US switches to new H-1B system that favors foreigners in American colleges

The US announced that starting April 1, it will switch to a new system for processing H-1B petitions that will give priority to foreign workers with advanced degrees from an American institution of higher education, over those hired abroad, in India, China and other countries.

The new system will also introduce electronic registration of petitions, which, however, will be suspended for the upcoming H-1B 2020 season that will typically kick off from April 1.

The United States has announced that starting April 1, it will switch to a new system for processing H-1B petitions that will give priority to foreign workers with advanced degrees from an American institution of higher education, over those hired abroad, in India, China and other countries.

The new system will also introduce electronic registration of petitions, which, however, will be suspended for the upcoming H-1B 2020 season that will typically kick off from April 1.

The switch in the selection process is expected to increase the number of beneficiaries with advanced degrees from US institutions by an estimated 16% (or 5,340 workers). It is in line with President Donald Trump’s repeated assertions in support of merit-based immigration.

Francis Cissna, director of the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), which runs the H-1B visa programme, gave a nod to Trump in a statement announcing the new rule and said, “US employers seeking to employ foreign workers with an American masters or higher degree will have a greater chance of selection in the H-1B lottery in years of excess demand for new H-1B visas.”

Trump had himself signalled the new rule in a tweet earlier this month in which he had said “changes are soon coming which will bring both simplicity and certainty to your stay, including a potential path to citizenship”. And, he had added, “We want to encourage talented and highly skilled people to pursue career options in the US.”

The US grants 65,000 visas to foreigner workers hired abroad for speciality professions sponsored by American employers every year under a congressionally mandated cap. Another 20,000 visas are granted to foreigners with advanced degree from US colleges and universities.

More than 70% of the total visas go to Indian beneficiaries hired by both US companies such as Amazon, Microsoft and Google, and US arms of Indian outsourcing giants such as Infosys, TCS and Wipro.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kamala Harris is ‘Glamour Woman of the Year 2018’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kevin Thomas elected to New York Senate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 NRI Congressmen re-elected to US Congress

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Mikhail Gorbachev, former president of the Soviet Union

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

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

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

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

ADVERTISEMENT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suspicious package sent to Sen. Kamala Harris discovered

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bob Menendez names several Indian Americans to NJ Leadership Council

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

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

These include:

Senator Vin Gopal of the 11thLegislative District

Burlington County Freeholder Balvir Singh

Hoboken Mayor Ravi Bhalla

Passaic County Freeholder Assad Akhter

East Orange Mayor Ted Green

Teaneck Mayor Mohammed Hameeduddin

Prospect Park Mayor Mohamed T. Khairullah

Paterson Councilman Al Abdelaziz

Edison Democrat Shariq Ahmed

Edison Democrat Nadia Kahf

Analia Mejia of Working Families

33th Legislative District Assemblyman Raj Mukherji

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

A FAKE NEWS DATABASE – By CRISTIANO LIMA and ANDREW BRIZ

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

What is “fake news,” really?

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

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

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

Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Supreme Court of India Sabarimala rulings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Majority Indian Americans disapprove of Trump: new research finds

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Richard WikeBruce StokesJacob PoushterLaura SilverJanell Fetterolf and Kat Devlin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

China seen as a rising power

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nikki Haley, US Ambassador to United nations, resigns

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Shame!’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Presumption of innocence’

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

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

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

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

‘Praying for the country’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shifting priorities for dealing with illegal immigration

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Americans’ views of relationships with other nations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Opinions on tariffs, tax bill little changed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

America is richer than ever but most Americans aren’t

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are the products that will cost you more:

  1. Home Décor and Appliances

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

  1. Electronics

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

  1. Clothing

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

  1. Travel Goods

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

  1. Food & Beverages

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

  1. Auto & Parts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rep. Krishnamoorthi introduces Bill to give H-1B visa workers job flexibility, reduce Green Card backlog

Indian-American Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi has introduced legislation in the House of Representatives which gives H-1B workers the flexibility to switch jobs and reduce the Green Card backlog by expanding education-based exemptions from per-country caps for H-1B holders.

According to a PTI report, Krishnamoorthi and Republican lawmaker Mike Coffman, introduced the HR 6794, or the “Immigration Innovation Act of 2018” in the House of Representatives on September 13 and if passed by the Congress and signed into law by the President, the bill would reform and streamline the H-1B high-skilled worker visa program while increasing investment in American Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education for students in K-12, post-secondary or college programs.

According to Krishnamoorthi and Coffman, the bill will: Propose to ban employers from hiring H-1B holders to replace American workers while increasing funding for STEM education at the K-12, post-secondary and university levels.

All fees collected for H-1B visas and conditional Green Cards will go to state-administered funds to promote domestic STEM education and worker training including financial aid and research initiatives, which will expand investments in advanced training for the domestic workforce, ultimately reducing the demand for foreign workers while helping the American economy grow.

Remove the existing annual exemption cap on H-1B visas for holders of American master’s degrees or higher, which is currently exempting 20,000 per year, for individuals who are sponsored for a Green Card while narrowing education-based cap exemption to those with American PhDs.

Creates lottery prioritization for cap-subject petitions in the order of: American master’s degree or higher, foreign PhDs, and the American STEM bachelor’s degrees while establishing a grace period to allow H-1B visa holders to change jobs without losing their legal status to permit mobility under qualifying circumstances.

Subjects employers who have more than five H-1B employees to a penalty for each employee who worked less than 25 percent of the first work-authorization year and prohibits employers from hiring an H-1B visa worker to replace an American worker while also providing work authorization for spouses and dependent children of H-1B visa workers at the prevailing wage.

Proposes to eliminate per-country limit for employment based green cards and adjusts per-country caps for family-based green cards along with enabling the reassignment of unused visas from previous years.

Creates new conditional Green Card category to allow American employers to sponsor university-educated foreign professionals through a separate path from H-1B and requires employers to attest that no American worker has been displaced for the Green Card holder, undertaking recruitment efforts to fill the position with an American worker and offer prevailing wage not less than $100,000 per year.

The bill exempts spouses and children of employment-based green card holders, holders of American STEM master’s degrees or higher and individuals with extraordinary skill in arts and sciences from caps.

The bill also enables F-1 student visa holders to seek permanent resident status while they are still a student or during their Optional Practical Training.

After dissent within Administration, Trump calls it treason

An anonymous senior Trump administration official assailed President Donald Trump’s “amorality” and reckless decision-making in a New York Times op-ed published on  September 5th and said he or she is part of a “resistance” working to thwart Trump’s worst impulses.

“The dilemma — which (Trump) does not fully grasp — is that many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations,” the Times piece reads. “I would know. I am one of them.”

The Times said disclosing the name of the official, who is known to the publication, would jeopardize the official’s job, and that publishing the piece anonymously was the only way to deliver an important perspective to readers. Major newspapers almost never publish unnamed op-ed pieces. At The New York Times, it is very rare, but not entirely unprecedented.

The op-ed amplified the sense of paranoia inside the West Wing and resurrected the feeling that the White House is under assault from within, as per reports. Trump administration officials, struggling to mount a defense to Woodward’s tell-all book, were stunned when the op-ed was published Wednesday afternoon, left guessing and quietly pointing fingers at other officials as they tried to figure out who wrote it, even texting reporters possible guesses.

Speculation rose that it could be someone in the vice president’s office given the op-ed’s inclusion of the word “lodestar” and several speeches Mike Pence gave using the unusual term.

Pence’s deputy chief of staff and communications director Jarrod Agen denied that Pence or anyone from their office authored the New York Times op-ed.

The op-ed came on the heels of reports based on a damning book about Trump’s presidency by veteran journalist Bob Woodward and amplified the sense that top advisers to the President have serious concerns about his conduct in office and leadership abilities. And it is likely to compound Trump’s sense of paranoia that he is surrounded by advisers who may be duplicitous and untrustworthy.

Trump quickly lashed out, dismissing the op-ed as “really a disgrace” and “gutless” and assailing the author and The New York Times for publishing the anonymous opinion piece. “We have somebody in what I call the failing New York Times that’s talking about he’s part of the resistance inside the Trump administration,” Trump said. “This is what we have to deal with. And you know the dishonest media … But it’s really a disgrace.”

He then pivoted to his accomplishments, claiming that “nobody has done what this administration has done in terms of getting things passed and getting things through.”

Trump later tweeted a pointed and unsubstantiated attack on the Times, questioning if the author of the op-ed exists. If the author does exist, the organization should publicly identify the individual, Trump said.

“Does the so-called ‘Senior Administration Official’ really exist, or is it just the Failing New York Times with another phony source?” Trump tweeted. “If the GUTLESS anonymous person does indeed exist, the Times must, for National Security purposes, turn him/her over to government at once!”

The op-ed offers a firsthand account that corroborates key themes of Woodward’s book: that some of the President’s top advisers have a dim view of the commander in chief and are quietly working to thwart Trump’s most reckless and impulsive decisions from becoming a reality.

The author writes the resistance inside the Trump administration is not the same “resistance” of the left against the President and said they and like-minded colleagues working to thwart some of Trump’s actions “want the administration to succeed … But we believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic.”

“That is why many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump’s more misguided impulses until he is out of office.”

The result, the official writes, has been a “two-track presidency” in which Trump’s own worldview — uttered both in public and private — diverges from some key actions taken by the administration, like those involving additional sanctions against Russia.

A dramatic alternative to the quiet effort to thwart some of Trump’s more concerning actions was, however, considered, the official said: invoking the 25th Amendment.

The official alleges there were “early whispers within” Trump’s Cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, which would require a majority of Cabinet officials to declare to Congress they believe the President is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.” Explaining the “resistance” effort, the senior administration official offers a damning portrait of Trump’s character and leadership ability.

The author argues the “root of the problem is the President’s amorality” and assails Trump’s “reckless decisions,” “erratic behavior” and what the official describes as the President’s “impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective” leadership style.

“The root of the problem is the President’s amorality. Anyone who works with him knows he is not moored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision making,” the official writes. “Although he was elected as a Republican, the President shows little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets and free people.” Trump officials react

It’s impossible to know in the moment when a presidency begins to dissolve. But after a devastating 48 hours, it’s already clear that Donald Trump’s will never be the same. These statements and those behind this “resistance movement” warn that the President of the United States is not only unfit to be the most powerful man in the world, but is a venal mix of ignorance and ego, pettiness, malignancy and recklessness that is putting the republic and the world itself at risk.

Pompeo and Mattis hail strong partnership between Indian and USA at New Delhi meet

The US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Defense Secretary Jim Mattis praised the deepening ties between the world’s two largest democracies after their first joint meeting with their Indian counterparts in New Delhi, after The United States and India signed a major military communications agreement Thursday, September 6th,  highlighting the growing partnership between the two nations as they seek to manage a rising China.

The agreement, which had been under discussion for more than a decade, will allow India to receive military-grade communications equipment from the United States and permit the exchange of real-time encrypted information on platforms used by the Indian and U.S. armed forces.

Pompeo and Mattis were in India for their first joint meeting with their Indian counterparts, a conclave aimed at showcasing areas of agreement between the world’s two largest democracies — while downplaying areas of tension.

The relationship between the United States and India has entered “a new era,” Pompeo said, adding that Thursday’s meeting was “symbolic of our increasingly close partnership.”

At a grand strategic level, both the United States and India are eager to develop closer ties. Each views the other as a useful partner in checking China’s ambitions in Asia and as an ally in counterterrorism efforts. Sales of U.S. military equipment to India have increased considerably over the past decade, and the United States is now India’s second-largest arms supplier.

The Communications Compatibility and Security Agreement, signed Thursday by Mattis and his Indian counterpart, is a type of foundational accord that the United States uses as a framework for military cooperation with other countries. Washington has such agreements with fewer than 30 nations, Reuters news agency reported.

India had hesitated to conclude the agreement partly out of worries about the United States getting access to Indian military communications.

“If the Indian establishment is willing to move forward with politically tricky but operationally meaningful agreements, I take that as a good sign,” said Joshua White, who served as a senior adviser on South Asian affairs at the National Security Council under the Obama administration.

Indeed, India’s defense minister, Nirmala Sitharaman, sounded ebullient about the prospects for further collaboration. Defense cooperation “has emerged as the most significant dimension of our strategic partnership and a key driver of our overall bilateral relationship,” she said Thursday. The momentum in that arena has “imbued a tremendous positive energy” to U.S.-India relations, she said.

But in realms apart from defense, the relationship has progressed more haltingly. India is one of many targets in President Trump’s crusade to reduce the U.S. trade deficit, and the two countries have imposed tit-for-tat tariffs. The Trump administration is pushing India to increase its imports of U.S. goods and to drastically reduce its purchases of Iranian oil or face sanctions.

Thursday’s meeting was supposed to be held in Washington but was postponed twice by the Trump administration. Pompeo struck a conciliatory tone about the areas of friction between the two countries in remarks to reporters after a half-day of meetings in New Delhi.

Many countries, including India, “are in a place where it takes them a little bit of time to unwind” oil imports from Iran, he said. “We’ll work with them, I’m sure, to find an outcome that makes sense.” The Trump administration has withdrawn from a 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran and is reimposing nuclear-related sanctions that were lifted as part of the deal.

Pompeo also said the United States would work with India on another area of concern — India’s upcoming purchase of a Russian missile and air-defense system known as the S-400. The purchase will violate sanctions instituted by Congress on arms purchases from Russia, but lawmakers have allowed the possibility of a presidential waiver.

Vanita Gupta questions DOJ’s stand in lawsuit against Harvard

A coalition of civil rights and Asian-American advocacy organizations, led by the former head of the Department of Justice’s Office of Civil Rights, Vanita Gupta, have slammed the amicus brief filed by the department in support of the lawsuit filed by Asian-American students and parents against Harvard’s race-conscious admissions policy.

Harvard is being sued by a group calling itself Students for Fair Admissions which is working to have the school dismantle its race-conscious admissions policy, which it said discriminates against Asian-American students.

The Justice Department on Aug. 30 in its amicus brief, said that Harvard has “failed to demonstrate that it does not discriminate on the basis of race,” siding with the Asian-American students, including some Indian-Americans suing the Ivy League school’s race-based admissions policy as discriminatory. The brief said, “Harvard is engaging in outright racial balancing.”

Last year, the DOJ opened a Title VI investigation into Harvard’s admissions process, based upon a complaint filed by several Asian-American organizations that also included some Indian-American organizations, arguing that admissions should be based strictly on merit.

Some reports have suggested that if Harvard and other institutions that have a race-conscious admissions policy eliminate these policies, the Asian-American student population would rise to as much as 40 percent for a population of approximately 6 percent in the U.S. while the African-American and Hispanic-American students admitted could drop drastically with the African American students admissions being reduced to less than 2 percent.

“Despite a lot of these programs, blacks and Hispanics are underrepresented in colleges and universities today even more so than they were in 1980,” Gupta said.

The Supreme Court has upheld use of race as a factor in college admissions as recently as 2016.

“The Justice Department’s investigation is unprecedented,” Vanita Gupta, who had led the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division under President Obama, had said in 2017. She is now president and CEO of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. “The Justice Department has never been a party in these cases directly investigating an institution.”

Gupta has filed an amicus brief opposing Harvard’s motion for summary judgment in the case. Gupta’s filing argues that the Justice Department, under Jeff Sessions, “opposes constitutionally sound strategies that colleges and universities are using to expand educational opportunity for students of all backgrounds.”  The Justice Department recently filed a statement of interest in the lawsuit which has called Harvard’s affirmative action policy discriminatory against Asian-Americans.

