamala Harris pointed to her many uphill battles on her way to becoming a U.S. Senator: “I was the only black elected — woman black elected attorney general in the state, in the country. And each time, people would say, it’s not your time, it’s not your turn, it’s going to be too difficult, they’re not ready for you, and I didn’t listen.”
But most of the candidates in the field seem to be acting as if there’s some law of nature that will magically cause him to lose even without anyone really going after him in a persuasive way. The voters’ current views, however, seem very clear. A large minority of them want a left-winger like Sanders or Warren but the majority do not, and that more moderate majority sees Biden as their champion. Sanders or Warren could change that dynamic by trying to assuage Democrats worries that they are too far left, but currently they are too locked in a Cold War with each other to do that.
And, crucially, the Democratic Party primary electorate as a whole is more moderate than Biden’s two main rivals, Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. Warren and Biden used their stage time Thursday to remind voters of this, flanking Biden to his left — and left of the typical primary voter. The rest of the field by and large didn’t even bother to attack him. If these dynamics hold, Biden could easily cruise to victory.
Amit Jani from New Jersey joins Joe Biden Presidential Campaign Team
Amit Jani, an Indian-American has been hired by the Biden campaign to head its outreach to Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders. Amit Jani, currently in Governor of New Jersey Phil Murphy’s administration, is quitting to join Democratic Presidential candidate Joe Biden’s campaign Sept. 16, 2019. (Photo njlead.org)
Amit Jani, currently with the New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy’s administration, is going to join former Vice President Joe Biden’s campaign as his National Asian American Pacific Islander director. Jani told News India Times he starts in his new position Sept. 16.
In an interview with this writer immediately after the first round of presidential candidate debates, Jani saw Biden as a front runner. “I like Joe Biden because he is more centrist. A lot of folks are going far left. Biden is more in line with the South Asian community which tends to generally be more centrist,” Jani said at that time.
In a press release from South Asians for America, Jani says, “It’s an honor to join a candidate in Vice President Joe Biden, with whom the Asian American Pacific Islander community can trust to represent and reflect the community’s values and principles.”
Jani has also served as the Director of Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) Outreach for the Murphy-Oliver Gubernatorial Campaign, U.S. Senator Bob Menendez and the New Jersey Democratic State Committee. This is a significant step up as Jani will be working on a national level in a front-runner’s race. Biden continues to lead the pack of more than 10 presidential contenders for the Democratic Party primaries in various states concluding with the national convention.
“It is encouraging that campaigns like that of Vice President Joe Biden are making the Asian American Pacific Islander community a priority, given the community’s rapid growth and success in the United States,” said Neha Dewan, co-chair of South Asians For America, adding, “We are proud that Amit Jani will be representing the community at this level and know he will do a tremendous job at making sure the community is visible and it’s input is considered at the grassroots level nationally.”
Jani previously served as a Congressional aide for Congressman Frank Pallone, Jr., D-N.J., in the state’s 6th Congressional District. He is also savvy about matters inside the Beltway, having worked in a legislative capacity for Congresswoman Judy Chu in Washington, D.C., as well as the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus (CAPAC).
He has also served as Committeeman for the Middlesex County Democratic Committee and currently serves on the Advisory Board for the Hudson County Schools of Technology Foundation.
Jani helped establish the New Jersey Leadership Program (njlead) in 2015, a non-profit that helps place South-Asian youth in local government summer internships, and schools them on government, politics and community engagement.
A graduate of Rutgers University, Jani was named as a “30 Under 30 in New Jersey Politics” by Observer Magazine. He also hosts a podcast called Politics and Spice.
Donald Trump agrees to Modi’s wish to keep US away from Kashmir issue
Trump likely to end birthright citizenship
What Americans really think about mass shootings and gun legislation
As Nation Mourns Shootings of Innocent, Trump Wants Background Check Laws While Assuring NRA Gun-Rights Will Be Respected
President Donald Trump said last week he believes he has influence to rally Republicans around stronger federal background check laws as Congress and the White House work on a response to last weekend’s mass shootings in Texas and Ohio.
At the same time, Trump said he had assured the National Rifle Association that its gun-rights views would be “fully represented and respected.” He said he was hopeful the NRA would not be an obstacle to strengthening the nation’s gun laws.
Trump has promised to lead on tougher gun control measures before, including after the 2018 Parkland, Florida, school shooting, but little has come of it. His comments in the wake of the twin massacres marked his most optimistic and supportive words in favor of more stringent gun laws, though he left the details vague and it remained to be seen how much political capital Trump would throw behind marshaling Republicans on the issue.
He said Friday he now is looking for “very meaningful background checks” but is not considering a resurrection of an assault weapons ban. He said he also believes lawmakers will support “red flag” laws that allow guns to be removed from those who may be a danger to themselves and others.
“I see a better feeling right now toward getting something meaningful done,” Trump told reporters when asked why the political environment was different now. “I have a greater influence now over the Senate and the House,” he said at the White House.
“The Republicans are going to be great and lead the charge along with the Democrats,” he declared, saying he’d spoken with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell whom he proclaimed to be “totally onboard.”
But McConnell, thus far, has only committed to a discussion of the issue. Republicans have long opposed expanding background checks — a bill passed by the Democratic-led House is stalled in McConnell’s Senate — but they face new pressure after the shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, that left 31 people dead.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer tweeted in response Friday that McConnell must bring up the House-passed legislation, which Trump had previously threatened to veto. “To get anything meaningful done to address gun violence, we need his commitment to hold a Senate vote on the House-passed background checks legislation,” Schumer said.
As for the NRA, which has contributed millions to help Trump and other Republicans, the gun lobby’s chief executive, Wayne LaPierre, said this week that some federal gun control proposals “would make millions of law-abiding Americans less safe and less able to defend themselves and their loved ones.”
Congressman Souzzi Withdraw Your Statement: Demands Jagdish Sewhani
Congressman Suozzi and Leaders of the Indian American community:
Thank you for coming here in such a large number at such a short notice. This is reflective of the strong sentiment of we Indian Americans, which have been hurt by the letter written by Congressman Suozzi to Secretary of State Pompeo.
In fact, we are agitated by the tone and tenor of the letter. We demand that the Congressman withdraw this letter.
We believe Jammu and Kashmir is an internal matter of India. The removal of discriminatory Article 370 and Article 35 A of the Indian constitution – which by the way was a temporary provision that got to live for 70 years – was purely constitutional and reflects the will of the people of India. It was passed by the Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha by an overwhelming majority. The debate on this was live. The entire world watched it. Even members of the opposition party voted for it.
Congressman Suozzi, I will like to tell you that, revocation of Articles 370 and 35A and reorganization of the State has not made any changes in either the international boundary or the line of control.
Secondly, Congressman Suozzi, the internal matter of India has nothing to do with the situation in Afghanistan. I will like to draw your attention to the statement issued by the Taliban in which it distances itself from the Pakistani effort to link and says that Afghanistan and Kashmir should not be linked together.
Yes, India has deployed a large number of troops in Kashmir and taken several steps that has caused temporary inconvenience to the people there. But these steps have been taken to maintain peace and stability in Jammu and Kashmir. This is because, we Indian Americans believe, of the past bitter experiences that India has had.
Congressman Souzzi, I hope you know it very well, thousands of terrorists are as we speak being trained inside Pakistan by several terrorist organization like Lashkar-e-Taiba or LeT, which has been declared a terrorist organization by the UN and the United States to create disturbance inside Jammu and Kashmir. These terrorists and terrorist groups are being provided shelter and their armed training and finances are being facilitated by the State of Pakistan.
I hope you are aware of not only Congressional records, but also statements made by the top administration officials. For the past several years, the US has been demanding Pakistan to take “irreversible and decisive actions” against terrorist groups.
India has deployed additional troops to stop infiltration of these terrorist groups from across the border to create panic and havoc inside Jammu and Kashmir. We all know the track record of Pakistan in this regard. If any letter you need to write to Secretary Pompeo should be about the nefarious actions of Pakistan.
What India has done is within its boundary. And Pakistan including its leader Prime Minister Imran Khan – please listen to his speech in his parliament – are openly threatening against India, including the N-word. Please use your influence, if any, to ask Prime Minister to stop interfering in India’s internal affairs and take decisive and irreversible actions against terrorists.
Last but not the least, situation in Kashmir is improving. As such, we Indian Americans demand that you immediately withdraw this letter written to Secretary Pompeo.
(Jagdish Sewhani, President, The American India Public Affairs Committee)
Sante Santhanam Chary: Awaiting Prime Minister Modi’s Signature on First Day Envelope, A Guinness Book of World Records
A single man’s army, Sante Santhanam Chary, campaigned and achieved with the United States Postal Service, the creation of the First Day Envelope, commemorating 50 years of Indian Independence in 1997, celebration of the two largest Democracies in the World.
A signature effort on his part, Sante later on obtained key endorsements from 70 US and Indian officials on the same Envelope in a unique show of solidarity and partnership. The envelope has been signed by 6 US Presidents, 8 Indian PMs, Presidents and Governors, Senators and Congressmen, in solidarity, which is a Guinness Book of World Records Effort.
Considered the Only Living Document of this type, now, Sante is on his way to have Prime Minister Narendra Modi sign in on the envelope during his upcoming visit to the United States in September this year.
A Healthcare entrepreneur, CE0 of US Physician Resources International, and Founder past Owner of US Rehab Resources Intl, currently he is a Managing Director of a Nationwide EB 5 investor Green card program (3 months green card for any investor in India or USA.)
His Early Dream and Reality as a kid growing up In Chennai, India, he dreamt of going to the United States in hopes of meeting an American President and attending an IVY league School. “Dreams ultimately exceeded reality after meeting 7 US Presidents and 8 Indian PMs as well as becoming an Alumni of Harvard Business School,” Sante says with a sense of pride. For more than two decades, Sante has focused and gained expertise in promoting US-India partnership programs.