Gupta called justice officials’ action one more example of “the administration’s contempt for efforts to build a more inclusive, just society. It is now backing Edward Blum’s longstanding political agenda to undermine diversity in education and opportunity for millions of young people.”

Blum, a financial adviser considered the leading force behind Students for Fair Admissions, had filed the lawsuit charging Harvard with discrimination against Asian-Americans in its admissions practices. Gupta said that Sessions’ recent action shows his department “has once again abdicated its responsibility to enforce the law and protect the civil rights of all people in America.”

Sessions’ office, however, stands by its filing. “The Department of Justice has the responsibility to protect the civil rights of the American people. This case is significant because the admissions policies at our colleges and universities are important and must be conducted lawfully,” Sessions said in a press release. The DOJ press release said that “Harvard admits that it uses race to decide whether to admit certain applicants to the college. Under Supreme Court precedent, Harvard must demonstrate that its use of race does not result in illegal discrimination.” The department said that Harvard has failed to do so and plaintiffs should be allowed to proceed to a trial.

“No American should be denied admission to school because of their race,” said Sessions. “As a recipient of taxpayer dollars, Harvard has a responsibility to conduct its admissions policy without racial discrimination by using meaningful admissions criteria that meet lawful requirements.”

“The Justice Department clearly seems to be trying to tee up another case for the Supreme Court. It looks like right now that they are looking for a sympathetic, attractive group of plaintiffs — here it’s Asian-Americans students who’ve been denied admission at Harvard — and to try to drive a wedge among communities of color by kind of pitting Asian-Americans against African-American and Hispanic students,” Gupta had said.

National Council of Asian Pacific Americans (NCAPA) agreed with Gupta. Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, which also represents over two dozen Asian-American groups, joined by some senior education faculty at leading universities, for its part, filed an amicus brief in support of Harvard’s race-conscious admissions policy.

Anita Malik wins Democratic primary in Arizona, will face David Schweikert in November

Anita Malik was declared winner in the Primary for the 6th Congressional District race on Friday, August 31st after her narrow lead over Heather Ross continued to grow and the number of uncounted votes kept shrinking.

Malik’s victory in the Scottsdale-based district represents a minor upset over Heather Ross, who had the backing of several labor unions and high-profile congressional endorsements. Malik now faces four-term Republican incumbent David Schweikert in November.

“Arizonans deserve someone who will work hard to represent them and build a stronger future for our community, our state and our country,” Malik said in a statement Friday night. “As the daughter of immigrants — people who believed in the promise of America — I want to help everyone have that opportunity to build a better life for themselves and their families.”

Ross said, “Although I am disappointed in the result of this primary, I thank all of my supporters from the bottom of my heart. For the first time, we had a competitive Democratic primary and gave the people of (the 6th District) something to vote for.”

Democrats have higher hopes in the traditionally red district this year, partly because Schweikert is under an ethics investigation over allegations of misspending and other issues.

Malik works in technology and communications and embraced a relatively liberal policy agenda on worker benefits, job creation and inequality. She supports transitioning to a single-payer health-care system, paid parental leave, guaranteed paid sick leave and adjusting the federal minimum wage with inflation. The current federal minimum wage, $7.25 an hour, hasn’t been adjusted since 2009.

Malik favors raising the income limit that is taxed to help fund Social Security as a way to shore up that program’s finances. She also wants to incentivize more private employers to match contributions to employee-retirement programs.

The House Ethics Committee decided to open that investigation after a review by the House Office of Congressional Ethics, an independent body that refers cases only when it has already found substantial evidence of a violation. Schweikert maintains the investigation is rooted in an accounting problem that has since been resolved. His longtime chief of staff quit last month, effectively ending the investigation into his actions.

The northeast Valley district runs from Cave Creek and Carefree south to the Salt River Reservation near Tempe. It stretches from Deer Valley east to Fort McDowell and includes Scottsdale and Paradise Valley.

John McCain, War Hero, Senator, Presidential Contender, Dies at 81

John S. McCain, the proud naval aviator who climbed from depths of despair as a prisoner of war in Vietnam to pinnacles of power as a Republican congressman and senator from Arizona and a two-time contender for the presidency, died on Saturday at his home in Arizona. He was 81.

According to a statement from his office, Mr. McCain died at 4:28 p.m. local time. He had suffered from a malignant brain tumor, called a glioblastoma, for which he had been treated periodically with radiation and chemotherapy since its discovery in 2017.

Despite his grave condition, he soon made a dramatic appearance in the Senate to cast a thumbs-down vote against his party’s drive to repeal the Affordable Care Act. But while he was unable to be in the Senate for a vote on the Republican tax bill in December, his endorsement was crucial, though not decisive, in the Trump administration’s lone legislative triumph of the year.

A son and grandson of four-star admirals who were his larger-than-life heroes, Mr. McCain carried his renowned name into battle and into political fights for more than a half-century. It was an odyssey driven by raw ambition, the conservative instincts of a shrewd military man, a rebelliousness evident since childhood and a temper that sometimes bordered on explosiveness.

Nowhere were those traits more manifest than in Vietnam, where he was stripped of all but his character. He boiled over in foul curses at his captors. Because his father was the commander of all American forces in the Pacific during most of his five and a half years of captivity, Mr. McCain, a Navy lieutenant commander, became the most famous prisoner of the war, a victim of horrendous torture and a tool of enemy propagandists.

Shot down over Hanoi, suffering broken arms and a shattered leg, he was subjected to solitary confinement for two years and beaten frequently. Often he was suspended by ropes lashing his arms behind him. He attempted suicide twice. His weight fell to 105 pounds. He rejected early release to keep his honor and to avoid an enemy propaganda coup or risk demoralizing his fellow prisoners.

He finally cracked under torture and signed a “confession.” No one believed it, although he felt the burden of betraying his country. To millions of Americans, Mr. McCain was the embodiment of courage: a war hero who came home on crutches, psychologically scarred and broken in body, but not in spirit. He underwent long medical treatments and rehabilitation, but was left permanently disabled, unable to raise his arms over his head. Someone had to comb his hair.

Sen. Tim Kaine acknowledges Indian-Americans’ emerging influence in D.C.

(From Reports by Aziz Haniffa at India Abroad)

The clout and influence of the Indian diaspora is evident in the nation’s capital, as evidenced by so many Indian-American groups in the metropolitan area, said Sen. Tim Kaine (D.-Va.). The former vice presidential candidate made his remarks at the India Independence Day celebrations on Aug. 19, which drew more than 300 to the Falls Church Marriott Fairview Park.

“This is an important community and that’s why you have so many officials who are here because we value so much the Indian American community in Virginia and nationally,” he said. “When I was governor and I had assembled my entire cabinet, a newspaper in India pointed out to me that three of my cabinet members were Indian-American, and I wasn’t even aware of it. They were in my cabinet because they were so fantastic. Many of you know and remember the team that I assembled and you see that in a bipartisan way across the Commonwealth.”

Kaine said it was the linkages between both countries – sharing common values, diversity and pluralism – that makes it imperative that this relationship has always been celebrated in the U.S.

Kaine, the ranking Democrat on both the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committees, recalled a 2015 visit he made to India as member of both committees to the Mazagon Docks in Mumbai. The Mazagon Dock Shipbuilders Limited, is India’s prime shipyard and is where the country’s warships and submarines are manufactured for the Indian Navy.

He said that he and the congressional delegation wanted to see India’s shipbuilding industry because his own state of Virginia is central in U.S. shipbuilding. “I’ll never forget the pride of India’s shipbuilders showing off the Mazagon Docks,” he said. He said upon his return to the U.S. he spoke to the secretary of the Navy telling him Indian naval officials needed to come visit U.S. shipbuilders in Newport News, Virginia and on the Gulf Coast.

Kaine said the Pentagon insisted “we don’t like to take people from foreign nations to our shipyards because of concerns about security and secrecy.” He said he pointed out that “our Indian colleagues and the Indian military does more joint exercises with the United States military than they do with any other nation in the world, and they were so proud and so welcoming to show us their shipbuilding industry, and so the least we can do is have that same relationship with them.”

Within a year, the Pentagon hosted a delegation of India’s key naval officials, he said. They visited Virginia’s shipyards and many others, he said, where some of the most sophisticated U.S. warships and submarines were being assembled. “This is just the tip of the iceberg of the cooperation that we can do together,” he said. “We are now so connected, and that’s what tonight is all about.”

Indian Ambassador to the U.S. Navtej Sarna, in a message to the gathering, noted: “India’s relationship with the United States is substantive and wide-ranging and is set to grow further in strategic and economic spheres. The contribution of the Indian-American community to this relationship has been critical.” Sarna and other embassy officials who had been slated to attend the event were not present as the government of India observed a weeklong period of mourning after the death of former Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee.

Raj Shah was honored with a Distinguished Service Award at India’s 72nd birthday celebration hosted by a coalition of Indian-American organizations under the aegis of the National Council of Asian American Associations. The gathering of about 300 attendees was held at the Falls Church Marriott Fairview Park and also celebrated Shah’s work for what the keynote speaker called “a commitment to our nation.”

Nima Kulkarni wins Primary: Set to Win Kentucky House Seat

Indian American Nima Kulkarni is almost all set to win the Kentucky state House District 40 seat after winning the Democratic primary over three other candidates, including incumbent Dennis Horlander. The candidate, who has the backing of organizations such as the Indian American Impact Fund is expected to win the seat if she receives more votes than Republican Joshua Neubert this November.

Kulkarni is an immigration attorney, advocate and founder of the New Americans Initiative, a nonprofit dedicated to educating and informing the local community about immigration related issues.

When she was 6, her family immigrated from India to Louisville to ensure her brother could get the special education that was not available in India.

She went on to receive bachelor’s and M.B.A. degrees from the University of Louisville and then her law degree from the University of D.C. David A. Clarke School of Law.

The owner of the Indus Law Firm which specializes in immigration, employment and business law, Kulkarni in 2013 was honored by Business First in its 40 Under 40 list.

She serves on the board of the Community Foundation of Louisville, Louisville Public Media, the Indian Professional Council of Kentucky and the Beaded Treasures Project, which empowers refugee and underprivileged women in Louisville.

She is also a member of Greater Louisville Outstanding Women, the Rotary Club of Louisville, and serves as county ambassador for the Greater Louisville International Professionals.

Kulkarni’s platform is five-fold. Among the issues she is campaigning to address if elected include standing with labor and work for a living wage for all, supporting new and innovative ways to stimulate the state’s economy while ensuring public employee pensions, supporting equality and fair immigration policies, supporting a strong education system to give students the skills necessary for success in their careers, and supporting expanded and comprehensive healthcare for all, according to her website, www.votenima.com.

Thus far, the Indian American candidate’s voice has been heard. In the May 22 primary, Kulkarni received 1,642 of the 3,524 votes, or 46.59 percent. The incumbent Horlander was closer to last place than he was to first, while finishing second with 25.37 percent. The other candidates – Logan Gatti and Kelly Gibson – finished third and fourth, respectively, with 15.35 percent and 12.68 percent.

If Kulkarni wins the general election over Neubert, she would be the first Indian American to not only run, but win, state office in the history of Kentucky politics.

Top CEOs raise concern about changes made by Donald Trump in H1-B policies

The Trump administration’s “inconsistent” immigration policies, including on the H1-B visa for professionals, could “disrupt” operations of American firms and inflict “substantial harm” on their competitiveness, CEOs from top US companies have warned.

In a letter to US Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, members of the Business Roundtable, including Apple CEO Tim Cook, Chairman and CEO of PepsiCo Indra Nooyi, President and CEO of Mastercard Ajay Banga and Chairman and CEO of Cisco Systems Chuck Robbins said that confusion around US immigration policy “creates anxiety for employees who follow the law.”

The Business Roundtable, an association of chief executive officers of America’s leading companies, told Nielsen yesterday that “inconsistent government action and uncertainty undermines economic growth and American competitiveness.”

Due to a shortage of green cards for workers, many employees find themselves stuck in an immigration process lasting more than a decade, they said.

To avoid unnecessary costs and complications for American businesses, the US government should not change the rules in the middle of the process, the CEOs said, pointing out to the several policy memoranda over the past year by the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has issued that has resulted in “arbitrary and inconsistent adjudications”.

“Companies now do not know whether a work visa petition that was approved last month will be approved when the company submits the identical application to extend the employee’s status,” they said.

In particular, the CEOs said they are worried about changes to the review process for H-1B visas for high-skilled workers, expected changes to the rules for spouses of H-1B employees and planned changes to certain deportation rules.

The H-1B visa is a non-immigrant visa that allows US companies to employ foreign workers in speciality occupations that require theoretical or technical expertise. The technology companies depend on it to hire tens of thousands of employees each year from countries like India and China.

Employees who qualify for H-1B jobs often hold degrees in science, tech, engineering or math, and are highly sought after by employers, the CEOs said.

The Roundtable members said that a confusing immigration system in the US which threatens to split their families apart, could encourage them to seek employment in a different country. That would put the American economy at a disadvantage.

They also noted that in many cases, the US Labor Department has determined that “no qualified US workers are available to do that person’s job.”

President Donald Trump has said that some IT companies were abusing the US work visas to deny jobs to American workers.

“As the federal government undertakes its legitimate review of immigration rules, it must avoid making changes that disrupt the lives of thousands of law-abiding and skilled employees, and that inflict substantial harm on US competitiveness,” the CEOs noted.

The Business Roundtable will continue to work with Congress to reduce the Green Card backlog, they said.

In the interim, inconsistent immigration policies are unfair and discourage talented and highly skilled individuals from pursuing career opportunities in the United States, they said.

The reality is that few will move their family and settle in a new country if, at any time and without notice, the government can force their immediate departure–often without explanation.

“At a time when the number of job vacancies are reaching historic highs due to labour shortages, now is not the time restrict access to talent,” the CEOs said.

The group has called for increasing the number of H-1B visas and letting people with advanced STEM degrees from American universities qualify for a green card immediately.

Meanwhile, the US Citizenship and Immigration Services said in a statement the “administration has been relentlessly pursuing necessary immigration reforms that move towards a merit-based system.”

“USCIS is committed to reforming employment based immigrant and non-immigrant immigration programs so they benefit the American people to the greatest extent possible,” CNN quoted spokesperson Michael Bars as saying.

14% of Americans have changed their mind about an issue because of something they saw on social media

For most Americans, exposure to different content and ideas on social media has notcaused them to change their opinions. But a small share of the public – 14% – say they have changed their views about a political or social issue in the past year because of something they saw on social media, according to a Pew Research Center survey of U.S. adults conducted May 29-June 11.

Although it’s unclear what issues people changed their views about, within the past year a variety of social and political issues – from the #MeToo movement to #BlackLivesMatter and #MAGA – have been discussed on social media.

Certain groups, particularly young men, are more likely than others to say they’ve modified their views because of social media. Around three-in-ten men ages 18 to 29 (29%) say their views on a political or social issue changed in the past year due to social media. This is roughly twice the share saying this among all Americans and more than double the shares among men and women ages 30 and older (12% and 11%, respectively).

14% of Americans have changed their mind about an issue because of something they saw on social mediaThere are also differences by race and ethnicity, according to the new survey. Around one-in-five black (19%) and Hispanic (22%) Americans say their views changed due to social media, compared with 11% of whites.