Indian American entrepreneur and lobbyist Sante Santhanam Chary, who attended the 1989 Inaugural Ball for the late President George Herbert Walker Bush, has had the honor of meeting and interacting with seven U.S. presidents, including Jimmy Carter, Gerard Ford, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
As a registered Lobbyist in the US Congress, Washington DC, sante has successfully lobbied and helped pass several legislations on Capitol Hill. He was a member of the U.S.A – CEO Delegation during President Obama’s visit to India. Sante attended Prime Minister Man Mohan Singh’s Welcome Reception in the White House and attended several Indian PM receptions in NYC including PM Modi, Nuclear Bill Signing ceremony by President Bush at the White House.
He wrote a US India partnership Day Modi Bill, got it introduced in the Senate and lobbied to get it passed unanimously, welcoming Modi to the White House 2014 his first Visit as PM to USA since his denial of US Visa.
Sante, an alumni of Harvard Business School and Thomas Jefferson School of Law, is the founder of the Dallas-Texas-based physician staffing firm, US Physician Resources. He is also the managing director of EB5 Coast to Coast, which has regional centers in 34 U.S. states.
He is a Charter Member of US India Chamber of Commerce in Dallas. Currently he serves as an Honorary Advisor to the American Association of Physicians of Indian Origin (AAPI). He represented Plano as an Ambassador of the American Cancer Society, is an Officer of the Harvard Business School Alum Association and is involved in various local community activities. To fulfil the advice of his Alma Mater by giving back to the Community, Sante has focused on staffing Rehab and Physicians in rural areas where the biggest shortage exists, enabling to save millions of American lives.
Sante has hired hundreds of therapists to work in the rural areas across the US and currently recruits and Staffs-Locum Physicians to the rural hospitals/Clinics Nationwide. He is building a Hospital in South Dallas. Staffed hundreds of J1/H1 Physicians across the country for 25 years.
Longest surviving Non Physician supporter of AAPI for 25 plus years, he has worked with many AAPI Presidents, sponsored programs, AAPI Directories, Exhibited, Attended Global Health summits.
He was instrumental in starting Life After Residency Programs for AAPI. He had started TIPS Free Clinic in Dallas, attended and arranged Congressmen and Senator for AAPI legislative Days, organized AAPI Presidents to visit Rastrapathi Bhawan New Delhi several times and the White House.
Sante was one of the 11 exceptional immigrants from across the nation who were recognized and honored by Badmus Law Firm with the Immigrant Journey Awards for demonstrating leadership in business, a chosen profession, or in the civic arena.
Sante has received the ‘One Person Can Make a Difference Award’ from the 100,000-member American Occupational Therapy Association in Washington, D.C., for successfully initiating and lobbying Congress to declare Occupational Therapy Day, a bill which President George H.W. Bush signed into law.
Sante has been Recruiting Physicians for 25 years for the EB5 Green Card in 3 months. Sante is an Alumni of Thomas Jefferson School of Law and Harvard Business School. He can be reached Schary@usdrjobs.com– www.usdrjobs.com; www.ivyceo.com –Schary@Ivyceo.com Phone# 214 597 1571.
Donald Trump’s administration in dramatic immigration crackdown that could ban green cards being given to anyone on food stamps or Medicaid for a year
Biden leads 2020 Democrats by 5 points, followed by Warren, Harris
Joe Biden leads the 2020 Democratic presidential primary race, according to the first NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll of the contest.
The former vice president draws the support of 26% of voters nationally who plan to vote in 2020 Democratic nominating contests, the survey released Thursday found. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., trails him at 19%.
Sens. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., and Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., each get 13% of support, according to the poll. South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg rounds out the top five contenders at 7%. Former Rep. Beto O’Rourke and entrepreneur Andrew Yang both garner 2% of support, and no other candidate in the field of about two dozen draws more than 1%.
The survey largely squares with what recent polls have found about the contenders in the race to challenge President Donald Trump next year. While Biden jumped out to a more substantial lead in early polls, surveys suggest a tighter contest after the first Democratic debate last month introduced more voters to the field.
Much can change before Democratic voters start choosing their nominee. The first-in-the-nation Iowa caucus sits about seven months away.
Only 12% of respondents to the NBC/WSJ poll say they definitely made up their minds about who they will support next year. Asked about their second choices for president, 14% of respondents chose Harris. She was followed by Warren at 13% and Sanders at 12%. Meanwhile, 10% of respondents picked Biden as their second choice, and 8% chose Buttigieg.
The former vice president comfortably leads the field among African-American Democratic primary voters, according to the NBC/WSJ poll. He garners 46% of support, trailed distantly by Harris at 17%. Among non-white primary voters, Biden draws 33% of support, followed by Harris at 16%, Sanders at 15% and Warren at 14%.
Biden leads among primary voters who consider themselves moderate or conservative. Warren has an edge over Sanders among liberal respondents.
Do voters want big or small changes?
One core issue that will define the Democratic primary is whether voters want sweeping overhauls or incremental change. For example, Sanders and Warren have backed a single-payer “Medicare for All” system and massive student debt forgiveness. Biden and others have cautioned against Medicare for All or widespread debt cancellation, calling the plans too expensive.
More than half, or 54%, of Democratic primary voters said they want a candidate who “proposes larger scale policies that cost more and might be harder to pass into law, but could bring major change” on issues such as health care, climate change, college affordability and economic opportunity. Meanwhile, 41% responded that they prefer a candidate who “proposes smaller scale policies that cost less a Among all registered voters, 44% support a single-payer health care system, versus 49% who oppose it.
Harris, one of three black candidates in the field, created the debate’s most discussed moment when she targeted Biden’s record on race and his stance on school busing policy. She told a story about getting bused to school in a newly integrated California school as a child.
The poll also questioned voters about whether they back a candidate based more on ideology or their ability to deny Trump a second term in the White House. Among Democrats primary voters, 51% said they want a candidate who comes close to their views on issues. Meanwhile, 45% responded that they want a candidate with the best chance to defeat the president.
Out of those who consider beating Trump most important, 34% choose Biden, followed by Warren at 21% and Harris at 16%. Among respondents who say they prefer to agree on issues, Biden and Warren are tied at 18%, while Harris garners 17% of support.
The survey was taken after the first Democratic debate in Miami, which appeared to reflect well on Harris and Warren. Nearly half — 47% — of Democratic primary voters who watched at least some of the debates or paid close attention to news coverage of them said Harris most impressed them. About a third responded that Warren impressed them most.
Kamala Harris makes an impressive show at Democratic debate
In preparation for the US general elections 2020, to choose a successor to President Donald Trump, the first round of the Democratic debates featured twenty candidates and six moderators, spread across two nights of primetime TV last week. One of the remarkable visual aspects of the debate was the diversity of candidates on the stages: six women, five people of color, a member of the LGBTQ community, and an age range from 37 to 77. And the most historic part of the debates was the success of women in different roles and on different nights. The story, however, was not that women excelled. The story was that the three individuals excelled, and they happened to be women.
California Senator Kamala Harris was the third-highest-polling candidate in the second night of the debate and emerged the most potent. She spoke thoughtfully and passionately about topics ranging from health care to immigration to race to climate change, which she called a “climate crisis”. And Senator Harris was effectively able to bridge a gap in the party that few have been able to do—she showed herself to be a progressive without labeling herself a socialist. She showed that while she agrees with Bernie Sanders on some ideas, she is not beholden to his ideology. She used her background as a prosecutor effectively. What we saw was someone in tune with the average Democratic voter: an independent individual with a diverse set of views.
Ultimately, three individuals showed their colleagues—candidates and journalists alike—what a stellar performance looks like. Those individuals performed well because they were prepared, thoughtful, and connected well with the constituencies with whom they needed to connect. They showed why they deserved to be on that stage—on either side of the dais. They provided key voices in the most important decision over the next 17 months—the choice over our next president. And as a tribute to how far we have progressed as a society and a culture, it is almost a footnote that those individuals are women. And all those men on stage better have been taking notes.
Rival Democratic presidential contenders pummeled former vice president Joe Biden with searing, emotional critiques Thursday at their first debate — denouncing his record on racial issues and calling on him to pass the torch to a new generation of leaders.
In one of the most dramatic moments of the campaign season, Biden found that his long-held stature as a beloved party leader offered him no respite at the center of a crowded debate stage, given his early domination of national polling in the race.
While candidates debated whether “socialism” was a term to eschew or embrace, Sen. Harris spoke about policies and ideas while leaving her colleagues—most of them male—in the dust. As a woman of color she experiences a high level of scrutiny. Yet, she effectively balanced what was necessary to show herself to be a serious player and a top-tier candidate in the Democratic primary: strength, resolve, compassion, and detail.
And finally, Kamala Harris took the hardest and most effective hit at the Democratic frontrunner, Joe Biden. In an exchange over the issue of race, Kamala Harris got the better of the former Vice President when she asked about his position against school busing in the 1970s. Decades later, the party has a different perspective on race. Harris gave voice to that better than anyone else and instead of making a clumsy reference to Biden’s age (as Congressman Eric Swalwell did early on), she reminded voters that Biden sometimes seems to be from a different era.
Sen. Kamala D. Harris of California, who commanded the event at several points in the night, led the charge. “I do not believe you are a racist. I agree with you when you commit yourself to the importance of finding common ground,” Harris said. “But I also believe, and it’s personal . . . it was hurtful to hear you talk about the reputations of two United States senators who built their reputations and career on segregation of race in this country.”
She accused him of opposing policies that allowed black girls like her to attend integrated schools. “There was a little girl in California who was part of the second class to integrate her public schools, and she was bused to school every day,” she said. “That little girl was me.”
Harris was not the only one to set her sights on Biden. Sen. Michael F. Bennet (Colo.) attacked him for striking a deal with Republican leaders to keep some of George W. Bush’s tax cuts. And Rep. Eric Swalwell (Calif.), 38, opened a generational front, calling Biden, 76, to “pass the torch” to a new generation of leaders.
Trump, who was attending the Group of 20 summit in Japan, was paying attention to the debate and weighed in after all 10 Democrats raised their hands to declare that they would support providing health care for undocumented immigrants.
“All Democrats just raised their hands for giving millions of illegal aliens unlimited health care,” Trump said on Twitter during the debate. “How about taking care of American Citizens first!? That’s the end of that race!”
Asked if they believed crossing the border into the United States without proper documentation should be downgraded from a criminal offense to a civil offense, almost every candidate again raised their hand.
The display, which Republicans seized on as evidence of Democratic support for “open borders,” came a day after the issue of decriminalizing undocumented migrants emerged as a flash point during the first round of the debate. Former housing and urban development secretary Julián Castro sharply criticized former congressman Beto O’Rourke of Texas for opposing legislation to repeal part of U.S. immigration law that allows for criminal prosecution of migrants who come to the United States without proper documentation
Health care dominated the early portion of the debate, with the candidates discussing ideas for moving toward universal coverage. Sanders and Harris were the only two candidates to raise their hands when asked if they would eliminate private health insurance in favor of a government-run plan, echoing similar pledges Wednesday by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) and New York Mayor Bill de Blasio. Harris, one of only two people of color on the stage, asked to speak, positioning herself as the candidate best qualified to handle racial tension — and therefore, best able to stage what amounted to a personal attack on the former vice president.
It was one of many authoritative moments for Harris, who channeled the forceful prosecutor approach that earned her national attention in Senate hearings with Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, Attorney General William P. Barr and others. Since drawing 22,000 people to her January campaign launch in Oakland, Calif., Harris has failed to seize a place in the top three in early polls, hovering just outside the tier consistently occupied by Biden, Sanders and, more recently, Warren.
Harris began making a case against Biden by offering delicate criticism of former president Barack Obama’s record of deporting millions of undocumented immigrants — saying that while she respected Obama, she disagreed with his deportation policy.
She went in for the more direct hit on Biden’s record on race, which ended with her asking if Biden stands by his position on busing today.
Elizabeth Warren on night #1
Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren opened the first night blending a strong opening statement and an answer to the actual question asked. She showed confidence, knowledge, and preparedness. She was calm and put forth policy ideas without being boring and trapped in the weeds. She appealed to a wide range of people—from the white working-class voters believed to be ignored by Democrats in the last election to women to young people to the LGBTQ community.
Of those on the stage, Warren had the most to lose; she was polling highest among the 10 candidates on that stage. She didn’t stumble. There were few attacks on her, and none that was direct. But she also didn’t commit an error that opened her up to attack or broad criticism. Instead, she spoke about gun control, immigration, and health care—issues that can be controversial even within the party—without striking a negative tone with her Democratic colleagues.
In the second hour of the debate, Warren sank back into the shadows without being overshadowed. As Democratic candidates—particularly those polling poorly—became feisty in an effort to make their mark and become a cable news clip, Sen. Warren was quieter. But she also wasn’t a target. Sniping happened more in the second hour but throughout the debate, there were attacks. Julian Castro leveled Beto O’Rourke on immigration. Tulsi Gabbard made Tim Ryan look unprepared on foreign policy. Amy Klobuchar effectively injected the issue of gender by rebutting Jay Inslee on the issue or reproductive rights. But Elizabeth Warren was never a target. Through it all, she was the most effective candidate on the stage on the first night.
Savannah Guthrie, a model of moderation on night #2
Both debate nights featured six moderators peppering the candidates with questions. One individual stood out as a model of who a moderator should be. She held candidates to account, asking tough questions and posed pointed follow-ups. I wrote this spring about the need for better moderators in this year’s debates, and while some, particularly Chuck Todd, did not meet that call, Savannah Guthrie made her profession proud.
She asked specific, well-informed questions that did not pander to candidates’ lofty rhetoric, but asked them to discuss their ideas within the realities of politics. She was able to control the debate without shouting any of the candidates down nor excluding candidates from the conversation. Ms. Guthrie was not a candidate for president, but the moderator can have as powerful of an effect on public understanding as the candidates, and she played an effective role in the debates.
This debate may not be the last time Ms. Guthrie has a hand in a debate featuring presidential candidates. (It should not be.) But what she did over the course of two summer nights among 20 Democrats was to show future moderators how to do their job.
Supreme Court says federal courts don’t have a role in deciding partisan gerrymandering claims
The Supreme Court ruled Thursday last week that federal judges have no power to stop politicians from drawing electoral districts to preserve or expand their party’s power, a landmark ruling that dissenters said will empower an explosion of extreme partisan gerrymandering.
The 5-to-4 decision was written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and joined by the court’s other conservatives. It capped decades of debate about whether federal courts have a role in policing partisan efforts to draw electoral districts in the same way the judiciary protects against racial discrimination.
In his opinion, Roberts did not defend the practice, or say it was constitutional. “Excessive partisanship in districting leads to results that reasonably seem unjust,” he wrote. “But the fact that such gerrymandering is incompatible with democratic principles does not mean that the solution lies with the federal judiciary.”
He was joined by Kavanaugh as well as Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch. Justice Kennedy’s replacement — and former law clerk — Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh needed just a few months to side with fellow conservatives in shutting down those efforts for good.
“We conclude that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts,” Roberts wrote. “Federal judges have no license to reallocate political power between the two major political parties, with no plausible grant of authority in the Constitution, and no legal standards to limit and direct their decisions.”
Both parties employ gerrymandering to advance their interests, but Thursday’s decision set off alarms among Democrats in particular. They are in charge of far fewer states than Republicans and said the ruling will allow Republicans to set the electoral maps for another decade after the 2020 Census unless Democrats find a way to win locally.
At the court, the decision delivered a dramatic example of how a new justice can create monumental change. For years, the justices have stopped short of overturning a state’s plan because of partisan gerrymandering. But then-Justice Anthony M. Kennedy thought there might be a future case so egregious it would require protection of voters’ rights.
Gerrymandering, explained
The process of redrawing district lines to give an advantage to one party over another is called “gerrymandering.” Here’s how it works. The decision comes as the public appears to have grown more outraged by the practice. In the last election, voters in five states either limited the power of state legislators to draw electoral lines or took it away from them altogether by creating independent commissions to do the work.
Federal courts have taken a more robust role, too, striking down gerrymanders in battleground states such as Ohio and Michigan.
Partisan gerrymandering is employed by whatever party is in power; the court was considering a Republican-drawn map from North Carolina and one done by Democrats in Maryland. But for that reason, the decision would seem to strengthen Republican hands when new maps are drawn after the 2020 Census. The GOP is in control of both the governorship and legislature in 22 states, compared with 14 for Democrats.
“In a democracy, voters should choose their politicians, not the other way around, on Election Day,” said Common Cause National Redistricting Director Kathay Feng. “But the Supreme Court today gave the green light to the most extreme partisan gerrymanders, where legislators openly boasted about their partisan motives, stripping not only the people of North Carolina and Maryland, but all Americans, of the right to fair representation.”
‘Unanswerable question’
Justice Elena Kagan dissented for the court’s liberals. “For the first time in this Nation’s history, the majority declares that it can do nothing about an acknowledged constitutional violation because it has searched high and low and cannot find a workable legal standard to apply,” she wrote.
Kagan underscored her disagreement by reading from the bench — at times emotionally — a lengthy excerpt of her dissent.
“The gerrymanders here — and others like them — violated the constitutional rights of many hundreds of thousands of American citizens,” she said.
“The practices challenged in these cases imperil our system of government. Part of the court’s role in that system is to defend its foundations. None is more important than free and fair elections.” She closed by saying her dissent was “with respect but deep sadness.”
She was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.
Roberts acknowledged that the court regularly scrutinizes electoral districts for racial gerrymandering and to ensure districts are the same size, to abide by “one-person, one-vote.”
Ferreting out political motivations would be much harder, he said, and intrusive.
“That intervention would be unlimited in scope and duration — it would recur over and over again around the country with each new round of districting, for state as well as federal representatives,” he wrote.
“Consideration of the impact of today’s ruling on democratic principles cannot ignore the effect of the unelected and politically unaccountable branch of the federal government assuming such an extraordinary and unprecedented role,” Roberts wrote.
He said that despite “various requests over the past 45 years,” the court has never struck a state plan as unconstitutional, and that all of those years of consideration have never produced a test that would allow judges to satisfy “the original unanswerable question (How much political motivation and effect is too much?).”
Roberts said that although federal courts should not be involved, voters were not powerless to stop partisan gerrymandering. Florida voters, for instance, amended the state’s constitution to require “fair districts,” he noted, and there were other avenues available.
But he added: “We express no view on any of these pending proposals. We simply note that the avenue for reform established by the Framers, and used by Congress in the past, remains open.”
In fact, Roberts was in the minority in 2015 when the court split 5 to 4 in upholding Arizona’s independent redistricting commission’s power to draw congressional districts.
Kagan countered Thursday that there was good reason for the court to act now. Advances in data analysis and technology make modern partisan gerrymandering far more extreme and effective, she said. “While bygone mapmakers may have drafted three or four alternative districting plans, today’s mapmakers can generate thousands of possibilities at the touch of a key — and then choose the one giving their party maximum advantage,” she wrote.
“The effect is to make gerrymanders far more effective and durable than before, insulating politicians against all but the most titanic shifts in the political tides. These are not your grandfather’s — let alone the Framers’ — gerrymanders.”
‘Unnecessary reshuffling’
The cases from Maryland and North Carolina provided the perfect tests for the court. In November, a unanimous three-judge panel found that Maryland Democrats had unconstitutionally targeted Republican voters in the state’s 6th Congressional District. The legislature had redrawn the district, which previously stretched across the top of the state, to dip down and take in Democratic strongholds in the Washington suburbs.
After the 2011 redistricting, a Democrat won the seat previously held by a Republican. There was an open election in the district in November, when Democrat David Trone defeated Republican Amie Hoeber by a wide margin.
“The massive and unnecessary reshuffling of the Sixth District, involving one-half of its population and dictated by party affiliation and voting history, had no other cause than the intended actions of the controlling Democratic officials to burden Republican voters by converting the district” into a Democratic one, wrote Judge Paul V. Niemeyer of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit.
Rather than redraw the map, as the federal judges had ordered, Maryland’s Democratic Attorney General Brian E. Frosh appealed to the Supreme Court. That put him at odds with the state’s Republican governor, Larry Hogan, who also won reelection in November and has pushed three times for a constitutional amendment that would have an independent commission redraw boundaries.