Social media prompted views to change more among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents (17%) than among Republicans and Republican leaners (9%). Within these party groups, there are also some differences by gender, at least among Democrats. Men who are Democrats or lean Democratic (21%) are more likely than their female counterparts (14%) to say they’ve changed their minds. However, equal shares of Republican and Republican-leaning men and women say the same (9% each).

Previous survey work with slightly different question wording showed similar overall partisan differences. In 2016, the Center asked social media users whether they had “ever modified” their views about a political or social issue because of something they saw on social media. Two-in-ten said yes and 79% said no, with more Democrats and Democratic leaners than Republicans and Republican leaners saying they had modified views.

Although most people have not changed their views on a political or social issue in the past year because of social media, those who have also tend to place a high level of personal importance on social media as a tool for personal political engagement and activism. Among all social media users, people who changed their views on an issue are much more likely than those who didn’t to say such sites are important when it comes to getting involved with political or social issues important to them (63% vs. 35%) or finding others who share their views about important issues (67% vs. 38%). Just over half whose views changed (56%) say social media is personally important in providing a venue to express their political opinions, compared with a third of social media users who have not changed a view in the past year (33%).

While Americans who haven’t changed their views put less personal importance in social media, majorities see these platforms as helping give a voice to underrepresented groups; highlighting important issues that might otherwise go unnoticed; or helping hold powerful people accountable for their actions. Those who have changed a view thanks to social media are somewhat more likely to agree that these statements describe social media well. At the same time, majorities in both camps also agree that social media distracts people from issues that are truly important or makes people think they are making a difference when they really aren’t.

Obamas Hire Priya Swaminathan for New Netflix Production Company

Barack and Michelle Obama hire Priya Swaminathan, a seasoned entertainment executive with a background in documentaries and social activism, to work at the Los Angeles-based Netflix production company. She will team with the Obamas on developing new Hollywood projects, according to The Hollywood Reporter.

Swaminathan is the former director of development at Annapurna Pictures. She produced and co-directed Very Young Girls, a 2007 documentary on New York’s teenage prostitutes that aired on Showtime. She formerly worked for Dickhouse Productions. Swaminathan has served as an industry advisor for the Sundance Institute’s FilmTwo Initiative to encourage minority filmmakers. She’s also been recently involved in the Time’s Up Initiative.

Obamas Hire Priya Swaminathan for New Netflix Production CompanyIn May, Netflix announced that it signed the Obamas to a multiple-year deal to produce films and TV series.

The Obamas will produce a diverse mix of content, including the potential for scripted series, unscripted series, docu-series, documentaries and features. The Obamas have established Higher Ground Productions as the entity under which they will produce content for Netflix.

“One of the simple joys of our time in public service was getting to meet so many fascinating people from all walks of life, and to help them share their experiences with a wider audience,” said President Obama. “That’s why Michelle and I are so excited to partner with Netflix – we hope to cultivate and curate the talented, inspiring, creative voices who are able to promote greater empathy and understanding between peoples, and help them share their stories with the entire world.”

“Barack and I have always believed in the power of storytelling to inspire us, to make us think differently about the world around us, and to help us open our minds and hearts to others,” said the former first lady.

Swaminathan, a filmmaker and the former director of development at Annapurna Pictures, produced and co-directed “Very Young Girls,” a 2007 documentary on New York’s teenage prostitutes that aired on Showtime, and she formerly worked for Dickhouse Productions, according to The Hollywood Reporter. She also worked as an industry advisor for the Sundance Institute’s FilmTwo Initiative, which focuses on encouraging minority filmmakers. A social activist, she’s been closely associated with the Time’s Up Initiative, among others.

As a producer, Swaminathan has worked on a few documentaries like “The Wild and Wonderful Whites of West Virginia.” Her resume also includes working as a 3D artist on Bollywood films like “My Name is Khan” and “De Dana Dan.”

“I believe in the future of Connecticut:” Says Dita Bhargava, Running for State Treasurer in Connecticut

“I believe in the future of Connecticut. As Treasurer, I will execute strong and sound fiscal policy to benefit our great state and residents,” says Dita Bhargava, an Indian American running to win the nomination for State Treasurer in Connecticut, representing the Democratic Party in the upcoming state primaries on August 14th. “I’ll work with businesses, colleges, and government on solutions that lead us to thrive together and make our state stronger and fairer. I want to improve our fiscal situation such that we can invite new businesses that will invest responsibly in our state, and ensure that our college graduates can find the right opportunities here at home.”

Dita Bhargava had initially wanted to run to be state’s Governor, but abandoned the run and chose to be the next Treasurer of the Constitution state. Her reason for switching from gubernatorial to treasurer candidate is because she believes her financial background is better suited to the state’s treasurer post, she told the publication.

Dita Bhargava was elected as vice chairwoman of the Connecticut Democratic State Central Committee (DSCC) and has been seen as rising star in the state Democratic Party. “Dita Bhargava is an excellent choice to serve as state party vice chairwoman,” said U.S. Rep. Jim Himes. “I have gotten to know her as a community leader in Greenwich, and I can tell you from experience that she has the leadership skills to be highly effective in her new role. ”

“I want to thank the DSCC for entrusting me with this incredible opportunity and responsibility,” said Bhargava. “Connecticut Democrats are already working tirelessly to build a grassroots organization and expand our ranks with new voices and faces that ensure we are ready to compete in 2017 and 2018. We will hold the Connecticut Republicans supporting the Trump administration’s extreme agenda accountable. I look forward to getting right to work.”

“I’m proud to call Connecticut my home,” Bhargava says. “I believe in our great state and my vision is for Connecticut to be a place where all have a chance for success.  We must create thriving cities, empower our middle class families and make revitalizing Connecticut a top priority. With my private sector experience, I know what it takes to find solutions, navigate and negotiate the complicated issues our state faces, and get things done.”

As the Treasurer, Bhargava, an young and energetic Indian American leader, is committed to  work “to enhance the livelihood of our families, strengthen our economy, and restore the state’s fiscal solvency. A strong and fair Connecticut is a goal we all share, and we will deliver it together.”

“I believe in the future of Connecticut:” Says Dita Bhargava, Running for State Treasurer in Connecticut“Democrats are fired up and ready to go,” said Bhargava, a former Wall Street portfolio manager from Greenwich. “What better way to tap into that energy than a series of debates that drive to the heart of the issues that they care about?” Bhargava suggested one debate in each of Connecticut’s five Congressional district, the same format that candidates for attorney general are planning for their forums.

Bhargava received an overwhelming number of votes in support of her campaign at the Democratic State Convention this Spring. “I’m excited to continue this incredible journey with you all. Now, it’s time to dig in, dig deep, and set our sights on Election Day. There is much work to be done in Connecticut, and I look forward to winning this race and getting to work to put our state back on a path of fiscal and economic prosperity.”

“This fall and winter, as I explored running for statewide office, I visited more than 60 towns across Connecticut to learn about the challenges facing our state. I heard the concerns you voiced over rising living costs and college tuition, escalating taxes, increasing budget deficits, our exodus of young workers, and the future of our pension system, among many other issues,” Bhargava said in the statement.

“Hearing these stories has emboldened my commitment to public service and helped strengthen the fiscal and economic foundations of our state. It’s also led me to reconsider how I can best harness my strengths, knowledge, and experiences in ways that best serve our citizens,” she added.

In order to succeed in her efforts to make the state successful for everyone, the talented and visionary leader, says, “It will require new ideas and strong executive leadership in Hartford. We cannot afford to keep governing the same way and expect a better outcome. That’s why I’m running for State Treasurer.”

Bhargava is an active volunteer and supporter of the Clinton Foundation, Robin Hood Foundation and Inspirica Women’s Shelter and in January of 2017, she was unanimously elected Vice Chair of the Connecticut State Democratic Party, according to her website.

“I believe in the future of Connecticut:” Says Dita Bhargava, Running for State Treasurer in ConnecticutBhargava said that the state will need to be steered in a new direction as Denise Nappier completes her 20-year tenure as state Treasurer. “During her tenure, Denise has expanded the discussion on corporate governance to include an awareness of businesses’ social and environmental impact.  She has been a tireless advocate for better financial literacy in our state, where we lag behind our peers. The next Treasurer should have an appreciation for these issues, as well as a comprehensive knowledge of finance, investing, and the economy,” Bhargava stated, adding that her upbringing, professional experience in the financial sector and her progressive vision “are what Connecticut needs in our next Treasurer.”

Bhargava also mentioned in the statement that she wants to find solutions for the middle- and working-class families of Connecticut and she believes she can do so since she has that financial experience on Wall Street as well as in the nonprofit area where she “spent many years helping underserved communities and advocating for family-friendly policies such as paid family leave and equal pay for equal work.”

Lauding the great contributions of the Indian American community, which has excelled in almost every field, Bhargava, a second generation Indian American has urgedthe need for Indian Americans to come together, stand united and work for the greater good of the larger American society. She appealed to the fast growing Indian American community in the US to join her as “we work together to make Connecticut a prosperous state.”

“I’m fully prepared to steer Connecticut’s financial future in these challenging times. We’re already in a prolonged budgetary crisis, and Donald Trump’s federal tax plan—and the large deficits it will incur—may threaten Connecticut’s fiscal stability and its pension portfolio, already hard-pressed to match liabilities. The people of our state – retirees, workers, students, and the most vulnerable—need and deserve protection. I feel confident that with my experience, vision, and dedication, I’m the candidate most qualified and best equipped to lead our state back to fiscal and economic stability,” Bhargava stated.

Trump’s Attacks on Media Violate Basic Norms of Press Freedom, Human Rights Experts say

U.S. President Donald Trump’s repeated attacks on the free press are strategic, designed to undermine confidence in reporting and raise doubts about verifiable facts.
The President has labelled the media as being the “enemy of the American people” “very dishonest” or “fake news,” and accused the press of “distorting democracy” or spreading “conspiracy theories and blind hatred”.

These attacks run counter to the country’s obligations to respect press freedom and international human rights law. We are especially concerned that these attacks increase the risk of journalists being targeted with violence.
Over the course of his presidency, Trump and others within his administration, have sought to undermine reporting that had uncovered waste, fraud, abuse, potential illegal conduct, and disinformation.
Trump’s Attacks on Media Violate Basic Norms of Press Freedom, Human Rights Experts sayEach time the President calls the media ‘the enemy of the people’ or fails to allow questions from reporters from disfavored outlets, he suggests nefarious motivations or animus. But he has failed to show even once that specific reporting has been driven by any untoward motivations.
It is critical that the U.S. administration promote the role of a vibrant press and counter rampant disinformation. To this end, we urge President Trump not only to stop using his platform to denigrate the media but to condemn these attacks, including threats directed at the press at his own rallies.
The attack on the media goes beyond President Trump’s language. We also urge his entire administration, including the Department of Justice, to avoid pursuing legal cases against journalists in an effort to identify confidential sources, an effort that undermines the independence of the media and the ability of the public to have access to information.
We urge the Government to stop pursuing whistle-blowers through the tool of the Espionage Act, which provides no basis for a person to make an argument about the public interest of such information.
We stand with the independent media in the United States, a community of journalists and publishers and broadcasters long among the strongest examples of professional journalism worldwide. We especially urge the press to continue, where it does so, its efforts to hold all public officials accountable.
We encourage all media to act in solidarity against the efforts of President Trump to favor some outlets over others. Two years of attacks on the press could have long term negative implications for the public’s trust in media and public institutions. Two years is two years too much, and we strongly urge that President Trump and his administration and his supporters end these attacks.
(David Kaye is the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression for the United Nations and Edison Lanza is Special Rapporteur for the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.)

Turnout in this year’s U.S. House primaries is up, especially on the Democratic side

Americans appear to be more engaged with this year’s midterm elections than they typically are. Not only do about half of registered voters report being more enthusiastic than usual about voting, up from 40% in 2014, but turnout has surged in the 31 states that already have held their congressional primaries – particularly among Democrats.

In those states, nearly 13.6 million people – or 10.1% of registered voters – have voted in Democratic primaries for the U.S. House of Representatives, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of state election returns. By this point in the 2014 midterm election cycle, fewer than 7.4 million people – or 6% of registered voters – had cast ballots in Democratic House primaries.

The total number of votes cast in Democratic House primaries so far this year is 84% higher than the total for the equivalent point in 2014. One reason: There have been a lot more contested primaries, which tend to attract more voters.

Republican turnout in House primaries also has increased, from a combined 8.6 million votes at this point in 2014 (7% of registered voters) to 10.7 million (7.9%) so far this year. But the increase is much smaller (24%) than on the Democratic side, and the total number of votes cast in Democratic House primaries is considerably higher. Overall turnout in U.S. Senate and gubernatorial primaries also is above 2014 levels.

In general, voter turnout falls in midterm elections relative to presidential election years, and primaries nearly always draw fewer voters than general elections. So even if the surge seen so far this year continues, final turnout rates for this year’s primaries likely will be low in absolute terms, even if they exceed 2014 levels. And based on past experience, partisan disparities in primary turnout don’t necessarily predict individual general-election outcomes.

Our analysis is based on official vote totals and voter registration figures from the states that have held primaries so far this year. (The next batch is in early August, making July an opportune time for a spot-check.) We included all valid votes for candidates, including write-in votes when reported, but excluded blank votes and other spoiled or void ballots. For comparability, we also excluded runoffs and special elections from the analysis.

The primaries held so far cover 308 House seats, which means there were potentially 616 contested Republican and Democratic primaries. In most cases, however, there’s only one candidate for the nomination (or, sometimes, none at all), so the actual number of primaries with at least two choices on the ballot is a lot smaller.

So far this year, 340 House primaries have been contested by at least two candidates, versus 251 in 2014. Most of that increase has been on the Democratic side, with 81 more contested Democratic House primaries this year (203) than in 2014 (122). By contrast, there have been only eight more contested Republican House primaries so far this year (137) than at this point in 2014 (129).

To date, more than 9.9 million people have voted in contested Democratic House primaries, more than twice as many as had voted in such races at this point in 2014 (fewer than 4.3 million). Turnout in contested Republican House primaries has risen too, but again less so than in the Democratic races: an increase of about 1.2 million votes between 2014 (5.7 million) and this year (just under 7 million).

The rules governing primaries can (and do) vary considerably from state to state, which can make it tricky to compare turnout across time, between states and among different offices.

Several states, such as Virginia, don’t hold primaries in uncontested races; some rely on party conventions to pick nominees, with primary elections as a backstop. In some states, parties limit their primaries to registered members; in other states, especially those that don’t register voters by party, primaries are open to anyone. California uses a “top two” system in which all candidates for a given office run in a single primary; the two gaining the most votes, regardless of party label, advance to the general election in November. This year, Maine used a “ranked choice” system in its primaries, in which voters ranked candidates in order of preference.

More often than you might think, one or the other major party might not even nominate someone for a particular office, depressing turnout while effectively ceding the general election to its main rival (and, in some cases, a batch of minor parties and write-in candidates). On the other hand, turnout in an uncontested race could be boosted by the presence of a different, contested race on the same ballot.

Turnout also has been higher in this year’s gubernatorial and Senate primaries, though the increases have been similar for both parties. (We analyzed those contests separately, even if they were on the same ballot as the House races, since some people may have voted in one or the other race but not all of them.) So far this year, around 16.8 million people have voted in 17 states’ regular Senate primaries, or 20.8% of those states’ registered voters. By this point in 2014, 9.7 million people had voted in 19 Senate primaries.

Direct comparisons are easier in the 36 states that are choosing governors this year, because the same states did so four years ago. So far, total turnout in the 20 states that have held gubernatorial primaries is 22.7 million (24.8% of these states’ registered voters), up from 14.9 million (18.4%) in 2014. (To be fair, there were no gubernatorial primaries in South Carolina four years ago, as both the Republican and Democratic nominees faced no competition, but that wouldn’t come close to explaining the gap: Only 608,451 people voted in this year’s gubernatorial primaries, both of which were contested.) A likelier reason is that there were a lot more incumbent governors running for re-election four years ago. Only four of the 20 gubernatorial contests held by this point in 2014 were open seats, compared with 12 this year.

Attorney J. Nicholas Ranjan Nominated for U.S. District Judge Seat in Western Pennsylvania

The White House July 24 announced that J. Nicholas Ranjan has been nominated to be the U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Nicholas Ranjan is an equity partner in the Pittsburgh office of K&L Gates LLP. On July 13, 2018, Republican President Donald Trump nominated Ranjan to a seat on the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania

The nomination, made in response to Kim R. Gibson retiring, was officially sent to the Senate, a White House news release said. His practice focuses on a variety of complex litigation and arbitration including class action defense and energy litigation, appeals, compliance counseling and internal investigations.

The Indian American attorney practices anjan’s practice focuses on a variety of complex litigation and arbitration (including class action defense and energy litigation), appeals, compliance counseling, and internal investigations. His practice is across a number of different industries, such as the energy, commercial real estate, financial services, higher education, innovation, internet marketing, insurance, consumer, pharmaceutical, and transportation industries.

He has been selected by Chambers USA as one of the top commercial litigators in Pennsylvania multiple times, with clients commending his “creative approach and responsiveness.” He has been selected as a fellow with The Litigation Counsel of America, which is an invitation-only trial lawyer honorary, representing less than one-half of one percent of American lawyers. He serves as a 2017 fellow with the Leadership Council on Legal Diversity. He also serves as a member of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Litigation Center (state litigation advisory committee), advising the Chamber of Commerce on appellate amicus involvement throughout the country.

Mr. Ranjan is the pro bono coordinator for the firm’s Pittsburgh office. During his time in this position, the Allegheny County Bar Association awarded the firm the pro bono law firm of the year award. He also is the chairman of the Pittsburgh office’s diversity committee and is a member of the K&L Gates global diversity committee. He is active in leading diversity initiatives within the firm and in the community. For these efforts, he was a recipient of the Leadership Excellence Award, awarded by the Pittsburgh Leadership Conference.

Ranjan’s complex litigation experience is varied, across a number of different industries and before a number of state and federal courts. One area of his focus is on class action defense, where he has had experience litigating a variety of consumer, health-care, statutory, government-enforcement “tag along,” oil and gas, product liability, and employment-related class actions. He has handled class certification proceedings and has negotiated complex classwide settlements.

He has counseled clients on cybersecurity and telecommunications class action liabilities and risks, including those associated with cyber data breaches and those associated with text messaging and junk faxes under the TCPA. He has represented private equity clients in conducting due diligence associated with class action liabilities. He has also advised clients and published articles on the use of arbitration/class waiver agreements as a means to reduce class-action liability.

In addition to his class-action experience, Ranjan has served as lead counsel in complex commercial disputes, ranging from commercial real estate (including retail lease, construction, and injunction matters), financial services (including FCRA, FDCPA, and investment management), false advertising, intellectual property, catastrophic injury, trade secret, pharmaceutical, corporate raiding, transportation/3PL, insurance coverage, ERISA, internet-marketing, and Title IX-related litigation.

Ranjan is also qualified to act as an arbitrator for the American Arbitration Association, and is qualified to serve individually and on panels concerning commercial disputes, oil and gas disputes, and consumer disputes, among other matters. Additionally, Ranjan has an active domestic arbitration practice. Within the last five years, Mr. Ranjan has been lead counsel for claimants and respondents in over fifteen AAA, common law, and free form arbitrations. In many of these cases, Mr. Ranjan initially compelled the matter from court to arbitration. Six of these cases were taken to a full award.

Ranjan also has an active pro bono practice, representing prisoners, criminal defendants, and religious entities in free speech, religious liberties, civil rights, criminal, and habeas cases, both at the trial level and on appeal. Several of these cases have garnered local and national media attention.

Within the energy sector, Mr. Ranjan’s experience includes representing natural-gas operators, pipeline companies, non-operating interest owners, and drilling and completions companies in royalty calculation and class action matters, lease disputes, joint-venture disputes, surface-use disputes, seismic-testing disputes, pooling/unitization disputes, wastewater disputes, tax disputes, injunction proceedings, nuisance matters, insurance coverage matters, and other land-use litigation.

Ranjan has also represented energy and industrial clients in multiple crisis management events, having advised clients on on-site response and investigatory efforts, insurance and cost recovery, and litigation management.

Ranjan has represented clients in appeals before five different federal appellate courts, and has briefed, argued, or consulted on numerous appeals in federal and state appellate courts, including in the Pennsylvania, Ohio, California, and West Virginia supreme courts. He has been commended by the Third Circuit on several occasions in written opinions for his appellate advocacy, and in one case, the Third Circuit appointed him to serve individually as an amicus curiae to assist the court. He also previously served by appointment to the Second Circuit’s pro bono panel.

Ranjan is a member of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Litigation Center (state litigation advisory committee), advising the Chamber of Commerce on appellate amicus involvement throughout the country, and has served as counsel of record for the Chamber in the California and Ohio Supreme Courts, as well.

Ranjan has also given presentations with a number of other appellate practitioners and judges, providing advice on effective appellate advocacy and oral argument strategy. And, since 2010, he has been one of the authors of the Pennsylvania Bar Institute’s Third Circuit treatise. Ranjan also frequently provides advice to K&L Gates’ trial teams across the country in formulating post-trial motion and appellate strategy.

Balancing Trade Wars

A global trade war has broken out. The United States fired the first salvo and there has been retaliation by the European Union, Canada, China and even India. Tariffs on certain imported goods have been increased in a tit-for-tat reaction.

Analysts see it as a limited war in the understanding that Donald Trump is all for “free-trade”. But this view denies the fact that a tectonic shift is taking place in the world. It is a war for ascendency to global leadership; a contest between the US and China.

China is heaving its might on the world. President Xi Jinping’s Belt and Road Initiative is an open call for its global influence. In July 2017, China launched the ambitious plan to invest in the technology of the future—artificial intelligence.

There are dark (unconfirmed) whispers about how it is going about acquiring many new-age technologies by rolling over western companies operating in vast markets.

The last century belonged to the US and Europe with Russia as the communist outlier. China became mighty all because of the emergence of the free trade regime in the world. Just some 35-odd years ago, it was behind the iron curtain.

But then the World Trade Organization (WTO) was born in January 1995. China’s trade boomed. It took over the world’s manufacturing jobs. India, too, found its place by servicing outsourced businesses like telemarketing. “Shanghaied” and “Bangalored” entered the lexicon—as jobs (and pollution) moved continents. This way, globalization fulfilled its purpose to usher in a new era of world prosperity. Or so, we thought.

Instead, globalization has made the world more complicated and convoluted. In early 1990s, when the discussions on the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) were at its peak, there was a clear North-South divide.

The then-developed world pushed for opening up of trade. It wanted markets and protection through rules on “fair” trade and intellectual property. The then developing world was worried what the free trade regime would do to its nascent and weak industrial economies.

More importantly, there were fears of what these new open trade rules would do to its farmers, who would have to compete with the disproportionately subsidised farmers of the developed world.

In 1999 tensions flared up at the WTO ministerial meet in Seattle. By this time, reality of globalisation had dawned and so it was citizens of the rich world who protested for labour rights, worried about outsourcing of their jobs and environmental abuses.

But these violent protests were crushed. The next decade was lost in the financial crisis. The new winners told the old losers that “all was well”.

Today Trump has joined the ranks of the Leftist Seattle protesters, while India and China are the new defenders of free trade. The latter in fact want more, much more of it.

But again, is it so straightforward? All these arrangements are built on the refusal to acknowledge the crisis of employment. The first phase of globalisation led to some displacement of labour and this is what Trump is griping about.

But the fact is that this phase of globalisation has only meant war between the old elite (middle-classes in the world of trade and consumerism) and the new elite. It has not been long enough or deep enough to destroy the foundations of the livelihoods of the vast majority of the poor engaged in farming. But it is getting there.

But this is where the real impact of globalisation will be felt. Global agricultural trade remains distorted and deeply contentious. The trade agreements targeted basics like procurement of foodgrains by governments to withstand scarcity and the offer of minimum support price to farmers.

Right now, the Indian government is making the right noises that it will stand by its farmers. But we will not be able to balance this highly imbalanced trade regime if we don’t recognise that employment is the real crisis.

It is time that this round of trade war should be on the need for livelihood opportunities. Global trade talks must discuss employment not just industry. It must value labour and not goods.

This is what is at the core of the insecurity in the world. It is not about trade or finance. It is about the biggest losers: us, the people and the planet. The link to the original article follows:
https://www.downtoearth.org.in/

Sen. Kamala Harris’ Book to Be Published Next Year: Penguin Press

Sen. Kamala Harris, a rising star in the Democratic Party who is sometimes cited as a possible presidential contender in 2020, has a book deal.

Penguin Press announced that Harris’ “The Truths We Hold: An American Journey” will come out Jan. 8, 2019. According to Penguin, Harris will write about “the core truths” in American life and how to learn what they are.

The 53-year-old Harris was formerly California’s attorney general. She was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2016.

For politicians, books have long been a standard part of developing a national profile, from John F. Kennedy’s “Profiles in Courage” to Barack Obama’s “The Audacity of Hope.”

Scott Moyers, vice president and publisher of Penguin Press, according to the Times praised Harris’s “authentic” voice, and said her back story was especially compelling, including her “fascinating and formidable” mother.

The memoir and current-events primer, in a mixture well-known to campaign books, will include sketches of both Ms. Harris’s upbringing and her governing principles.

It’s the second book by Harris. The first, “Smart on Crime,” was published in 2009 — the year before she was elected California attorney general. Harris won her Senate seat in 2016.

Publishing books is a rite of passage for presidential prospects. Harris is the latest possible Democratic contender to publish a book since the 2016 presidential election. She joins former Vice President Joe Biden, Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and former New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu. Former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro’s book is expected this fall, and independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who published a book last year, has another one — titled “Where We Go From Here” — due after November’s midterm elections.

Penguin said that in the book Harris is “reckoning with the big challenges we face together, drawing on the hard-won wisdom and insight from her own career and the work of those who have most inspired her.”

“Through the arc of her own life, on into the great work of our day, she communicates a vision of shared struggle, shared purpose, and shared values,” Penguin said. “In a book rich in many home truths, not least is that a relatively small number of people work very hard to convince a great many of us that we have less in common than we actually do, but it falls to us to look past them and get on with the good work of living our common truth. When we do, our shared effort will continue to sustain us and this great nation, now and in the years to come.”

Judge Brett Kavanaugh is Trump’s Nominee for the Supreme Court

Brett M. Kavanaugh, 53, has been chosen to replace Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, by President Trump.  If confirmed, Judge Kavanaugh, who is expected to be a reliable conservative, would replace Justice Kennedy, a Reagan appointee who often voted with the court’s liberal wing on social issues like abortion and gay rights. Judge Kavanaugh is estimated to be more conservative than 66 percent of all other current and former federal judges nominated since 1980.

Before joining the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Judge Kavanaugh held several posts in the administration of George W. Bush, ultimately serving as his staff secretary. He also worked under Kenneth W. Starr, the independent counsel who investigated President Bill Clinton. Judge Kavanaugh sits on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the most influential circuit court) and is reportedly commanding wide and deep respect among scholars, lawyers and jurists.

In an opinion piece in a major daily, Akhil Reed Amar, an Indian American professor at Yale Law School, has hailed the nomination. “The nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to be the next Supreme Court justice is President Trump’s finest hour, his classiest move,” Prof. Amar wrote.

Judge Kavanaugh has already helped decide hundreds of cases concerning a broad range of difficult issues. Good appellate judges faithfully follow the Supreme Court; great ones influence and help steer it. Several of Judge Kavanaugh’s most important ideas and arguments — such as his powerful defense of presidential authority to oversee federal bureaucrats and his skepticism about newfangled attacks on the property rights of criminal defendants — have found their way into Supreme Court opinions.

According to Prof. Amar, Judge Kavanaugh has taught courses at leading law schools and published notable law review articles. More important, he is an avid consumer of legal scholarship. He reads and learns. And he reads scholars from across the political spectrum. (

Prof. Amar, who was one of Judge Kavanaugh’s professors when he was a student at Yale Law School, wrote, “This studiousness is especially important for a jurist like Judge Kavanaugh, who prioritizes the Constitution’s original meaning. A judge who seeks merely to follow precedent can simply read previous judicial opinions. But an “originalist” judge — who also cares about what the Constitution meant when its words were ratified in 1788 or when amendments were enacted — cannot do all the historical and conceptual legwork on his or her own.

“Judge Kavanaugh seems to appreciate this fact, whereas Justice Antonin Scalia, a fellow originalist, did not read enough history and was especially weak on the history of the Reconstruction amendments and the 20th-century amendments. A great judge also admits and learns from past mistakes. Here, too, Judge Kavanaugh has already shown flashes of greatness, admirably confessing that some of the views he held 20 years ago as a young lawyer — including his crabbed understandings of the presidency when he was working for the Whitewater independent counsel, Kenneth Starr — were erroneous.

“Judge Kavanaugh is, again, a superb nominee. Judge Kavanaugh could be confirmed with the ninety something Senate votes he deserves, rather than the fifty something votes he is likely to get,” Prof. Amar wrote.

Amul Thapar on List to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy

Justice Anthony Kennedy, a longtime member of the Supreme Court and frequent swing vote, announced last Wednesday, June 27 that he will retire, giving President Donald Trump the chance to fill his seat.

The opportunity will allow President Donald Trump to make a major, lasting mark on the nation’s highest court by putting in place a second justice, after his choice to elevate Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court last year following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia in 2016.

Trump, reacting to the news at the White House, said he had spoken with Kennedy earlier Wednesday and asked the outgoing justice about possible contenders to replace him.

Moments after Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement, the media went rife with speculation on possible replacements, including Indian American jurist Amul Thapar, who currently serves on the Sixth Circuit of Appeals.

President Donald Trump told reporters after Kennedy’s announcement that a search for a replacement would begin immediately. During his remarks, Trump pointed to a list of potential picks for the court that he had maintained during the campaign and updated last fall. Fox News hinted at the president’s shortlist of six possibilities, all federal court judges including Thapar, Thomas Hardiman, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, Joan Larsen and Raymond Kethledge.

Hardiman and Thapar were finalists for the seat that went to Justice Neil Gorsuch — more than a year after the abrupt death of Justice Antonin Scalia — and were personally interviewed by the president, according to Fox News.

Thapar is the first Indian American to serve on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and the second Indian American federal appellate court judge in U.S. history. He is a friend of Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky. The Alliance for Justice has dubbed him “ultraconservative.”

With a second Supreme Court pick less than 18 months into his presidency, Trump is poised to cement conservative control of the court and fire up supporters eager for a rightward shift on divisive social issues like abortion and gay rights.

Trump’s nominee must win confirmation by the Senate. Republicans control the chamber but only by a slim majority, making the views of moderates, including some Democrats, important.