Hogan called the court’s ruling “terribly disappointing to all who believe in fair elections.”
“Gerrymandering is wrong, and both parties are guilty,” he said in a statement after the ruling. Hogan said he would reintroduce legislation next year to put the drawing of districts “in the hands of a balanced, fair and nonpartisan commission — instead of partisan politicians.”
The Supreme Court had also sent back the North Carolina case last term, telling a panel of three federal judges to decide whether challengers in that state had the legal standing to bring the case. The judges said they did and also found that the legislature’s efforts violated constitutional protections of equal protection and free speech.
The North Carolina legislature “drew a plan designed to subordinate the interests of non-Republican voters not because they believe doing so advances any democratic, constitutional, or public interest, but because, as the chief legislative mapdrawer openly acknowledged, the General Assembly’s Republican majority ‘think[s] electing Republicans is better than electing Democrats,’ ” wrote Judge James A. Wynn Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit.
“But that is not a choice the Constitution allows legislative mapdrawers to make,” he wrote.
Wynn was referring to comments from a legislative leader after a previous map was struck down as an example of racial gerrymandering that made clear politics was at the heart of the new map.
“I think electing Republicans is better than electing Democrats,” said Rep. David Lewis, a Republican member of the North Carolina General Assembly, addressing fellow legislators when they passed the plan in 2016. “So I drew this map to help foster what I think is better for the country.”
Lewis proposed drawing the map so Republicans could prevail in 10 of the 13 districts, and that’s what happened when voters went to the polls that year, even though Republican candidates won just 53 percent of the statewide vote.
Donald Trump hits out at ‘unacceptable’ India tariffs
US President Donald Trump has called new Indian tariffs on US products “unacceptable” and demanded that they be withdrawn. India imposed retaliatory tariffs on 28 US products earlier in June, after the US announced it was withdrawing India’s preferential trade treatment.
Mr Trump’s criticism came a day after the two sides had downplayed tensions.
He is due to meet Mr Modi on the sidelines of the G20 summit, which begins on 28 June in Osaka, Japan.
Shortly before leaving for Japan, the US president told reporters on the White House lawn that he would be meeting leaders from different countries, “many of whom have been taking advantage of the United States – but not anymore”.
Trump’s tweet appeared to contradict a joint statement made by India’s External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar and visiting US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Wednesday.
It said that “even great friends had differences,” in what was seen as an attempt to downplay tensions.
US-India bilateral trade was worth $142bn (£111bn) in 2018, a sevenfold increase since 2001, according to US figures
But $5.6bn worth of Indian exports – previously duty-free in the US – will be hit since the country lost preferential treatment under America’s Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) – a scheme that allows some goods to enter the US duty-free.
Trade tensions have been simmering between the two countries. Last year, India retaliated against US tariff hikes on aluminium and steel by raising its own import duties on a range of goods.
Mr Trump has also threatened to impose sanctions if India purchases oil from Iran and goes ahead with plans to buy Russian S-400 anti-aircraft missiles.
India to hit back US with retaliatory tariffs
Trump says he’d consider accepting information from foreign governments on his opponents
Rep. Pramila Jayapal: The Story of My Abortion
Members of GOP join the call for Trump’s impeachment – President Trump will not give up the White House voluntarily if he loses the 2020 election
In a party with an epidemic of virtue signaling and hand-wringing, it had to happen. The first GOP representative has called for the impeachment of President Trump.
Rep. Justin Amash (Mich.) defended his calls for President Donald Trump’s impeachment in a Twitter post this weekend, where he said he swore an oath to “support and defend the Constitution, not an oath to do the bidding of one man or one political party.”
After he became the first GOP lawmaker last month to publicly declare that Trump had engaged in an impeachable offense, the Michigan congressman on Saturday defended his calls for the president to be held accountable for the findings in special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia report.
“I swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution, not an oath to do the bidding of one man or one political party,” Amash tweeted. “We have a constitutional republic to uphold liberty and the Rule of Law, not a direct democracy to serve some at the expense of others.”
He said, “Here are my principal conclusions:
1. Attorney General Barr has deliberately misrepresented Mueller’s report.
2. President Trump has engaged in impeachable conduct.
3. Partisanship has eroded our system of checks and balances.
4. Few members of Congress have read the report.
“I offer these conclusions only after having read Mueller’s redacted report carefully and completely, having read or watched pertinent statements and testimony, and having discussed this matter with my staff, who thoroughly reviewed materials and provided me with further analysis.”
Meanwhile, Bill Weld from GOP says, he doesn’t think President Trump will give up the White House voluntarily if he loses the 2020 election. During an appearance on HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher” Friday, the former Massachusetts governor was asked if he thinks Trump will leave if he loses, and Weld said, “Not voluntarily.”
Weld then said of Trump: “He’ll have a run at saying, ‘It was a rigged game so I’m not leaving.’ I don’t think the military and indeed even the Justice Department — the rank-and-file, the investigative agencies — would stand for that in this country.” Trump himself has joked about remaining in office past the two-term limit mark on more than one occasion.
Several more prominent US Democrats have called for the impeachment of President Trump, after Special Counsel Robert Mueller made his first public remarks.
Speaking on Wednesday, May 29th, Mueller said his investigation had not exonerated Trump of obstruction of justice, contradicting the president’s claims. Mueller was tasked with investigating Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. He said charging a sitting president with a crime was not an option.
The issue of impeachment has divided the Democratic Party, pitting a growing number of lawmakers against Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the house and the most senior Democrat. Pelosi has so far resisted the idea, arguing that it would be counter-productive.
But Mueller’s remarks prompted three leading Democratic presidential hopefuls to join the chorus calling for impeachment, bringing the total to 10 of 23 declared candidates.
At the White House on Thursday morning, Trump said Mueller was “a totally conflicted person” and a “true Never Trumper”, referring to his Republican critics in the 2016 White House race. He also said impeachment was a “dirty, filthy disgusting word” and the inquiry was “a giant presidential harassment”.
US ends special trade treatment for India amid tariff dispute
President Trump seems to be standing firm on his decision to impose tariffs on goods imported into America despite an increasing number of threats and retaliatory taxes on US products.
“We’re the bank that everyone wants to steal from and plunder,” he told reporters at the White House.
India and the United States have had a historic strategic partnership, but on the economic front, President Trump seems to have adopted a different attitude. On Monday, he justified hiking tariffs on imports into the US by pointing out that India had up to a 100% tariffs on American products.
India had been the largest beneficiary of a scheme that allows some goods to enter the US duty-free. However that status will end on Wednesday, Mr Trump said.
In March he announced that it would be revoked because India had failed to provide adequate access to its markets, but Mr Trump gave no date. On Friday he said: “It is appropriate to terminate India’s designation as a beneficiary developing country.”
India had said the move would have a “minimal economic impact”, but it comes at a time lower growth and record unemployment in the country.
Until now, preferential trade treatment for India under the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) programme allowed $5.6bn (£4.3bn) worth of exports to enter the US duty free.
The move is the latest push by the Trump administration to redress what it considers to be unfair trading relationships with other countries.
Last month the US ended Turkey’s preferential status under the scheme.
Trump has also imposed tariffs on steel and aluminium imports from countries around the world. Last year, India retaliated against those tariff hikesby raising import duties on a range of goods.
Separately, the US is involved in an escalating trade war with China, and recently threatened tariffs on Mexican goods over illegal migration.
US Congress passes bipartisan retirement bill—here’s what it would mean for you if it becomes law
The House of Representatives passed the Secure Act, a bill backed by both Republicans and Democrats that aims to improve the nation’s retirement system.
If it passes the Senate, it will be sent to President Trump’s desk. “The Trump administration hasn’t taken a formal position on the bill, but lobbyists who support it say they expect the president to sign it into law,” the Wall Street Journal reports.
The changes would be the most significant to retirement plans since 2006, when the Pension Protection Act made it easier for companies to automatically enroll their employees in 401(k) plans.
Here are some of the provisions included in the Secure Act:
Repeal the maximum age for traditional IRA contributions, which is currently 70½
Increase the required minimum distribution age for retirement accounts to 72 (up from 70½)
Allow long-term part-time workers to participate in 401(k) plans
Allow more annuities to be offered in 401(k) plans
Parents can withdraw up to $5,000 from retirement accounts penalty-free within a year of birth or adoption for qualified expenses
Parents can withdraw up to $10,000 from 529 plans to repay student loans
What the bill is addressing
“This is a stepping stone to try to solve that looming retirement crisis, ” Chad Parks, founder and CEO of Ubiquity Retirement + Savings, tells CNBC Make It.
Many Americans are not prepared for their golden years: Just 36% of non-retired adults think that their retirement saving is on track, the Federal Reserve found in its annual study on household well-being. And 25% of Americans have no retirement savings or pension.
Part of the problem is that many workers don’t have access to 401(k) plans, says Parks: “The reality is that almost half of all working Americans don’t have the ability to save for their retirement at their job. That’s primarily because small businesses are hesitant or intimidated by offering either a 401(k) or some sort of payroll-deduct IRA program. ”
A goal of the Secure Act is “to incentivize businesses to put [plans] in place,” Parks explains.
One of the ways it’s doing that is by making it easier for small businesses to band together to offer 401(k) plans.
“Companies that have no commonality could all join the same plan,” Amy Oullette, director of retirement services at Betterment, tells CNBC Make It. This could potentially give small businesses access to lower cost plans with better investment options and lower administrative fees.
What the bill could mean for you
By making it easier and cheaper for small businesses to offer 401(k) plans, if the bill becomes law, “millions more people, hypothetically, should have access to the ability to save at work,” says Parks.
The bill would also allow more part-time workers to participate in 401(k) plans. Currently, employers generally can exclude people who work less than 1,000 hours per year from its defined contribution plan. But with the new bill, “any employee who has worked for you for at least three years and at least 500 hours a year is now able to participate in your retirement plan,” says Parks.
This is key, says Parks, because investing in a 401(k) is “the most effective way to get people to save for retirement.”
It’s a particularly effective savings vehicle for a few reasons:
It offers significant tax advantages. Contributions are made pre-tax so, the more you put in, the more you reduce your taxable income.
The money is automatically taken from your paycheck before you have the chance to spend it. That makes it a painless way to save for the future. The idea is that, over time, your money will grow and compound until you can start withdrawing it at age 59½. If you withdraw before then, you usually have to pay a penalty.
Often, companies offer a 401(k) match, which is essentially free money. Employers will match whatever contribution you put towards your 401(k) up to a certain amount. For example, if you choose to put four percent of your salary into your account, your employer will put that same amount in as well, in effect doubling your contribution.
The Senate still has to pass the bill and then the president would have to sign it into law. Still, when it comes to changes in the retirement system, “this is truly the biggest thing we’ve seen in many years,” says Oullette.
U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta rules against Trump in fight over president’s financial records
President Trump on Monday lost an early round of his court fight with Democrats, after a federal judge ruled the president’s accounting firm must turn over his financial records to Congress as lawmakers seek to assert their oversight authority.
Trump called the 41-page ruling from U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta of Washington, D.C. “crazy” and said he would appeal, adding: “We think it’s totally the wrong decision by obviously an Obama-appointed judge.
Lawyers for the president are fighting document and witness subpoenas on multiple fronts, and Mehta’s ruling came hours after former White House counsel Donald McGahn was directed not to appear before a congressional committee seeking testimony about his conversations with Trump.
Congressional Democrats have vowed to fight for evidence of potential misconduct by Trump and those close to him, and the president’s legal team is broadly resisting those efforts. How those fights play out in court in the months ahead could impact the 2020 presidential race.
In his decision, Mehta flatly rejected arguments from the president’s lawyers that the House Oversight Committee’s demands for the records from Trump’s accounting firm, Mazars USA, were overly broad and served no legitimate legislative function.
“It is simply not fathomable,” the judge wrote, “that a Constitution that grants Congress the power to remove a President for reasons including criminal behavior would deny Congress the power to investigate him for unlawful conduct — past or present — even without formally opening an impeachment inquiry.”
Trump has argued those congressional inquiries are politically motivated attacks on the authority of the presidency, while Democrats insist the subpoenas are essential to ensuring no president is above the law.
When the lawsuit was first filed, Trump’s private attorney Jay Sekulow said the president’s team “will not allow Congressional Presidential harassment to go unanswered.”
The company said in a statement that it will “respect the legal process and fully comply with its legal obligations.”
While Democrats scored the first court victory in the fight over the president’s financial records, it’s unclear how many of these disputes will reach higher courts, or how those courts might rule.
Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.), chairman of the House Oversight Committee, said the ruling “lets America know that we have ground to stand on and that we have a legitimate argument and the courts support them. . . . I’m glad it was a strong decision, that bodes well hopefully in the future for an appeals process.”
Mehta’s ruling threw historical shade at Trump, drawing comparisons to former president James Buchanan, whom historians have blamed for failing to prevent the Civil War and is generally considered one of the country’s worst leaders. He, too, complained bitterly about “harassing” congressional inquiries.
Judge Mehta noted that Congress also launched an investigation into the conduct of President Bill Clinton before he entered the White House.
“Congress plainly views itself as having sweeping authority to investigate illegal conduct of a President, before and after taking office,” he wrote. “This court is not prepared to roll back the tide of history.”
The judge gave the White House a week to formally appeal the decision, adding “the President is subject to the same legal standard as any other litigant that does not prevail.”
An appeal could test decades of legal precedent that have upheld Congress’ right to investigate — a legal battle that is just one part of a broader effort by House Democrats to examine Trump’s finances, his campaign, and allegations he sought to obstruct justice in special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s Russia investigation.
In the Mazars case, Mehta cut down Trump’s lawyers’ complaint that Congress was usurping the Justice Department’s powers to investigate “dubious and partisan” allegations of private conduct, by inquiring into whether Trump misled his lenders by inflating his net worth.
Rather, Mehta said, a congressional investigation into illegal conduct before and during a president’s time in office fits “comfortably”with Congress’ broad investigative powers, which include an “informing function,” or power to expose corruption.]
Trump, his three eldest children and companies also are attempting to block a subpoena, issued by the House Financial Services Committee, seeking Trump’s bank records from Deutsche Bank AG and Capital One Financial Corp. A federal judge in Manhattan is set to hear that case Wednesday. The pace of the president’s legal fights with Congress is intensifying.
House Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) said Monday that his panel will vote Wednesday to enforce its subpoena for the redacted portions of Mueller’s report, along with certain underlying materials.
Schiff accused the Justice Department of granting Republican lawmakers’ document requests and denying demands from Democrats.
“The refusal by the department, if it persists, will be a graphic illustration of bad faith and a unwillingness to cooperate with lawful process,” Schiff said.
On Monday, the Justice Department issued a formal legal opinion saying that McGahn, the former top White House lawyer, could not be required to appear before lawmakers in response to a congressional subpoena.
Democrats subpoenaed McGahn to testify Tuesday morning, hoping he would become a star witness in their investigation into whether Trump obstructed justice. As detailed in Mueller’s report, McGahn provided critical testimony about several instances of potential obstruction by Trump.
“The Department of Justice has provided a legal opinion stating that, based on long-standing, bipartisan, and constitutional precedent, the former counsel to the president cannot be forced to give such testimony, and Mr. McGahn has been directed to act accordingly,” said White House press secretary Sarah Sanders in a statement. “This action has been taken in order to ensure that future presidents can effectively execute the responsibilities of the office of the presidency.”
The 15-page legal opinion written by Assistant Attorney General Steven A. Engel argues McGahn cannot be compelled to testify before the committee, based on past Justice Department legal memos regarding the president’s close advisers.
The memo says McGahn’s immunity from congressional testimony is separate and broader than a claim of executive privilege.
The immunity “extends beyond answers to particular questions, precluding Congress from compelling even the appearance of a senior presidential adviser — as a function of the independence and autonomy of the president himself,” Engel wrote.
Trump told reporters the action was taken “for the office of the presidency, for future presidents. I think it’s a very important precedent. And the attorneys say that they’re not doing that for me, they’re doing it for the office of the president.”
Those comments underscore the high stakes of Trump’s current standoff with Congress — if either side loses a legal ruling by an appeals court, or the Supreme Court, the reverberations could be felt far beyond the Trump administration, changing the balance of power between the executive and the legislative branches of government for years to come.
In the fight over McGahn’s testimony, the Justice Department insists that immunity from testimony does not evaporate once a presidential adviser leaves the government because the topics of interest to Congress are discussions that occurred when the person worked for the president.
As a private citizen, McGahn is not necessarily bound by the White House directive, or the Justice Department memo, to refuse to comply with the subpoena. There was no immediate word from McGahn’s lawyer on whether he would comply with or defy the White House.
The move to bar McGahn from answering lawmakers’ questions angered House Democrats eager to hit back at what they view as White House stonewalling. The defiance raises the possibility that the House will hold McGahn in contempt of Congress, as House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) has threatened.
“It is absurd for President Trump to claim privilege as to this witness’s testimony when that testimony was already described publicly in the Mueller report,” Nadler said in a statement. “Even more ridiculous is the extension of the privilege to cover events before and after Mr. McGahn’s service in the White House.”
An increasing number of Democrats also want to begin impeachment proceedings against Trump even though House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) last week privately downplayed the possibility and encouraged her members to focus on their policy agenda.
Some Democrats believe opening an impeachment inquiry will strengthen their hand in trying to force the White House to comply with document requests and witness testimony, including McGahn’s.
House Democrats were hoping to make McGahn their key witness as they seek to unpack the findings of the Mueller report — particularly regarding questions of whether Trump obstructed justice.
GOP Rep calls for Trump’s impeachment
A Michigan Republican and member of the House Freedom Caucus accused President Trump of “impeachable conduct” in a break with his party. Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) tweeted Saturday that the president’s actions to potentially obstruct the now-shuttered special counsel investigation warrant impeachment by the House. He also accused Attorney General William Barr of “deliberately misrepresenting” Robert Mueller‘s report of the investigation’s findings.
“Here are my principal conclusions: 1. Attorney General Barr has deliberately misrepresented Mueller’s report. 2. President Trump has engaged in impeachable conduct. 3. Partisanship has eroded our system of checks and balances. 4. Few members of Congress have read the report,” Amash wrote Saturday afternoon.
“Mueller’s report reveals that President Trump engaged in specific actions and a pattern of behavior that meet the threshold for impeachment,” the Michigan Republican continued. “Mueller’s report identifies multiple examples of conduct satisfying all the elements of obstruction of justice, and undoubtedly any person who is not the president of the United States would be indicted based on such evidence.”
In other tweets, Amash accused Barr of “sleight-of-hand” to obscure the findings of Mueller’s report in his own summary released to Congress earlier this year. “In comparing Barr’s principal conclusions, congressional testimony, and other statements to Mueller’s report, it is clear that Barr intended to mislead the public about Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s analysis and findings,” Amash wrote.
Amash has been a frequent critic of Trump. He has previously said he will not rule out running for the Libertarian Party nomination for president next year.
Amash also co-sponsored a resolution to block Trump’s emergency declaration earlier this year.
“Barr’s misrepresentations are significant but often subtle, frequently taking the form of sleight-of-hand qualifications or logical fallacies, which he hopes people will not notice.”
Non Violence on Lord Mahavir and Gandhi birth anniversaries
Religious freedom conditions in India on a downward trend in 2018: US Commission Report
The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recently released an annual report that examines the state of religious freedom in several countries around the world, including India. The countries are categorised into two tiers, with India once again being placed in Tier 2, “for engaging in or tolerating religious freedom violations that meet at least one of the elements of the “systematic, ongoing, egregious” standard for designation as a “country of particular concern,” or CPC, under the International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA),” the report states. In its key findings, it notes that India saw religious freedom conditions continued on a downward trend in 2018, noting that last year, “approximately one-third of state governments increasingly enforced anti-con- version and/or anti-cow slaughter laws discriminatorily against non-Hindus and Dalits alike.”