Thapar, 49, was handpicked by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to serve as the US attorney for the Eastern District of Kentucky. In 2006, he went on to a seat on the US District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky.

Trump nominated Thapar to the 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals in 2017. He was born in Michigan and served in government as well as private practice. In 2007, Thapar was the first American of South Asian descent to be named to an Article III federal judgeship.

Although Thapar has moved to list of seven potential nominees from the original 25 when a replacement for Scalia was being considered, sources said that “he’s still a longshot,” unless his patron, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R- Ky.) “really goes to bat for him.”

Sources said that Thapar was the only minority in the new short list. The original list had been prepared for the White House by the Federalist Society and the conservative D.C. think tank, The Heritage Foundation and comprised Thapar and two other minorities: Frederico Moreno, a federal district judge in South Florida, who is Hispanic, and Robert Young, a retired Michigan Supreme Court judge, who is African-American.

The Supreme Court already has an African-American Clarence Thomas, and a Hispanic, Sonia Sotomayor and if Thapar were nominated by Trump he would be the first Asian-American named to the high court.

McConnell last year convinced Trump to nominate Thapar to the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and he was confirmed 52-44 by the Senate in May 2017, largely on a partisan vote.

At the time Thapar was confirmed for Circuit Court, Curt Levey, executive director for the Committee for Justice, noted: “Perhaps the most important thing about Thapar’s quick confirmation is that it puts him in a perfect position to fill any Supreme Court vacancies that occur in 2018 or thereafter.”

Thapar was first nominated by President George W. Bush on May 24, 2007, to a seat vacated by Joseph M. Hood and confirmed by the Senate on Dec. 13, 2007. He received commission on Jan. 4, 2008, becoming the nation’s first Article III judge of South Asian descent.

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights – now led by Indian American civil rights activist Vanita Gupta beginning in June – noted in May 2017 as Thapar was undergoing his Senate confirmation process for the Appeals Court seat that the jurist had a history of controversial rulings, including a case in which he allowed a diabetic inmate to continue to be denied insulin.

Thapar also sentenced three pacifists — including an 82-year-old nun — to lengthy prison terms after they broke into a nuclear power plant in Oakridge, Tennessee, and spray-painted peace slogans, noted the Leadership Conference.

But the South Asian Bar Association of North America and the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association have lauded the Thapar. Vichal Kumar, president of SABA-NA, noted last May after the Senate confirmation: “Judge Thapar’s confirmation further cements his legacy as a pioneer, esteemed jurist and dedicated public servant. We anticipate that Judge Thapar’s renowned dedication to his craft and commendable judicial temperament will serve him well in this integral position.”  SABA awarded Thapar its Pioneer Award in 2010. NAPABA awarded Thapar its Trailblazer Award in 2015.

As the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Kentucky from 2006-2007, Thapar was appointed to the Attorney General’s Advisory Committee, where he chaired the AGAC’s Controlled Substances and Asset Forfeiture subcommittee. He also served on the Terrorism and National Security subcommittee, the Violent Crime subcommittee, and Child Exploitation working group.

During his confirmation hearing on April 28, 2017, Thapar noted that though the Federalist Society and the conservative Heritage Foundation had named him as a possible Supreme Court nominee on a list prepared for then-candidate Trump, he had no allegiance to either organization. “I’m my own judge, and I hope my track record speaks to that,” he said.

McConnell has already made clear he would push for a confirmation vote by fall before the mid-term elections, refusing to acquiesce to Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and other Democrats that it should be held only after the November elections.

Seema Nanda Named CEO of Democratic National Committee

The Democratic National Committee has tapped Seema Nanda to serve as its new CEO and handle day-to-day operations, the committee announced last week. As midterm elections continue and the 2020 election draws closer, hiring the management-oriented Nanda is a move away from more explicitly political executives who have led the troubled party in the past.

“I’m beyond excited that Seema is bringing her talent and brilliance to the DNC,” DNC Chair Tom Perez said in a statement. “She is a seasoned manager who has a proven track record of success.”

“People are hurting all across our country. I believe that Democrats are offering the positive solutions so desperately-needed right now – solutions forged by the strength of our diversity, the rigor of our ideas and the decency of our values,” Nanda said in a statement. “I am grateful to chairman [Tom] Perez and Mary Beth for selecting me, and I look forward to joining my new DNC colleagues in the fight for our nation’s values and future.”

Nanda previously worked as Perez’s chief of staff at the U.S. Department of Labor. She replaces interim CEO Mary Beth Cahill, who took the helm of the DNC in February after replacing Jess O’Connell, a seasoned operative who left after less than a year on the job.

Nanda also worked on the DNC transition team for Perez, which “took a fresh look” at the committee’s operations after the 2016 election, according to a DNC statement. She has a background in labor and employment law, and has worked in the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice.

“As we head toward a crucial election, I’m one hundred percent certain that Seema’s leadership will help the DNC capitalize on the unprecedented grassroots energy and enthusiasm surging throughout the country,” Perez said in a statement

According to an article in Glamour, Nanda is stepping in as the Democrats try to build on primary successes that have given women of color a chance at making history in November.

Nikki Haley talks tough during visit to India

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley, during her first ever visit to India as a member of the Trump cabinet, has focused on trade relations, India’s oil imports from Iran, India’s military ties with the US, among other things. In her meeting with Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Wednesday, June 27th, the first Indian American to be on US Cabinet, told Modi that it was important that India cut Iranian oil use, but said the United States would work to allow India to use an Iranian port as corridor to Afghanistan. India is one of the largest importers of Iran’s oil.

Haley, considered to be the most powerful Indian-American in the Trump administration, met with Prime Minister Narendra Modi June 27 to convey greetings from President Donald Trump. She also met with External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj.

Haley assured U.S. commitment to fighting terrorism, and that she saw opportunities in developing stronger ties with New Delhi in multiple ways, especially in countering terrorism and building military cooperation.

The U.S. push to curb countries’ imports of Iranian oil comes after Trump in May withdrew from a 2015 deal between Iran and six world powers aimed at stalling Tehran’s nuclear capabilities in return for the lifting of some sanctions. Trump ordered the reimposition of U.S. sanctions that were suspended under the accord.

 “Sanctions are coming (on Iran) and we’re going forward on that, and with India and the U.S. building strong relationships we hoped that they would lessen their dependence on Iran,” Haley, a member of U.S. President Donald Trump’s cabinet, told the media after her meeting with Modi in New Delhi.

 “There’s a will, a political will, from both sides to figure out how to make this work,” Haley said. “Prime Minister Modi very much understands where we are with Iran, he didn’t question it, he didn’t criticize it, he understood it and he also understands that (India’s) relationship with the U.S. is strong and important and needs to stay that way.”

Despite rising trade tensions between the United States and India, Haley – the daughter of Indian immigrants – said “the idea of a trade war wasn’t even an option.” Bilateral trade rose to $115 billion in 2016, but the Trump administration wants to narrow its $31 billion deficit with India, and is pressing New Delhi to ease trade barriers.

Haley said she also discussed military cooperation with Modi as the Trump administration has launched an effort to deepen military and economic ties with India as a way to balance China’s assertive posture across Asia.

Haley said the implications of Iran-related sanctions would be discussed when the foreign and defense ministers of India and the United States meet shortly. Japan and South Korea, also major buyers of Iranian oil, are in talks with the U.S. government in a bid to avoid the adverse effects of sanctions.

Haley said she also discussed with Modi the Indian-backed Chabahar port complex in Iran, being developed as part of a new transportation corridor for landlocked Afghanistan and which could open the way for millions of dollars in trade and cut Afghanistan’s dependence on neighboring Pakistan.

“In this area, the U.S. is approaching our relationship with Pakistan differently than in the past,” Haley said in a speech June 28 in New Delhi. Indo Asian News service quoted her speech on “Advancing India-U.S. Relations,” which was organized by the Observer Research Foundation (ORF).

 “We know the port has to happen and the U.S. is going to work with India to do that,” Haley said. “We know that they’re being a great partner with us in Afghanistan and really trying to assist the U.S. and trying to do more. The port’s vital in trying to do that.”

“We realize we’re threading a needle when we do that,” said Haley, describing a balancing act of ensuring Indian use of the port in Iran while Washington is at the same time trying to once again cut Tehran off from international markets.

She said both nations have felt the pain of terrorism, both share a commitment to defeat it and the hateful ideology that motivates them. The two countries share an urgent interest to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists, she said.

Modi expressed appreciation for Trump’s South Asia and Indo-Pacific strategies and commended his initiative toward denuclearization of the Korean peninsula. “Both the dignitaries discussed ways to enhance India-U.S. cooperation, including on counter-terrorism and in multilateral fora. They expressed confidence that strong India-U.S. partnership will continue to be an important factor for global peace and prosperity,” a government statement said.

News reports said Haley and Modi discussed ways to enhance India-U.S. cooperation in various fields. “Whether it is countering terrorism, whether it is the fact that we want to continue our democratic opportunities or start to work together more strongly on the military aspect, there are lots of things that India and the U.S. have in common,” she was quoted as saying in New Delhi.

Besides meeting officials, “Haley also visited the majestic tomb of Mughal emperor Humayun and Save Childhood Movement, a center for rescued children run by 2014 Nobel Peace Prize winner Kailash Satyarthi,” the Associated Press wrote. At the tomb, Haley said she was in India to strengthen bilateral relations and to continue the democratic bonds.

As she hoped for a free and open Indo-Pacific and protection of sovereign nations from external coercion for peace, stability and commerce, Haley said China is a matter of concern and its failure to respect the rule of law will restrict its relations with the U.S.

“Unlike India, China does not share our commitment to democracy, the rule of law, and fundamental freedoms. This makes China’s expansion of loans and investments in countries in the region a matter of concern for many of us,” she said.

Raj Shah Named to key role in appointment of Supreme Court Justice

US President Donald Trump has appointed an Indian-American official, Raj Shah, to a key role in the contentious process of the appointment of the next justice of the Supreme Court, the White House announced on Monday.

Spokesman Raj Shah will take leave from his role in the press office to work full time on “communications, strategy and messaging coordination with Capitol Hill allies.” And Justin Clark, the director of the Office of Public Liaison, will oversee White House coordination with outside groups.

Shah will now concentrate on getting the President’s nominee through the Senate approval process, White House Spokesperson Sarah Sanders said.

“Raj Shah will oversee communications, strategy and messaging coordination with Capitol Hill allies,” Sanders said in her statement.  Trump has said he is focusing on up to seven potential candidates, including two women, to fill the vacancy of retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy, a swing vote on the nine-member court. He also has said he will announce his nominee to replace retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy July 9.

Getting a successor to Justice Anthony Kennedy, who announced his resignation last week, approved by the Senate before the current session ends this year is a crucial task for Trump.
One of the candidates in a short list of 25 potential nominees announced by Trump during his campaign included Judge Amul Thapar, who is now a federal judge in Kentucky.

With Trump saying he’ll pick from a list of 25 potential nominees he’s compiled with guidance from conservatives, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said any of them would be “virtually certain” to favor overturning Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case that affirmed women’s right to abortion. They would also be “very likely” to back weakening President Barack Obama’s 2010 law that expanded health care coverage to millions of Americans, he said.

Let’s Put a Stop to Congress’ Enthusiasm for Wasteful Spending

When I first became governor, state debt was climbing, families and job creators were overtaxed, and Florida’s economy was hurting. Even in the face of these dismal realities, state leaders were hesitant to reel back their wasteful spending and take real steps to protect taxpayer dollars. Thankfully, unlike in Washington, Florida’s budget process includes the line item veto – an important tool that encourages responsible spending by allowing the executive branch to remove any project that wastes taxpayer dollars.

Every year we saw hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of unreasonable projects slip into the state budget – at the expense of Florida taxpayers. And every year, I carefully and deliberately reviewed the budget line by line to eliminate reckless spending. It was important to me that state leaders, communities and Floridians understood why each project was removed, which is why I explained the reason for each veto, such as no return on investment, having federal or local funding already available, or funding never even being requested. Ultimately, the only way to make government function is to say no to some spending requests. The federal government currently tries to do too much, but by vetoing more than 1,800 pet projects here in Florida over the past seven and half years, we saved Florida taxpayers more than $2.4 billion.

This new focus on responsible spending in Florida meant more funding was available to pay down state debt, cut taxes and invest in what matters most to our families, like securing historic funding to support our education system and protect our environment. Florida’s economy has experienced an incredible economic turnaround and families and businesses from all across the country are coming to Florida to succeed. But while Florida has set an example for wise spending, Washington continues to fall farther and farther behind.

That’s why the third proposal of my ‘Make Washington Work Plan’ will help hold Congress accountable for wasteful spending by providing the executive branch with the constitutional ability to remove individual budget projects through a line item veto. Washington should be creating budgets that serve Americans, not the political ambitions of career politicians. And when politicians in D.C. slip pet projects in the budget in an attempt to score political points – with no regard for the taxpayers who pay for it – the president should have the authority to eliminate this waste, just as the governor does in Florida.

I know there will be politicians who say this cannot be done, or that it has been tried and failed before – but that’s no reason to not fight for what is clearly best for American families. That’s why it’s time to elect new leaders with new ideas, and why my “Make Washington Work” Plan is meant to reform the tired old ways of thinking in Washington and make sure Congress actually works for families across the nation – not just for career politicians. My first two proposals were implementing term limits in Congress and requiring a supermajority vote of two-thirds of each house of Congress to approve any tax or fee increase before it can become law.

Politicians in Washington love to tell you about all the common sense, smart things that cannot be done. We need to get rid of the politicians who always tell us what we cannot do. There is no excuse to not bring Florida’s way of thinking to Washington. Career politicians from both parties have one thing in common – they love spending taxpayer money. But now is the time to put a stop to Congress’ enthusiasm for wasteful spending. After all, it’s not the government’s money – it’s the money of hardworking American families and job creators, and a line item veto makes certain Americans are getting the most value for their investment.

(TALLAHASSEE, Fla. – Rick Scott, Governor of Florida, released the above op-ed highlighting the third proposal of his “Make Washington Work” plan to end wasteful spending in Washington by providing the executive branch with the constitutional ability to remove individual budget projects through a line item veto.)

Sen. Kamala Harris not ruling out 2020 White House run

Indian-origin American senator Kamala Harris has not ruled out the prospects of running for the US President in 2020, according to media reports. Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., says she isn’t ruling out a 2020 run for president in her most direct comments yet about her political future.

In an interview that aired Sunday on MSNBC’s “KasieDC,” Harris said she’s focused on the 2018 midterm elections. “I’m focused on a lot of other things as a higher priority” than running for president, she said. Pressed on whether she was ruling out a 2020 bid, Harris said: “I’m not ruling it out, no.”

Harris, 53, the daughter of immigrants from Jamaica and India, is viewed as a rising star in Democratic politics. Her likely presidential ambitions are the subject of wide speculation, and she’s often included on the not-so-short lists of potential Democratic 2020 hopefuls. According to the media outlet, it is her most direct comments yet about her political future.

Harris, a former prosecutor, was California’s attorney general before she was elected to the Senate in 2016. She has started to carve out a reputation as a defender of immigrants in the Trump era, a move that could give her an edge with those voters in 2020, the outlet said. Earlier this year, she bucked her party’s leadership to vote against an immigration compromise that she said made too many compromises with Republicans, angering some of her colleagues.

Other possible Democratic presidential candidates in the Senate — including Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Cory Booker of New Jersey — voted “yes.”

In the interview, Harris also said the United States should consider abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE.