The report adds that, in 2018, “approximately one-third of state governments increasingly enforced anti-con- version and/or anti-cow slaughter laws discriminatorily against non-Hindus and Dalits alike,” and notes that Christians were also the targets were mob violence “under accusations of forced or induced religious conversion.” Moreover, the report notes that in cases involving mob violence against a person over false accusations of forced conversion of cow slaughter, “police investigations and prosecutions often were not adequately pursued.”
In its key findings for India, the report takes note of the Supreme Court of India’s highlighting of “deteriorating conditions for religious freedom in some states” in 2018, stating that the court concluded that “certain state governments were not doing enough to stop violence against religious minorities, and in some extreme cases, impunity was being granted to criminals engaging in violence.” The report also highlights Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s silence on these issues, saying he “seldom made statements decrying mob violence,” and noting that “certain members of his political party have affiliations with Hindu extremist groups and used inflammatory language about religious minorities publicly.” These were some of the points the report notes to explain why India was once again termed a Tier 2 country.
The report outlines recommendations to the United States’ government, saying that it should “press the Indian government to allow a USCIRF delegation to visit the country and meet with stakeholders to evaluate conditions for freedom of religion or belief in India”. It calls for working with the Indian government to formulate a years-long strategy to curb religion-driven hate crimes by “pressing state governments” to prosecute public figures, including government officials, “who incite violence against religious minority groups through public speeches or articles.” The recommendations for this strategy also include bolstering the training and capacity of state and central police forces to prevent and punish instances of religious violence, encouraging the passage of the Protection of Human Rights (Amendment) Bill, 2018, and assisting the law ministry to work with states to increase prosecution of hate crimes and hate speech targeting religious minorities, among others.
The report says that the conditions for religious freedom have declined in the last decade, stating, “A multifaceted campaign by Hindu nationalist groups like Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sang (RSS), Sangh Parivar, and Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) to alienate non-Hindus or lower-caste Hindus is a significant contributor to the rise of religious violence and persecution.” It notes that in 2017, the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) “reported that communal violence increased significantly during 2016,” highlighting that human rights organisations criticised the NCRB last year not adequately including data on mob violence or lynching. Given this, “the NCRB delayed its 2018 report to collect data on nearly 30 new crime categories, which will include hate crimes, lynching, and crimes based on fake news,” the report states.
The report notes that in 2018, Minister of State at the Ministry of Home Affairs Hansraj Ahir told Parliament that 111 people were killed and 2,384 people were wounded in 822 communal clashes in 2017. By contrast, in 2016, 86 people were killed and 2,321 were injured in 703 clashes, the report offers, later adding that independent organisations that monitor hate crimes found that 2018 saw more than 90 religion-based hate crimes that resulted in 30 deaths and many more injuries. However, the report also notes that in December 2018, Home Minister Rajnath Singh said that communal attacks had declined 12%, compared to the peak in 2017.
The report also notes how “institutional challenges” have contributed to religious freedom concerns, with “the police and courts overwhelmed,” and highlighting how “worsening income inequality has left more Indians suffering from poverty and has exacerbated his- torical conditions of inequality for certain religious and social minorities.”
The report takes note of anti-conversion laws that are in force in seven states in India, noting that the fundamental right to freedom of religion “includes the ability to manifest one’s beliefs through expression intended to persuade another individual to change his or her religious beliefs or affiliation voluntarily.” The report outlines that in 2018, anti-conversion laws were primarily enforced against Christians and Muslims who were proselytising, and says that religious minority leaders and others were also arrested under these laws. It highlights the case of Hadiya, whose marriage had been embroiled in accusations of ‘love jihad’. The report does not mention this phrase, but takes note of “inflammatory allegations of an organized campaign to coerce Hindu women to marry Muslim men and convert to Islam,” stating that the National Investigation Agency investigated this alleged campaign and eventually concluded that there was no evidence for it. Meanwhile, the report mentions ‘ghar wapsi’ ceremonies, in which those born as Hindus who converted to another religion are converted back, stating that “In some cases, these conversion ceremonies reportedly involve force or coercion,” but noting that it is difficult to determine if such conversions are voluntary or not.
Notably, the report, while discussing the role of Hindutva/Hindu extremist groups, highlights that “moderate and extreme forces within the Hindutva movement point to the rise in the Muslim population from constituting 10 percent of the national population in 1951 to 14 percent in 2011, which in their view necessitates “mitigation” against the growing Muslim community.” It later takes note of the fact that numerous cities have been renamed, such as Allahabad and Faizabad, abandoning the names that had been given during the Mughal period, stating that this “has been perceived as an effort to erase or downplay the influence of non-Hindus in Indian his- tory and as an attack on Muslims within India today.”
The report also discusses cow vigilantism, noting that “cow protection” mobs, “a new phenomenon,” have engaged in more than 100 attacks since May 2015 that have led to 44 deaths and around 300 people being injured. “In 2018 alone, cow protection lynch mobs killed at least 13 people and injured 57 in 31 incidents.” It also takes note of hate crimes against religious minorities, including anti-Muslim rhetoric in West Bengal in April 2018, threats against Christians in Tamil Nadu in October 2018.
Per the report, impunity for large-scale incidents of communal violence persists in India, “without proper accountability or recompense.” Probes and prosecution of those allegedly responsible have been “ineffective” or “absent,” and victims have said that the government has not adequately helped in rebuilding “destroyed neighborhoods, homes, and places of worship.” The report emphasises that while the Supreme Court and fact-finding commissions “have noted common characteristics and causes of such violence, including incitement to violence against religious minorities by politicians or religious leaders,” the failure “to address those common characteristics and causes or to hold perpetrators accountable have contributed to a culture of impunity for such violence.”
Other than incidents and threats that are communal, the report also discusses the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA), 1976, and details how it has been used to target non-governmental organisations “with missionary and human rights portfolios,” who have been banned from operating in India. It notes that in November 2018, the government “demanded that 1,775 organizations provide further explanation for their failure to submit use of foreign funds over the last six years; these organizations included many non-Hindu religious groups, some Hindu trusts managing major temples, and secular human rights groups.” The report explains that some Hindus, including some “Hindutva extremists,” “perceive Christian missionaries converting Dalits to be particularly threatening, as there are nearly 200 million Dalits in India,” adding, “Many observers assert that it was this fear of mass conversion that led to the 2017 shutdown of Com- passion International, a U.S.-based Christian charity, which provided services to nearly 150,000 Indian children.”
The report also has a section on Assam’s National Register of Citizens (NRC), which has jeopardized the Indian citizenship of more than four million people. “Widespread concerns have been raised that the NRC update is an intentional effort to discriminate and/ or has the effect of discriminating against Muslims, and that the discretion given to local authorities in the verification process and in identifying perceived foreigners to be excluded from the draft list will be abused,” it notes. It also highlights the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, saying that “concerns about the targeting of Muslims through the citizenship process were separately exacerbated” by its introduction and passage in the Lok Sabha; the bill, which would have provided citizenship to migrants from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan “as long as they were not Muslim,” was dropped in the Rajya Sabha in February 2019, after the reporting period.
The report also discusses religious freedom for women, highlighting the Kathua case, in which an eight-year-old child was “abducted, gang-raped, and murdered as a message and threat to her Muslim nomadic community in Kashmir.” It notes that a priest, his son and a special police officer were charged in the case, and other police officials were charged with covering up the crimes. The report notes that while many protested the incident, “several others organized in support of the men charged, including members of the BJP.” It also highlights the Sabarimala Temple case, saying that following the Supreme Court’s ruling that adult women be permitted to enter the temple, “women attempting to enter the temple were physically attacked and others who publicly stated that they would try to enter the temple received hate mes- sages including death threats both online and in-person.”
The report also mentions a handful of positive developments with regards to religious freedom in India, such as the decline in communal violence in 2018, and the Supreme Court’s directive to the state and central governments to tackle mob violence, asking them to “pursue an 11-point plan, including compensation to hate crime victims, fast-tracking prosecutions, assigning senior police officers to deal with communal issues, and other provisions.” The report also mentions some progress in mob violence cases, citing June 2017’s Alimuddin Ansari lynching case, in which 11 accused were sentenced to life imprisonment in March 2018. Per the report, the Ministry of Minority Affairs was also granted a 12% increase in its budget.
Separately, Tenzin Dorjee, chair of the USCIRF, wrote a note in which he disagreed that religious freedom in India was deteriorating, stating, “While India must address issues related to religious freedom, I respectfully dissent on the views that India’s religious freedom conditions continued on a downward trend, the government allowed and encouraged mob violence against religious minorities, and some states are involved in ‘systematic, ongoing, and egregious violations of religious freedom.’” He notes that in the 30+ years he spent living in India as Tibetan refugee, he “mostly witnessed the best of India and sometimes worst due to intractable interreligious conflicts.” He acknowledges that “religious divides and power struggles” resulted in the Partition of India and Pakistan, and also “contribute to egregious violations of religious freedom and tragedies,” but says that in spite of these concerns, “India exists as a multifaith and secular country.” Dorjee says that as a Tibetan refugee, “the most vulnerable minority among all minorities” in Karnataka and Himachal Pradesh, where he lived, he “experienced full religious freedom,” citing China’s systematic attacks on the Tibetan community in comparison. Dorjee also highlighted isolated incidents of religious harmony, such as a Muslim village donating land and money to build a Hindu temple, and a Hindu head priest carrying a Dalit youth on his shoulders into the Chilkur Balaji Temple’s inner sanctum amid cheers from a huge crowd. He takes note of Nathowal village in Punjab, where Hindu and Sikh communities helped rebuild an old mosque, and Muslims and Hindus helped work at a Sikh gurudwara. “People in this village reported to the Times of India that they celebrated together annual multifaith festivals such as Diwali, Dusshera, Rakhi, Eid, and Gurupurab,” Dorjee writes, opining that such “stories speak for India’s multi- faith civilization, religious freedom, and interreligious harmony.” He ends with an appeal to the Indian government “to continuously respect religious freedom and strive to promote India as a vibrant country of and for the multifaith people.”