The hashtag #AbolishICE has become a rallying cry for immigration activists.

“We’ve got to critically re-examine ICE and its role and the way that it is being administered and the work it is doing,” she said. “We probably need to think about starting from scratch.”

Nikki Haley announces exit of US from UN Human Rights Council

The United States withdrew from the United Nations Human Rights Council on Tuesday last week over what it called chronic bias against Israel and a lack of reform, a move activists warned would make advancing human rights globally even more difficult. Washington’s withdrawal is the latest US rejection of multilateral engagement after it pulled out of the Paris climate agreement and the 2015 Iran nuclear deal.

U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, who has sought major changes on the council throughout her tenure, issued a blistering critique of the panel, saying it had grown more callous over the past year and become a “protector of human rights abusers and a cesspool of political bias.” She cited the admission of Congo as a member even as mass graves were being discovered there, and the failure to address human rights abuses in Venezuela and Iran.

“I want to make it crystal clear that this step is not a retreat from our human rights commitments,” she said during a joint appearance with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo at the department. “On the contrary. We take this step because our commitment does not allow us to remain a part of a hypocritical and self-serving organization that makes a mockery of human rights.”

Haley slammed Russia, China, Cuba and Egypt for thwarting US efforts to reform the council. She also criticized countries which shared US values and encouraged Washington to remain, but “were unwilling to seriously challenge the status quo.”

“Look at the council membership, and you see an appalling disrespect for the most basic rights,” said Haley, citing Venezuela, China, Cuba and Democratic Republic of Congo. She did not mention Saudi Arabia, which rights groups pushed to be suspended in 2016 over killings of civilians in the Yemen war.

Among reforms the United States had pushed for was to make it easier to kick out member states with egregious rights records. Currently a two-thirds majority vote by the 193-member UN General Assembly is needed to suspend a member state.

Haley also said the “disproportionate focus and unending hostility towards Israel is clear proof that the council is motivated by political bias, not by human rights.” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu welcomed the U.S. decision.

The United States has long shielded its ally Israel at the United Nations. In citing what it says is bias against Israel, the administration of President Donald Trump could further fuel Palestinian arguments that Washington cannot be a neutral mediator as it prepares to roll out a Middle East peace plan. Washington also relocated its embassy to Jerusalem after recognising it as the capital of Israel, reversing decades of US policy.

The United States is half-way through a three-year term on the 47-member Geneva-based body and the Trump administration had long threatened to quit if it was not overhauled. Rights groups have criticised the Trump administration for not making human rights a priority in its foreign policy. Critics say this sends a message that the administration turns a blind eye to human rights abuses in some parts of the world.

It also comes as the United States faces intense criticism for detaining children separated from their immigrant parents at the US-Mexico border. UN human rights chief Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein on Monday called on Washington to halt its “unconscionable” policy. “Given the state of human rights in today’s world, the US should be stepping up, not stepping back,” Zeid said after Haley announced the US withdrawal.

Reuters reported last week that talks on reforming the council had failed to meet Washington’s demands, suggesting the Trump administration would quit. “The Human Rights Council enables abuses by absolving wrongdoers through silence and falsely condemning those that committed no offence,” Pompeo said.

Diplomats have said the US withdrawal could bolster countries such as Cuba, Russia, Egypt and Pakistan, which resist what they see as UN interference in sovereign issues. Haley said the withdrawal “is not a retreat from our human rights commitments”.

Twelve rights and aid groups, including Human Rights First, Save the Children and CARE, warned Pompeo the US withdrawal would “make it more difficult to advance human rights priorities and aid victims of abuse around the world”. Jamil Dakwar, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Human Rights Program, said Trump’s “misguided policy of isolationism only harms American interests”.

The Human Rights Council meets three times a year to examine human rights violations worldwide. It has mandated independent investigators to look at situations including Syria, North Korea, Myanmar and South Sudan. Its resolutions are not legally binding but carry moral authority. When the Council was created in 2006, US President George W Bush’s administration shunned the body. Under President Barack Obama the United States was elected for a maximum two consecutive terms on the council by the UN General Assembly. After a year off, Washington was re-elected in 2016 for its current third term. UN officials said the United States would be the first member to withdraw from the council.

Haley said a year ago that Washington was reviewing its membership. The body has a permanent standing agenda item on suspected violations committed by Israel in the occupied Palestinian territories that Washington wanted removed.

The council last month voted to probe killings in Gaza and accused Israel of using excessive force. The United States and Australia cast the only “no” votes.

“The UN Human Rights Council has played an important role in such countries as North Korea, Syria, Myanmar and South Sudan, but all Trump seems to care about is defending Israel,” said Human Rights Watch executive director Ken Roth.

The US plans to announce its withdrawal from the United Nations Human Rights Council on Tuesday, media reports said.

US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley, who had last year threatened to pull out of it given longstanding US complaints that it is biased against Israel, along with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, plans to announce the withdrawal at the State Department here at 5 p.m., Bloomberg reported, quoting two people familiar with the matter who requested anonymity.

On Monday, the Geneva-based council began its latest session. The announcement came a day after UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein slammed US President Donald Trump’s immigration policy separating migrant children from their parents, The Times of Israel reported, also quoting sources. The Trump administration earlier pulled out of the Paris climate agreement and the Iran nuclear deal.

In reverses his policy, Trump signs order stopping Family Separation

President Donald Trump, under mounting political pressure from angry members of his own party, signed an executive order Wednesday reversing his administration’s policy of separating children from their parents at the border and allowing families to instead be detained together. “It’s about keeping families together while ensuring we have a powerful border,” Trump said.

It was a dramatic turnaround for Trump, who has been insisting, wrongly, that his administration had no choice but to separate families apprehended at the border because of federal law and a court decision. The news in recent days has been dominated by searing images of children held in cages at border facilities, as well as audio recordings of young children crying for their parents — images that have sparked fury, question of morality and concern from Republicans about a negative impact on their races in November’s midterm elections.

Until June 20, the president, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen and other officials had repeatedly argued the only way to end the practice was for Congress to pass new legislation, while Democrats said he could do it with his signature alone. That’s what he did. “We’re going to have strong, very strong borders, but we’re going to keep the families together,” said Trump, who said he didn’t like the “sight” or “feeling” of children separated from their parents.

He said his order would not end the “zero-tolerance” policy that criminally prosecutes all adults caught crossing the border illegally. The order aims to keep families together while they are in custody, expedite their cases, and ask the Department of Defense to help house families.

Justice Department lawyers had been working to find a legal workaround for a previous class-action settlement that set policies for the treatment and release of unaccompanied children who are caught at the border. Still, Trump’s order is likely to create a new set of problems involving length of detention of families, and may spark a fresh court fight.

The Hindu American Foundation, in response to Trump’s earlier actions, called them “unconscionable.” In a statement issued June 19, HAF said: “As immigrants or children of immigrants, as parents, as Hindus, we can find no legal, moral, or ethical justification for such actions.”

HAF’s Indian American executive director Suhag Shukla added: “Hindus place great importance on the family. Whether attempting to enter the United States to seek asylum, fleeing violence in their home country, or seeking better economic opportunities, separating children from their parents is abhorrent. Treating young, vulnerable children in such a degraded way is beyond not only Hindu values, but American values.”

Trump business dealings raise ‘serious concerns,’ ethics office says

The government’s top ethics official said some of President Trump’s business dealings “raise serious concerns” but that the office lacks the authority to launch an investigation requested last month by congressional Democrats.

More than 60 Democrats, led by Rep. David N. Cicilline of Rhode Island, had written to the Office of Government Ethics in May asking that the agency investigate reported Chinese government support of an Indonesian real estate development that will include several Trump-brand properties.

David J. Apol, acting director and general counsel at the ethics office, responded last week that he thought concern was warranted. But because the president is not bound by the same conflict-of-interest laws as most federal employees, he said, Congress is responsible for holding the president in check.

“Under the Constitution, the primary authority to oversee the President’s ethics rests with Congress and ultimately, with the American people,” Apol wrote in his Monday response.

At issue is a report in the South China Morning Post saying the Chinese government is issuing $500 million in loans for the project in Jakarta, Indonesia. Days later, Trump announced his support for Chinese-backed telecommunications firm ZTE, a departure from his previously aggressive stance toward Chinese industry.

There is no evidence the two issues are linked. However, the Democrats raised concerns about the deal that amplify arguments being made against the president and his company, the Trump Organization, in a series of court cases.

In their letter, they argued that the loan may be a violation of the Constitution’s emoluments clauses that forbid the president from accepting gifts or payments from foreign governments.

The Trump administration has “completely failed to address the suspicious timing between this policy reversal and the Chinese government’s loan to a Trump-backed project,” they wrote. Language in a recently introduced appropriations bill would place restrictions on the use of government funds to purchase equipment produced by ZTE.

“At the outset, I agree that the information cited in your letter raises serious concerns,” Apol said. However he said the agency had “no authority to opine on Emoluments Clause issues.” The office declined to comment further.

Neither White House nor Trump Organization officials responded to requests for comment. Trump resigned his positions with the company upon entering office but retained his financial stake in the business, which includes office buildings, hotels and residential properties in America and abroad.

This is not the first time congressional Democrats have urged the ethics office to take action, and they have received similar rebuffs previously.

A year ago, Democrats, led by Sen. Robert P. Casey Jr. (Pa.), made a similar request of the ethics office, only to be told by then-Director Walter M. Shaub Jr. that it was outside his purview.

Shaub, now working for the nonprofit Campaign Legal Center, has become a fierce critic of the president. “Unless the Department of Justice decides to pursue this as a criminal matter, only Congress has jurisdiction to conduct oversight here, and the Congressional majority has made clear that it’s out of the business of conducting meaningful oversight of the executive branch as long as Trump is president,” Shaub said in an email.

The Trump Organization has retained an outside ethics adviser, Washington attorney Bobby R. Burchfield, to review new deals the company proposes to try to ensure that business partners aren’t seeking political advantage with the president and would pay a fair price in the transactions.

In comments published in the Texas Review of Law and Politics earlier this year, Burchfield compared Trump’s business activities to those of previous officials, including President George Washington, Vice President Nelson Rockefeller and Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker. “President Trump has gone beyond the legal requirements to insulate himself and his businesses from ethical issues,” Burchfield wrote.

Historic Summit of Indian American Political Action

The first ever Indian-American Impact Project Summit, held on June 7th at the National Education Association Auditorium in Washington, D.C., described as the largest gathering in recent years of Indian-Americans brought together dozens of Congressional and state Assembly aspirants, incumbents, community leaders, political activists and donors, numbering over 200.

Sponsored by the Indian American Impact Project, the day-long meeting was attended by nearly 200 Indian Americans.

Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA), the first-ever Senator of Indian origin, delivered the keynote address. Harris’ remarks were followed by the other tag team: Pramila Jayapal of Washington state and Raja Krishnamoorthi of Illinois, also both Democrats. Together the group forms an entity Krishnamoorthi affectionately calls the “Samosa Caucus.”

“Like many of you in this room, especially those who are pursuing elected office or may think of pursuing elected office, at the time in 2002, when I decided to run against him, I was told like many of you may have been told or will be told, ‘Hmm, nobody like you has done this before.’ “ she said. “ ‘Maybe, it’s not a good time, maybe they are not ready for you, it will be a lot of hard work.’ I didn’t listen. And, part of why I am here today, is to say, don’t you listen. This moment of time is a moment in time to that moment of time when my parents were active in the civil rights movement,” she said. The moment, she said, requires the community to be part of the fight for American ideals. Even in the face of powerful voices that are sowing hate and division among us, I know it to be true and believe we have so much more in common than what divides us,” she said.

“The summit was first-ever event of its kind,” said Gautam Raghavan, executive director of the newly minted Impact Project. “We are thrilled to host the first-ever gathering of Indian American elected officials, candidates, philanthropists, community leaders, and political strategists. I am particularly excited that we have over 30 Indian American candidates and elected officials attending the Summit. Many of them are eager to connect with one another, to share stories from the campaign trail and lessons learned along the way.”

He said the rationale behind it was to brainstorm on strategies to get candidates elected and give others mulling entry into the fray the necessary training and resources for viable campaigns “This historic summit is proof that the Indian- American community has truly arrived on the political scene,” said Raj Goyle, cofounder of Impact and a former member of the Kansas House of Representatives. “Together, we can shape a future in which talented and patriotic Indian-Americans are fully represented at every level of government, from City Hall to the White House.”

Deepak Raj, a cofounder of the project, called the energy, enthusiasm and talent of those gathered “truly inspiring. Impact is proud to stand with them — and we look forward to expanding their ranks at every level of elected office.” He said the stated goal was to have at least 15 to 20 Indian- Americans in Congress “and our community should be represented in many, many places —city council, state houses, Supreme Court, state governors mansions, and who knows, thinking big, one day in the White House.”

David Cohen, senior executive vice president and chief diversity officer of Comcast Corporation, one of the summit’s sponsors, noted that while “Americans’ ambivalence to politics remains very much with us, yet good things happen when good people get involved in the political process. That’s what’s happening here,” noting it was a reason for the Comcast sponsorship. He said the Indian-American lawmakers on Capitol Hill and “political leaders like Nikki Haley — the daughter of Sikh immigrants from Punjab, and a popular governor of South Carolina and now our ambassador to the United Nations,” provided even more encouragement, as do the 60 Indian-American candidates for office at various federal, state and local levels. The Indian-American community is spreading its political wings. And the time is right.”

“I do realize that I am an ideological minority here, but I am proud to be here and thank you for the invitation,” said Harry Arora, GOP candidate for the House seat in Connecticut’s 4th District. Arora and fellow Republican Aakash Patel, candidate for Hillsborough County Commission in Florida, shared places on a panel “Running and Serving as an ‘R.’ “ An invitation had also been extended to another Republican, two-term Ohio State Rep Niraj Antani, who did not attend.

At a panel discussion on public service and the path less traveled, featured Hoboken, New Jersey’s Mayor Ravi Bhalla; former diplomat Sri Preston Kulkarni, the Democratic nominee for the 22nd District of Texas; Maryland lawmaker Aruna Miller, the front-runner in the Democratic primary in Maryland’s 6th District; and continuing health care advocate Ram Villivalam, Democratic nominee for the Illinois State Senate from the 8th District.

Bhalla, an attorney, recalled his own candidacy after volunteering for both the mayoral campaign of Cory Booker, who is now a senator, and the presidential campaign of Barack Obama. He was asked “how many Sikhs are there in Hoboken?” and he had replied, “My brother and I.” He said he was told: “You are not Irish, you are not Italian…where are you going to draw your vote?”

Villivalam said he too had naysayers who discouraged him when he challenged a 20-year incumbent in the Democratic primary. He got comments, he said, such as “you are a dark man knocking on doors of older white ladies at 8 p.m.” In four months, he said, he was able to win their vote.

Another panel featured women in politics, with participants including congressional aspirant, Dr. Hiral Tipirneni, Democratic nominee for Arizona’s 8th District; Dr. Megan Srinivas, candidate for Iowa’s state assembly; Padma Kuppa, candidate for the Michigan state House, and Dita Bhargarva, candidate for State Treasurer in Connecticut. Kuppa urged more young Indian-American women to consider a candidacy. “The important thing to remember is that we are great candidates — and also that we are women.”

Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey delivered the closing keynotes. His address was preceded by the tag-team of Indian-American members of the House of Representatives, Ami Bera and Ro Khanna, both Democrats from California. In the sporting arena of politics, Indian-Americans can – and should – punch above their weight class, said Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) In his address, he noted the community’s capacity to excel in academia, technology, business and the arts. “In every area,” he said, “Indian-Americans have been out-punching [their] weight class – look at the Fortune 500 companies — except for one [class] that has been in elected officials.” He said the absence of Indian-American involvement there on a grand scale has left “the one big hole in American society.” It is a time, he said, “when the very idea of America is under assault” most notably, by bigotry.

Raj Shah may soon exit the White House, says CBS

Two of the most visible members of the Trump administration are planning their departures, the latest sign of upheaval in a White House marked by turmoil. The Principal Deputy Press Secretary to President Donald Trump, Raj Shah, and Press Secretary, Sarah Sanders, are planning to leave their respective positions at the White House, according to CBS News.

CBS News reported that sources inside the White House have confirmed the departures as Sanders plans to leave by the end of the year and Shah hasn’t given an exact date yet. Shah, 33, was temporarily filling the position of Sanders when she had gone on a long, well deserved vacation.

Shah was born and raised in Connecticut and attended Cornell University where he became politically active. Shah interned in the Bush White House in the summer of 2005 and after he graduated, he was working in the research wing of the Republican National Committee. He joined the White House the day President Trump took office, where he was made the deputy communications director and research director.

Sanders, on the other hand, has tweeted “Does @CBSNews know something I don’t about my plans and my future? I was at my daughter’s year-end Kindergarten event and they ran a story about my “plans to leave the WH” without even talking to me. I love my job and am honored to work for @POTUS.”

Several other lower-level positions in the communications department left vacant in recent weeks are likely to remain unfilled, with more departures expected in the coming weeks, according to a former official.

Numerous staffers have left the White House over the last several months, some voluntarily and others having been forced out. Those departures include Hicks; Jared Kushner’s top communications aide, Josh Raffel; homeland security adviser Tom Bossert; National Security Council spokesman Michael Anton; Trump personal aide John McEntee; director of White House message strategy Cliff Simms; communications aide Steven Cheung; congressional communications director Kaelan Dorr; assistant press secretary Natalie Strom; and deputy director of media affairs Tyler Ross.

“There will be even more people leaving the White House sooner rather than later, laid off or just leaving out of exhaustion. And it is going to be harder to find good people to replace them,” a source close to the administration told CBS News. “I do think they’re going to have a harder time getting the second wave of people in than the first, because those people were loyalists, and [new] folks will have to be recruited and encouraged and then survive the vetting process. In addition to all of that, the president prefers to have a small communications staff.”

US Representative Tulsi Gabbard Questioned on Hindutva Relationship

On the heels of news that U.S. Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) will chair the 2018 World Hindu Congress (WHC) in Chicago, the Organization for Minorities of India (OFMI) has issued Rep. Gabbard an open letter urging her to end her relationship with groups that promote Hindu nationalism.

The WHC will be hosted by Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), a subsidiary of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). Mohan Bhagat, the current Sarsanghchalak (Supreme Leader) of the RSS, will keynote the conference. Invitations have also been extended to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanth of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which is ideologically affiliated with the RSS and VHP. The organizations are collectively known as the “Sangh Parivar.”

Gabbard’s relationship with Modi extends back to his inauguration as prime minister in May 2014, when she issued a press statement announcing, “I recently spoke with Narendra Modi by phone and congratulated him and the Bharatiya Janata party for winning.” She has met with Modi on at least four occasions since, including September 2014 in New York, December 2014 in India (a trip which she made at his personal invitation), September 2015 in California, and June 2016 in Washington, D.C.

She is known for her vocal opposition to attempts by U.S. government officials to take action against allegations of human rights atrocities by Modi and other Sangh Parivar affiliates. In 2014, she condemned the U.S. State Department for its decision to deny Modi a visa based on his involvement in “particularly severe violations of religious freedom.” In 2015, she denounced House Resolution 417, a bipartisan call for the annual U.S.-India Strategic Dialogue to focus on “religious freedom and related human rights.”

The text of OFMI’s open letter to Gabbard follows: While we had appreciated in the past your clear-eyed stance against military adventurism abroad viz. the Iraq War, we are puzzled by your lack of similar concern about the rising militantism in India — another nation with which you have significant involvement. No doubt you must be aware that while extremism and militarism are growing world-wide, India is not an exception. Violent fascist groups who murder Christians and other minorities have seized power.

Perhaps you remember the tragic killing of Graham Staines and his two sons? On January 23, 1999, extremist Hindu nationalists in India attacked the Christian pastor and burned him to death in his car along with his two sons (aged 6 and 10). In 2018, religious freedom watchdog group Open Doors USA ranked India as the 11th most dangerous country in the world for Christians.

Staines was murdered by members of a branch of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the parent of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which currently rules India. These groups are collectively known as the “Sangh Parivar.” AS USCIRF (United States Commission on Religious Freedom) reported in 2003, “Violence against religious minorities has coincided with the rise in political influence of groups associated with the Sangh Parivar, a collection of Hindu extremist nationalist organizations that view non-Hindus as foreign to India.”

We are growing alarmed after witnessing your continuous and earnest relationship with leading figures of the Sangh Parivar here in the U.S. In September 2018, you will visit Chicago to share the stage with RSS leader Mohan Bhagwat at the World Hindu Congress. Mr. Bhagwat is very open that the goal of the RSS is to turn India into a Hindu nation. The RSS makes no apologies for its frequent violence against religious minorities. While the Staines family was killed in 1999, their deaths have been often replicated since then, sometimes as massacres.

In 2002, while Narendra Modi was the head of State of Gujarat, horrible pogroms took place against the Muslims. USCIRF calls the BJP “a political party associated with a group of Hindu extremist nationalist organizations that had been implicated in growing violence against religious minorities in the country and the killing of as many as 2,000 Muslims in the state of Gujarat in 2002.” The USCIRF also reported, “India’s National Human Rights Commission, an official body, found evidence of premeditation in the killings by members of Hindu extremist groups; complicity by Gujarat state government officials; and police inaction in the midst of attacks on Muslims. Christians were also victims in Gujarat, and many churches were destroyed.”

Now Mr. Modi is Prime Minister of India. You have met Mr. Modi on several occasions. Your praise for him is overflowing. In 2014, after he became prime minister, you called Modi “a leader whose example and dedication to the people he serves should be an inspiration to elected officials everywhere.” Your plans to also share the stage with Mohan Bhagwat indicate not just your tolerance but also your acceptance and appreciation for the Sangh Parivar’s activities. We are disappointed by your support for fascist organizations which victimize the most marginalized and vulnerable citizens of India, including Buddhists, Christians, Dalits, Muslims, and Sikhs.

The mission of the people of Hawai’i is well stated in its motto, “Ua Mau ke Ea o ka ʻĀina i ka Pono” — “The life of the land is perpetuated in righteousness.” Can one stand for righteousness while standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the fascist element of Hindu nationalists of India? We implore you to reconsider your friendship with such entities that stand against Hawaiian and American principles.

New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir Grewal seeks active role in ED investigations

New Jersey state Attorney General Gurbir Grewal, the first Sikh American Attorney General in the U.S., voiced concern May 17 about the Department of Education effectively shutting down investigations into fraudulent activity by private universities in the U.S., and offered to take over.

“If the federal government will not pursue these investigations wherever the facts and the law take them, let us pick up where you leave off,” wrote the Indian American. “Give the New Jersey Attorney General’s Office access to your department’s files,” he stated.

Gurbir Grewal, has sent a letter to Department of Education Secretary Betsy Devos in which the NJ AG invites the ED to work with his office “to ensure that any investigations of fraudulent activities by educational institutions are completed properly, rather than ended prematurely or allowed to grow dormant.”

The New York Times noted in a May 13 story that members of a special team at the Education Department, who had been investigating widespread abuses by for-profit colleges, have been marginalized, reassigned or instructed to focus on other matters.

The NJ AG indicates that his invitation is intended to put to rest recent reports that the ED has discontinued investigations into potentially fraudulent activity at several large for-profit colleges and restricted communications between the ED’s staff and state AGs about such investigations.  He asserts that “[a]bandoning the Department’s cooperative relationships with State Attorneys General could only harm the public interest we should be working together to serve.”

The NJ AG asks the ED to let his office partner with the ED if it continues to pursue the investigations it “reportedly has (or had) in progress” or, if the ED will not pursue such investigations, to let his office “pick up where you leave off” and give it access to the ED’s files (claiming that his office can arrange to protect the confidentiality of any shared investigative files.)

Young adults from India comprise a majority of the student population at several of the private universities under investigation. Fraudulent universities – such as the now-shuttered Tri-Valley University in Pleasanton, Calif., and suspected ‘visa mill’ Silicon Valley University in San Jose, Calif., – have often hastily been shut down leaving Indian students stranded, out of status, and deportable.

In a May 17 letter to DeVos, Grewal referenced The New York Times report, and added that the DoE has stymied state attorney generals’ efforts to investigate the sham colleges. “As you know, students and taxpayers alike are harmed when educational institutions fail to deliver what they advertise,” wrote Grewal in the letter to DeVos. “Too often, students spend their hard-earned money and take out significant loans only to find they did not receive the education they paid for and cannot get jobs to pay off their loans,” he said, noting that student loans are now the second-largest form of debt for Americans, overtaking auto loans and on pace with mortgages.

Grewal noted that the DoE has – in recent times – not cooperated with states’ efforts to get relief for students who are victims of their university’s malfeasance. He urged the secretary to “begin reviving our past cooperation.”

In his letter, Grewal said: “I hold out hope for the Department of Education to counter any perception it has abdicated its anti-fraud role by working with my office to ensure that any investigations of fraudulent activities by educational institutions are completed properly, rather than ended prematurely or allowed to grow dormant.”

According to a report on northjersey.com, Grewal asserted that New Jersey should be allowed to intervene in the suit as a defendant because terminating the program, known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, would directly harm New Jersey and its residents. More than 17,000 New Jersey residents currently benefit from the program, whose participants are often referred to as “Dreamers.”

India, US are natural allies: Ambassador Richard Verma Pitches for UNSC membership for India

The United States and India are natural allies and the two countries need to take full potential of the relation by further expanding economic and military cooperation, former US Ambassador to India Richard Verma said Ambassador Richard Verma, while delivering the 3rd New India Lecture at Consulate General of India in New York on April 23, 2018. Ambassador Verma spoke on “US- India: Natural Allies-Absent the Alliance.”

Verma emphasized that there is need for an international system that reflects India’s role in the world today. He lamented that India is not on the UN Security Council, is not a member of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation and doesn’t play the kind of role that it probably should on the G-20 bloc of nations or in other international Institutions.
“The US needs to pave the way forward for India so that it actually has the seat at the table in this century, a seat that is appropriate for a country of the size and stature of India. We have to be working very hard for that,” he said.

While commenting on Pakistan, the US has made it clear to Pakistani leaders that their “continuing support and facilitation” of terror groups along the border to create a “perpetual state of conflict” with India is “not sustainable”, former American Ambassador to India Richard Verma has said. He stressed that the US can’t lose the connections to all the people and moderate voices in Pakistan that want peace with India and a better future for their children.

During the course of the lecture, he walked the audience through the history, present and future of US-India relationship. Verma, who is currently the Vice Chairman and Partner of The Asia Group, said that both countries should engage each other amidst the “Make in India” and “America First” rhetoric.

P Vaidyanathan Iyer, a Edward Mason Fellow at Harvard Kennedy School and a journalist with The Indian Express, moderated the lecture. Iyer said Verma was “brilliant in summing up 71 years of India-US ties in two minutes. A rapid fast forward till 2018!”

 

Dr. Hiral Tipirneni wins Arizona Democratic primary for Congress

Indian American physician Hiral Tipirneni defeated her Democratic rival Brianna Westbrook in Tuesday’s closely watched special 8th Congressional District primary on February 27th. Tipirneni, an emergency-room physician, and Westbrook, a progressive activist, were battling for the chance to take on the winner of the Republican primary in the April 24 special general election.

Republican Debbie Lesko won the GOP primary. The special election will settle who finishes the current two-year term for Trent Franks, who resigned in December after being accused of sexual misconduct. Elected leaders, activists, and fundraisers in the Indian-American community are celebrating the victory of an Arizona physician in that state’s 8th Congressional District Democratic primary.

“Thank you to everyone who knocked on a door, picked up a phone, & helped to spread our message through #AZ08! #grassroots,” said Dr. Hiral Tipirneni. She now has to defeat  the Republican primary winner Debbie Lesko to possibly become the second Indian-American woman lawmaker on Capitol Hill.

The AAPI Victory Fund, a political action committee founded by an Indian-American Shekar Narasimhan, tweeted out immediately upon Tipirneni’s victory  “Congratulations @Hiral4Congress #Mineta11 Candidate for winning Democratic Congressional District 8 primaryhttps://t.co/7aS1ZNsTzI via @azcentral #AAPIPower” The organization has endorsed her and is raising funds for her campaign.

Arizona’s 8th District is among the state’s most conservative, suggesting that whoever emerges from the Republican primary Tuesday is considered the favorite to head to Washington. But Democrats have fared better in federal elections across the country since 2016, suggesting the party will make a more competitive showing in the district than typically seen.

The New York Times does not give Tipirneni much of a chance at winning the seat describing District 8 as safely in Republican hands. Past elections results show Franks won 68.5 percent of the vote in the 2016 elections and almost 76 percent in 2014. However, it was a seat that was held by Democrat Gabby Giffords back in 2010. Giffords had to leave after being shot while addressing constituents. Giffords endorsed Tipirneni during the primaries.

The Arizona Democratic Party Chair Felecia Rotellini issued a statement congratulating Tipirneni, describing it as a hard-fought campaign. “She ran an incredible campaign focused on improving the lives of Arizonans in the Eighth Congressional District by offering real solutions for them. This is in direct contrast to the chaos Arizonans have seen on their television screens by the Arizona Republican Party,” Rotellini said, adding, ‘“The Eighth Congressional District deserves a representative that work to get things done for them – like safeguarding Social Security and Arizona’s AHCCCS while making sure their hard-earned tax dollars don’t go to waste in Washington. Dr. Hiral Tipirneni will do exactly that.”

“I think we won because our message was really connecting with voters, resonating,” a triumphant Tipirneni told The Arizona Republic. “I think they are looking for someone who brings something like my skill set to the table, somebody who is ready to work with people from all backgrounds and really focus on solving the problems at hand.”

Judge Ravi K. Sandill to Run for Texas Supreme Court Place 4

Judge Ravi K. Sandill is running for the Supreme Court of Texas, Place 4, to bring balance to the institution that is” increasingly out of touch with the needs of everyday Texans,” he says. “After nearly a quarter century of one-party rule, our state Supreme Court increasingly caters to an extreme, special interest agenda and is ignoring its duty to the nearly 28 million Texans it is elected to serve,” Sandill said on his site. “On issues from public school finance to equal protection under the law, the court has failed to do its job. It is time for a change.”

On his website, he says that after nearly a quarter century of one-party rule, “our state Supreme Court increasingly caters to an extreme, special interest agenda and is ignoring its duty to the nearly 28 million Texans it is elected to serve.

On issues from public school finance to equal protection under the law, the court has failed to do its job.” He says he is running “to restore an independent voice to our state’s highest judicial body and to focus on the rule of law, rather than a fringe ideological agenda.”