The complete report may be read here. The section on India is on pages 174-181.
https://www.uscirf.gov/sites/
India-US Trade War
6 facts about U.S. moms
Need to institutionalize U.S.-India Strategic Partnership Stresssed
Indian American Rep. Ami Bera (D.-Calif.) has called to institutionalize the U.S.-India strategic partnership across various sectors, vowing to bring in legislation to bring the tow nations closer than ever before. Bera, 53, predicted that this legislation, once enacted, would make India as much an ally of the U.S. as are its NATO partners and other close allies such as Japan and South Korea.
Speaking at the Capitol Hill 2019 Spring Conference of the U.S.-India Friendship Council last month, he said the legislation would “codify the importance of the U.S.-India partnership,” and while acknowledging that some of the aspects of the pending legislation “exists in other places, we’d like to incorporate language about the U.S.-India Enhanced Cooperation Act, which already exists, but put it into a comprehensive bill that will put India on a par with other major allies.”
Bera pointed out that necessarily anchoring this comprehensive legislation would be the growing U.S.-India defense and military partnership, which has grown to be the crown jewels of the strategic partnership between the two countries, which has led to “us increasingly recognizing India as a strategic partner.”
He said in the legislation, “We would look at how we can work with India to develop technologies like artificial intelligence, etc., so that you can get Indian companies and U.S. companies working together in a strategic fashion.
“We’d like to authorize the DOD (Department of Defense) to assist India reducing purchases from countries we may mutually view as adversaries and certainly those we view as adversaries,” Bera said, and added, “and we’d also like to assist India to increase its own capacity in self-defense.”
He also said that “we’d require the Department of Defense to conduct regular military engagements and dialogues with India, particularly in the western Indian Ocean region, where we already recognize India as having a vital role in protecting the Indian Ocean and keeping those lanes of commerce open.
“We see that partnership as critical and we already conduct major naval and defense exercises,” with India, he said.
Bera said that this comprehensive legislation would also push for the State Department to “advance India’s membership into APEC (Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation) forum because we believe this is an important vehicle by which India can continue to seek its free and open trade across Asia.
“We also think it’s important to authorize and work with India in partnership to help advance and promote aid in third nations, and the countries in Africa is an example,” he said.
Bera pointed out that “India has much deeper and older relationships with Africa, and our understanding is that we can work together with USAID (U.S. Agency for International Development) and other partners with India and go into those third developing countries — that could be a critical partnership for both countries.”
He also said another vital sector that he would like to see institutionalized would be in the education sector because already, each year, we know that hundreds of thousand of Indian students come to the U.S. to study.”
Bera said by the same token, “It will be in our interest to foster this partnership — where more American students go and study in India. “And, again, these planks would continue to move the U.S.-India partnership forward together,” and help institutionalize it, he added.
Bera said that “as we introduce this legislation, we would be looking to the U.S.-India Friendship Council and other organizations to help work with us as we move this legislation forward. “We still believe that the U.S.-India relationship can be that defining relationship in the 21st century and certainly a strategic relationship,” he added.
Meanwhile, Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), in this remarks, lauded Swadesh Chatterjee, the founder and chair of the Friendship Council for “your incredible guidance and mentorship over the years.
“You have been a trail-blazer for the Indian-American community, when it was hard to get appointments with (Congressional) staff assistants, let alone getting members of Congress elected,” he said, turning to Chatterjee.
Khanna, who represents Silicon Valley, continued that “that kind of dedication is something that I’ve never forgotten in terms of the commitment that people like Swadesh have shown and we’ve grown on the sacrifices that people like you’ve made.”
He recalled that it “took people like Swadesh and Ramesh Kapur, who were willing to speak out of turn, who were willing to chase down members of Congress down the hallways, just trying to get a word in. They refused to be passive observers of democracy, but were willing to get into people’s faces in Congress to move forward.”
Khanna continued, “I’ve always believed that their generation and the sacrifices that they’ve made for this country and the community, will always be far more than my generation.”
He said that thanks to this older generation, “Our generation was handed a lot of good opportunities in life — good families, good education, and it’s never lost on me how many people have paved the way for our being able to be in public service.”
Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D.-Ill.), speaking at the evening reception, pointed out to the scores of political and community activists who were on hand spanning three generations, that it was the U.S.-India Friendship Council led by Chatterjee and a handful of other community leaders who were catalytic in lobbying the Congress to pass the U.S.-India Civil Nuclear Agreement in 2008, which was a transformational moment in the history of the relationship between Washington and New Delhi.
He said that “really showed the Indian-American community coming of age in terms of building those bridges between the U.S. and India that will last.”
Krishnamoorthi also made a strong pitch for more members of the Indian-American community to run for public office, including the U.S. Congress and help swell the ‘Samosa Caucus,’ of four Indian- American lawmakers in the House.
“If you dream it, you can do it,” he said, and added, “The fact that a guy like me with 31 letters in his name that 99 percent of my constituents cannot pronounce is testament to the greatness of this country and the fact that anyone can do anything they want to do in this country.”
Joe Biden Enters 2020 Democratic Presidential Race
Former Vice President Joe Biden announced his presidential candidacy on Thursday, April 25th by pointing to a “battle for the soul of this nation,” in what may be the last major addition to a sprawling lineup of Democratic candidates competing to challenge President Trump in 2020.
The former vice president and Democratic senator from Delaware announced his candidacy in a three-and-a-half-minute video released Thursday, April 26th. His first rally as a presidential contender is scheduled for Monday at a union hall in Pittsburgh.
Biden, 76, had been wrestling for months over whether to run. His candidacy will face numerous questions, including whether he is too old and too centrist for a Democratic Party yearning for fresh faces and increasingly propelled by its more vocal liberal wing.
“We are in the battle for the soul of this nation,” Biden said in the video. “I believe history will look back on four years of this president and all he embraces as an aberrant moment in time. But if we give Donald Trump eight years in the White House, he will forever and fundamentally alter the character of this nation, who we are, and I cannot stand by and watch that happen.”
Biden hopes that he can win back white, working-class voters in Midwestern states like Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. He rarely misses a chance to tout his blue-collar hometown of Scranton, and aides believe he is one of the few candidates in the race who could claw back rural counties that Trump won in a landslide in 2016.
Recent polls by Harvard-Harris and Monmouth University showed Biden with the strongest support among voters without a college education in the Democratic field.
The Wall Street Journal reports, Biden has sought to secure commitments for large-dollar donations in the weeks before his announcement. His plan, the Journal reported, was to announce a similarly large fundraising haul as candidates like Sen. Bernie Sanders and Beto O’Rourke, without the small-dollar donor network of some of his rivals.
Critics say his standing in polls is largely a function of name recognition for the former US senator from Delaware, whose more than four decades in public service includes eight years as President Barack Obama‘s No. 2 in the White House.
Known for his verbal gaffes on the campaign trail, Biden failed to gain traction with voters during his previous runs in 1988 and 2008. He dropped his 1988 bid amid allegations he plagiarized some of his stump oratory and early academic work. But his experience and strong debate performances in 2008 impressed Obama enough that he tapped Biden as his running mate.
Biden decided against a 2016 presidential bid after a lengthy public period of indecision as he wrestled with doubts about whether he and his family were ready for a grueling campaign while mourning his son Beau, who died of brain cancer in May 2015. His son had urged him to run.
Biden’s candidacy will offer early hints about whether Democrats are more interested in finding a centrist who can win over the white working-class voters who went for Trump in 2016, or someone who can fire up the party’s diverse progressive wing, such as Senators Kamala Harris of California, Bernie Sanders of Vermont or Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts.
As former Vice President Joe Biden entered the 2020 presidential race Thursday, he immediately looked past the vast field of Democratic rivals and threw down the gauntlet toward President Trump, casting the race as a “battle for the soul of the nation.” His strategy amounts to a bet that ideology and policy matter less to Democratic primary voters than their desire for victory over a president who has upended social and political values that liberals hold dear.
Indo-American Arts Council Presents “The Colors Of Her Heart”
Choreographed and directed by Mallika Sarabhai, The Colors of Her Heart is a spellbinding, dance-theatre-multimedia production, that uses the haunting lyrics of British musician Samia Malik with the creative visual imagery and story creating skills of Yadavan Chandran. On the stage, six women tell their poignant stories bringing awareness into the issue of gender inequality.
What do all women across the world share as experiences? Whatever the color of their skins, whatever their language and culture, the single identity that leads to their exploitation and violence against them is their gender. With songs in Urdu and English and stories that are both personal and universal, the heartful composition draws you into the world of women and their lives, dwelling on their experiences of vulnerability, love, pain, rejection, discrimination, and violation.
The ballet shifts between powerfully spoken monologues as accounts of the performers, group and solo dances, emotive pieces, even a ghazal that come together rhythmically with the bilingual live music by Samia Malik. The pieces reflect upon the common thread that binds all women, bringing together not just the stories of six women, but the pains, travails and victories of women of all nations.
The Colors of Her Heart plays at The Ailey Citigroup Theatre on 405 W 55th St, New York, NY 10019 on April 17. The show starts at 7PM and there will be a talkback with the Mallika Sarabhai, Yadavan Chandran and Samia Malik at the end of the show.
Mallika Sarabhai is one of India’s leading choreographers and an accomplished Kuchipudi and Bharatanatyam dancer, who has specialized in using the arts for social change and transformation.She first came to international notice when she played she played the role of Draupadi in the Peter Brook’s play The Mahabharata for 5 years, first in French and then English, performing in France, North America, Australia, Japan and Scotland.
Mallika has won many accolades during her long career, the Golden Star Award is one of them, which she won for the Best Dance Soloist, Theatre De Champs Elysees, Paris 1977. As well as a dancer, Sarabhai is a social activist. She manages the Darpana Academy of Performing Arts located at Ahmedabad, a centre for the arts and for the use of arts as a language for behavior change.
The IAAC supports all the artistic disciplines in classical, fusion, folk and innovative forms influenced by the arts of India. We work cooperatively with colleagues around the United States to broaden our collective audiences and to create a network for shared information, resources and funding. Our focus is to help artists and art organizations in North America as well as to facilitate artists from India to exhibit, perform and produce their work here. The IAAC is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization. All donations are tax-deductible to the fullest extent allowable by law. For information please visit www.iaac.us.
Mueller’s report is worse for Trump than Barr had us believe
Special counsel Robert Mueller’s 448-page report, made public las week in redacted form has had President Trump furious at what those pages have revealed to the public. Nearly half of those pages show how the president reacted to and fumed over the Russia probe, seeking to undermine it, curtail it, and even fire the special counsel himself.
That the contents of the Mueller report diverge so sharply from Barr’s portrayal has long seemed possible, based on his initial summary and subsequent appearance before Congress.
The attorney general Barr has implied that Mueller left that choice to Barr. In truth, the report makes clear that Mueller felt constrained by the Justice Department policy that a sitting president could not be indicted.
Barr was appointed as the nation’s AG after writing a memo casting the Mueller investigation as illegitimate.
Democrats want Robert Mueller, the man who collated the report, to publicly testify before congress about the work he has done. It comes after a redacted version of the document was released on Thursday.
Democrat congressional leaders Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer in a joint statement said the report painted a “disturbing picture of a president who has been weaving a web of deceit, lies and improper behavior”.
The party has begun moves to try to obtain the full, unredacted document and to have Mueller testify before Congress. There is a growing division in the Party as to impach the President or leave it to the people to decide on the fcate of the President in the next elections in 2020.
A Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted March 25 and March 26 (after the Barr letter summarizing the Mueller findings) found that the Barr summation did not move the needle on public opinion. Forty-eight percent said they believed “Trump or someone from his campaign worked with Russia to influence the 2016 election.” This was down 6 points from the same question asked a week earlier, before the report was sent to the Attorney General.
And 53 percent said “Trump tried to stop investigations into Russian influence on his administration,” down 2 points from the same question asked a week earlier. Responses to the questions fell predictably along party lines, with Democrats believing in the President’s guilt and Republicans believing in his innocence. Barr’s comments today will be greeted as complete vindication by the President’s supporters and as a whitewash by his opponents.
But what everyone, supporters and opponents alike, seem to agree on is that they want to make their own decision. The Quinnipiac poll conducted from March 21-25 found that 84 percent of the general public wanted the Mueller Report made available to the public.
According to the report, Trump reacted to Mueller’s appointment as special counsel in May 2017 as follows: “Oh my God, this is terrible. This is the end of my presidency. I’m fucked.”
Trump’s legal team has said it completely exonerates the president. But while the report does say the Muller Team was unable to prove that president had colluded with the Russians, it did not come to a firm conclusion on the issue of obstruction of justice.
It also reveals several occasions when Trump tried to hinder the investigation itself – including attempting to have Mueller removed.
The 448-page redacted document is the result of a 22-month investigation by Mueller, who was appointed to investigate alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible collusion with the Trump campaign.
There may be something in the redacted report that changes public opinion, but as Trump’s former aid Steve Bannon once noted, the president’s firing of FBI Director James Comey may go down as the biggest mistake in “maybe in modern political history.”
The first section of the Mueller report details Russia’s efforts to upend the 2016 presidential campaign, and scrutinizes the many interactions between Trump associates and Russia. But it’s in the second half, which provides a litany of instances in which Trump may have obstructed justice, that the real bombshells await.
And then, as Mueller lays out in sometimes lurid detail, in at least 10 episodes over the ensuing months Trump sought to block or stop that very investigation. He did so even as Mueller doggedly made public the “sweeping and systematic fashion” in which the Russian government attacked the 2016 presidential election, and brought serious criminal charges—and won guilty pleas—from a half-dozen of the president’s top campaign aides.
“If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state,” the report says. “Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgement.
“Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”
The report says that potential obstruction of justice by the president only failed because members of his administration refused to “carry out orders.” Investigators viewed the president’s written responses to their questions as “inadequate” but chose not to pursue a potentially lengthy legal battle to interview him.
Mueller then points to Congress, not the attorney general, as the appropriate body to answer the question of obstruction. As Mueller wrote in what seems to be all but a referral for impeachment proceedings, “The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the president’s corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.”
Indian-American PAC endorses Harris for president Tulsi Gabbard outraises Kamala Harris among Indian-American donors
An Indian-American political action committee (PAC) has endorsed Democratic presidential candidate Senator Kamala Harris of Indian and Jamaican descent for the 2020 presidential race.
“In such a critically important election, one that will shape policy and politics for generations to come, Indian Americans can’t afford to stay on the sidelines,” the Indian American Impact Fund’s co-founder Raj Goyle said in a statement last week. Goyle, also a former Kansas state lawmaker, said it was for that reason that the organization chose to be “the first Indian-American or Asian-American political organization to endorse” Harris, whose mother was from Chennai, Tamil Nadu, media reports say.
“In the coming months, we look forward to mobilizing our network of resources to ensure Senator Harris secures the Democratic nomination and is elected the next president of the U.S.,” Goyle said.
Harris thanked the Impact Fund for the endorsement. “This endorsement and the support of the Indian American Impact Fund and its members means so much to me,” she said in a statement. “Together, we will fight for an America that restores the values of truth and justice and works for working people, from raising incomes to expanding health care.”
The Impact Fund Executive Director and former Maryland state delegate Aruna Miller said her group was “proud to endorse” Harris. “She is a tested leader who has demonstrated, throughout her career, a strong commitment to our community’s progressive and pluralistic values,” Miller said.
Harris, one of the first Democrats to launch the presidential campaign in this election cycle, is also one of the front-runners at the moment. If elected, she will become the first woman, the first Indian-American, the first Asian American, and the first African American woman to serve as president.
Meanwhile, Sen. Kamala Harris released 15 years of her tax returns las week, showing that she and her husband earned almost $1.9 million in 2018. Most of the adjusted gross income of $1,884,319 in 2018 reported by Harris, D-Calif., came from her husband Doug Emhoff’s earnings as a lawyer. Harris reported $157,352 in Senate salary and $320,125 in net profit from the memoir she released before announcing her campaign.
Tulsi Gabbard, the first Hindu US Congresswoman and Democratic 2020 presidential candidate, has vastly outraised Senator Kamala Harris of Indian and Jamaican descent among Indian-American donors in the 2020 presidential fundraising derby so far.
Gabbard, who is a Hindu American but not Indian-American, has raised more than $237,000, from the community. In comparison, Harris, daughter of an Indian American mother and Jamaican American father, has so far raised only $72,606 from the community, according to AAPI Data, which publishes data and policy research on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders.
In a clear sign that Harris, one of the strongest contenders in the crowded 2020 Democratic field, has not been fully embraced by the community, the Senator even trails New Jersey’s Corey Booker among Indian-Americans, the American Bazaar reported on Saturday.
Booker has raised more than $131,000 from Indian Americans. A big reason for that is New Jersey is home to nearly 370,000 Indian Americans. But Harris’ home state of California has the largest Indian American population in the country – more than 712,000. Yet, her campaign hasn’t received traction among Indian American campaign donors, the AAPI Data research reveals.
Historically, Indian Americans have donated huge amounts to congressional and gubernatorial candidates from the community. However, their track record in bankrolling candidates from the community so far is spotty. In the last presidential election cycle, the campaign of former Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal attracted only lukewarm support of the community.
US warns ‘India-based call center scam industry’
The US government has initiated action against the “India-based call center scam industry”, Assistant Attorney General Brian Benczkowski has warned while announcing the extradition of an Indian citizen from Singapore allegedly involved in a multi-million dollar racket.
Hitesh Madhubhai Patel, 42, who operated the HGlobal call centre in Ahmedabad, was extradited to face trial on charges relating to the scam that allegedly ripped off thousands of Americans of millions of dollars using people in call centers impersonating US government officials, the Justice Department said last week.
Patel was arrested and produced on Friday in a federal court in Houston, Texas, where Magistrate Judge Peter Bray remanded him to custody, according to a court document obtained by IANS. He is to appear in court again on Wednesday.
“This extradition once again demonstrates the (Justice) Department’s unwavering commitment to disrupt and dismantle the India-based call centre scam industry and to work with our foreign partners to hold accountable those who perpetrate schemes that defraud our citizens,” Benczkowski said. “Patel operated a call centre that allegedly preyed upon vulnerable U.S. citizens as part of a massive fraud scheme”.
After Patel flew from India to Singapore, he was arrested there on September 21, 2018, at the request of the US, and Singapore Law Minister K. Shanmugam issued a warrant on March 25 to hand him over to America, the Justice Department said.
“This historic extradition should serve as notice to transnational criminal organisations of the lengths DHS (Department of Homeland Security) is willing to go to arrest those who would enrich themselves by extorting the most vulnerable in our society,” said David Green, the Special Agent in charge of the DHS Houston Field Office.
He warned of global action against the owners, managers and employees of overseas call centers, saying: “Our pursuit of justice for victims of their scams does not stop at the water’s edge.” Patel was charged in 2016 along with 55 people, most of them of Indian descent, and five companies in the alleged massive scam.
The India-based call centers allegedly impersonated tax or immigration officials and called people in the US and threatened them with arrest or deportation if they did not pay what they claimed were back taxes or fines, according to the charge sheet filed against them.
When their victims agreed to pay, the people at the call centre arranged for payments to be collected in the form of store cards or wire transfers by their co-conspirators in the US, who cashed them often using stolen identities and laundered the money, according to the charges. In other instances, they offered people fake loans and collected fees for the lending that never materialized.
Since 2013, the tax official impersonation scam “has been on a relentless path, claiming more than 15,000 victims who have collectively suffered over $75 million in losses”, said Treasury Inspector General J. Russell George. Federal agencies have identified 140 scammers, including Patel, “who have preyed upon taxpayers”, he added.
The fraud calls originating from India that are received by millions of Americans are hurting the country’s reputation as a hub for back office, tech support and call centre operations.
In recent weeks, at least three persons of Indian descent have been sentenced to prison terms in cases of tax official impersonation.
A federal court in Florida sentence an Indian on Thursday to eight and a half years in prison and last month another person of Indian origin to eight years and nine months.
In a separate case, Indian was sentenced to 16 months in prison by a federal judge in Atlanta earlier this month.