Sandill who describes himself as a Texan, husband, dad and cancer survivor, grew up on military bases throughout Texas, attended college in Austin, and graduated from law school in Houston. He has served as judge of the 127th Civil District Court in Harris County since 2009 and, according to his website, is the first district court judge in Texas of South Asian descent.

After graduating law school, Sandill worked as a briefing attorney for Murry Cohen, senior justice on Texas’s First District Court of Appeals. He then went into private practice in Houston, where he focused on commercial, appellate, and trade secret litigation for a number of years. Sandill first ran for judge in 2008 and since then has presided over more than 225 civil trials and has adjudicated over 15,000 matters.

As a young attorney and just two months before he was to marry his law school classmate, Sandill was diagnosed with Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, a cancer of the blood cells. He got married while undergoing chemotherapy and radiation, but the cancer returned just six months later, requiring him to undergo a stem-cell transplant at age 27. Sandill has been cancer-free for more than 13 years.

He and his wife Kelly, a partner at the law firm of Andrews Kurth Kenyon LLP, and their son Asher live in central Houston. The Indian American is from a military family and learned the value of service at a young age, he said. His father, Retired Lt. Col. Brij Sandill, served in the U.S. Army and the U.S. Air Force for a combined 28 years. The judge spent most of his childhood at Fort Hood Army Base in Killeen, Texas, and Sheppard Air Force Base in Wichita Falls, later moving with his family to Royal Air Force Station Lakenheath, England.

Sandill won the 127th district court seat in 2008, defeating a nearly three-decades long incumbent to claim the seat. Since taking over the seat, the Indian American judge has presided over more than 225 civil trials and has adjudicated over 15,000 matters. He was elected to a third term as judge in November 2016.

Sandill serves on the board of directors of the Garland R. Walker American Inn of Court, an organization dedicated to improving the skills, professionalism and ethics of lawyers, and is a frequent speaker on legal topics throughout Texas and the nation.

Sameena Mustafa running for Congress in Illinois’ 5th District

Indian American activist Sameena Mustafa is running for Congress in Illinois’ 5th Congressional District, vying for the Democratic nomination in the March 20 primary. Mustafa is among four Democrats running in the primary, including incumbent Rep. Mike Quigley, who has held the seat since he was elected in 2009. The other candidates in the primary are Steve Schwartzberg and Benjamin Thomas Wolf.

Sameena’s story is the story of the American Dream. The story of opportunity, hard work and dedication to service. “I’m Sameena Mustafa. My background is I’ve worked in business, non-profit and the arts. Most recently I was a commercial real estate tenant advocate for 13 years representing groups, non-profits, small business that represent the most marginalized in our community, so women and girls, the LBT community, immigrants and refugees, and that has been my life’s work. I’ve been on boards, I’ve been a volunteer for domestic violence shelters, it is my passion to work for the community, and this is a continuation of that,” she told The Sun Times recently.

Mustafa, the daughter of Muslim immigrants from India who has lived in the 5th Congressional District of Illinois for three decades, has worked in business, the non-profit sector and the arts.

Sameena was born in Evanston, IL to Indian Muslim immigrant parents and grew up in the Edgebrook neighborhood of Chicago. Her father worked as an engineer at O’Hare, and her mother as a pediatrician at the Uptown Board of Health Clinic. Sameena attended Chicago Public Schools, Regina Dominican H.S., and graduated from Northwestern University.

After graduation, she managed a Planned Parenthood clinic, and for the past decade has worked in real estate as a tenant advocate for small businesses and community nonprofits serving women, immigrants, refugees, LGBTQ, and sexual assault survivors.

Sameena has lived in the 5th District for 30 years and currently resides in the North Center neighborhood with her husband, Talha.

Sameena has been a leader in the business, arts, and nonprofit communities for 25 years. For over a decade she has counseled and negotiated on behalf of small businesses and nonprofits against landlords and financial institutions as a real estate tenant representative and advocate for organizations such as Upwardly Global, Instituto del Progreso Latino, Neighborhood Housing Services of Chicago, Rape Victim Advocates, Chicago Women’s Health Center and the Chicago Foundation for Women.

As a former Planned Parenthood manager, she is the only candidate in the race with direct healthcare experience in a federally-funded clinic.

In Congress, Mustafa said she will fight for economic justice, human rights and political reform to show that the 5th District stands for bold, progressive and inclusive leadership. Mustafa’s priorities include reproductive choice for women, Medicare for all, pushing for a living wage and empowering workers, ensuring rights and protections for all people, providing a path to citizenship to immigrants regardless of status, fighting voter suppression, rolling back the systemic architecture of mass incarceration, revamping the corporate and individual tax system, campaign finance reform, combating climate change, and protecting net neutrality, her site said.

“I will fight for the causes that are important to the people of the 5th District and work to resolve the issues that affect the American people most,” she said in a Chicago Sun-Times report. “We are living in a critical time in our history and the need for representatives who are not beholden to corporate donors and lobbyists has never been greater. This is why I will push for a constitutional amendment to ensure free and fair elections to address the corrosive effect of money in politics.”

“Fake News” Is Fake News

The people who created Facebook and Google must be smart. They’re billionaires, their companies are worth multi-multi billions, their programs are used by billions around the world.

But all these smart people, because of Congressional pressure, have swallowed the stories about “fake news”. Facebook hired a very large staff of people to read everything posted by users to weed out the fake stuff. That didn’t last too long at all before the company announced that it wasn’t “comfortable” deciding which news sources are the most trustworthy in a “world with so much division”. We all could have told them that, couldn’t we?

Facebook’s previous efforts to ask its users to determine the accuracy of news did not turn out any better. Last year, the company launched a feature that allowed users to flag news stories they felt were inaccurate. The experiment was shuttered after nine months.

“Fake news”, however, is not the problem. News found in the mainstream media is rarely fake; i.e., actual lies made from whole cloth, totally manufactured. This was, however, a common practice of the CIA during the first Cold War. The Agency wrote editorials and phony news stories to be knowingly published by Latin American media with no indication of CIA authorship or CIA payment to the particular media. The propaganda value of such a “news” item might be multiplied by being picked up by other CIA stations in Latin America who would disseminate it through a CIA-owned news agency or a CIA-owned radio station. Some of these stories made their way back to the United States to be read or heard by unknowing North Americans.

Iraq’s “weapons of mass destruction” in 2003 is another valid example of “fake news”, but like the CIA material this was more a government invention than a media creation.

The main problem with the media today, as earlier, is what is left out of articles dealing with controversial issues. For example, the very common practice during the first Cold War of condemning the Soviet Union for taking over much of Eastern Europe after the Second World War. This takeover is certainly based on fact. But the condemnation is very much misapplied if no mention is made of the fact that Eastern Europe became communist because Hitler, with the approval of the West, used it as a highway to reach the Soviet Union to wipe out Bolshevism once and for all; the Russians in World Wars I and II lost about 40 million people because the West had twice used this highway to invade Russia. It should not be surprising that after World War II the Soviets were determined to close down the highway. It was not simply “communist expansion”.

Or the case of Moammar Gaddafi. In the Western media he is invariably referred to as “the Libyan dictator”. Period. And he certainly was a dictator. But he also did many marvelous things for the people of Libya (like the highest standard of living in Africa) and for the continent of Africa (like creating the African Union).

Or the case of Vladimir Putin. The Western media never tires of reminding its audience that Putin was once a KGB lieutenant colonel – wink, wink, we all know what that means, chuckle, chuckle. But do they ever remind us with a wink or chuckle that US President George H.W. Bush was once – not merely a CIA officer, but the fucking Director of the CIA!

Facebook chief executive Mark Zuckerberg now says: “We decided that having the community determine which sources are broadly trusted would be most objective”; “broadly trusted” sources being those that are “affirmed by a significant cross-section of users”.

Right, a significant cross-section of users – Will that include me? Highly unlikely. Broadly trusted sources – Will that include media like my Anti-Empire Report? Just as unlikely. Anything close? Maybe a single token leftist website amongst a large list, I’d guess. And a single token rightist website. Zuckerberg and his ilk probably think that the likes of NBC, NPR and CNN are very objective and are to be trusted when it comes to US foreign-policy issues or capitalism-vs-socialism issues.

On January 19 Google announced that it would cancel a two-month old experiment, called Knowledge Panel, which informed its users that a news article had been disputed by “independent fact-checking organizations”. Conservatives had complained that the feature unfairly targeted a right-leaning outlet.

Imagine that. It’s almost like people have political biases. Both Facebook and Google are still experimenting, trying to find a solution that I do not think exists. My solution is to leave it as it is. There’s no automated way to remove bias or slant or judgment from writing or from those persons assigned to evaluate such.

“I’m happy to have a president that will bluntly speak the truth in negotiations,” Eric Prince commented on Breitbart News. “If the president says some places are shitholes, he’s accurate.” Thus did Mr. Eric Prince pay homage to Mr. Donald Trump. Prince of course being the renowned founder of Blackwater, the private army which in September 2007 opened fire in a crowded square in Baghdad, killing 17 Iraqi civilians and seriously wounding 20 more.

Speaking of Haiti and other “shitholes”, Prince declared: “It’s a sad characterization of many of these places. It’s not based on race. It has nothing to do with race. It has to do with corrupt incompetent governments that abuse their citizens, and that results in completely absent infrastructure to include open sewers, and unclean water, and crime. It’s everything we don’t want in America.”

Like the US media, Prince failed to point out that on two occasions in the recent past when Haiti had a decent government, led by Jean-Bertrand Aristide, which was motivated to improve conditions, the United States was instrumental in nullifying its effect. This was in addition to fully supporting the Duvalier dictatorship for nearly 30 years prior to Aristide.

Aristide, a reformist priest, was elected to the presidency in 1991 but was ousted eight months later in a military coup. The 1993 Clinton White House thus found itself in the awkward position of having to pretend – because of all their rhetoric about “democracy” – that they supported the democratically-elected Aristide’s return to power from his exile in he US. After delaying his return for more than two years, Washington finally had its military restore Aristide to office, but only after obliging the priest to guarantee that he would not help the poor at the expense of the rich – literally! – and that he would stick closely to free-market economics. This meant that Haiti would continue to be the assembly plant of the Western Hemisphere, with its workers receiving starvation wages, literally! If Aristide had thoughts about breaking the agreement forced upon him, he had only to look out his window – US troops were stationed in Haiti for the remainder of his term.

In 2004, with Aristide once again the elected president, the United States staged one of its most blatant coups ever. On February 28, 2004, American military and diplomatic personnel arrived at Aristide’s home to inform him that his private American security agents must either leave immediately to return to the US or fight and die; that the remaining 25 of the American security agents hired by the Haitian government, who were to arrive the next day, had been blocked by the United States from coming; that foreign and Haitian rebels were nearby, heavily armed, determined and ready to kill thousands of people in a bloodbath. Aristide was pressured to sign a “letter of resignation” before he was flown into exile by the United States.

And then US Secretary of State Colin Powell, in the sincerest voice he could muster, told the world that Aristide “was not kidnapped. We did not force him onto the airplane. He went onto the airplane willingly. And that’s the truth.” Powell sounded as sincere as he had sounded a year earlier when he gave the UN a detailed (albeit imaginary) inventory of the chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in Iraq, shortly before the US invasion.

Jean-Bertrand Aristide was on record, by word and deed, as not being a great lover of globalization or capitalism. This was not the kind of man the imperial mafia wanted in charge of the Western Hemisphere’s assembly plant. It was only a matter of time before they took action.

It should be noted that the United States also kept progressives out of power in El Salvador, another of Trump’s “shithole” countries.

On January 24 I went to the Washington, DC bookstore Politics & Prose to hear David Cay Johnston, author of “It’s Even Worse Than You Think: What the Trump Administration Is Doing to America”. To my surprise he repeatedly said negative things about Russia, and in the Q&A session I politely asked him about this. He did not take kindly to that and after a very brief exchange cut me off by asking for the next person in line to ask a question.

That was the end of our exchange. No one in the large audience came to my defense or followed up with a question in the same vein; i.e., the author as cold warrior. The only person who spoke to me afterwards had only this to say as he passed me by: “Putin kills people”. Putin had not been mentioned. I should have asked him: “Which government never kills anyone?”

Politics & Prose is a very liberal bookstore. (Amongst many authors of the left, I’ve spoken there twice.) Its patrons are largely liberal. But liberals these days are largely cold warriors it appears. Even though the great majority of them can’t stand Trump they have swallowed the anti-Russia line of his administration and the media, perhaps because of the belief that “Russian meddling” in the election led to dear Hillary’s defeat, the proof of which seems more non-existent with each passing day.

Sam Smith (who puts out the Progressive Review in Maine) has written about Hillary’s husband: “A major decline of progressive America occurred during the Clinton years as many liberals and their organizations accepted the presence of a Democratic president as an adequate substitute for the things liberals once believed in. Liberalism and a social democratic spirit painfully grown over the previous 60 years withered during the Clinton administration.”

And shortly afterward came Barack Obama, not only a Democrat but an African-American, the perfect setup for a lot more withering, health care being a good example. The single-payer movement was regularly gaining momentum when Obama took office; it seemed like America was finally going to join the modern advanced world. But Mr. O put a definitive end to that. Profit – even of the type Mr. Trump idealizes – would still determine who is to live and who is to die, just like Jews intone during Rosh Hashanah.

Poor America. It can travel to other planets, create a military force powerful enough to conquer the world ten times over, invent the Internet and a thousand other things … but it can’t provide medical care for all its people.

Now, three of the richest men in the world, the heads of Amazon, Berkshire Hathaway, and JP Morgan Chase, which collectively employ more than a million people, have announced they are partnering to create an independent company aimed at reining in ever-increasing health-care costs for companies and employees alike. The three men will pursue this objective through a company whose initial focus will be on technology solutions that will provide US employees and their families with simplified, high-quality and transparent healthcare at a reasonable cost. Almost no details were made available on how they plan to do this, but I predict that whatever they do will fail. They have lots of models to emulate – in Canada, Europe, Cuba and elsewhere – but to an American nostril these examples all suffer from the same unpleasant odor, the smell of socialism.

I say this even though their announcement states that the new company will be “free from profit-making incentives and constraints”. And Warren Buffet, head of Berkshire Hathaway, is cited on CNN as follows: “Warren Buffett says America is ready for single-payer health care. The billionaire investor tells PBS NewsHour that government-run health insurance ‘probably is the best system’ because it would control escalating costs. ‘We are such a rich country. In a sense, we can afford to do it.’” Of course the US could have afforded to do it 50 years ago. I really hope that my cynicism is misplaced.

The Trump Bubble (Written before the market crashed)

Repeatedly, President Trump and his supporters have bragged about the “booming” stock market, attributing it to the administration’s marvelous economic policies and the great public confidence in those policies. Like much of what comes out of the Donald’s mouth … this is simply nonsense.

The stock market is, and always has been, just a gambling casino, a glorified Las Vegas. Every day a bunch of people, (gamblers) buy and/or sell one stock or another; sometimes they sell the same stock they bought the day before; or the hour before; or the minute before; the next day they may well do the exact reverse. All depending on the latest news headline, or what a corporation has done to elicit attention, or what a friend just told them, or a fortune teller, or that day’s horoscope, or just a good ol’ hunch. Or they make up a reason; anything to avoid thinking that they’re just pulling the lever of a slot machine.

And many people buy certain stocks because other people are buying it. This is what stock market analysts call a speculative bubble. Prick the confidence and the bubble bursts. “The stock market,” Naomi Klein has observed, “has the temperament of an overindulged 2-year-old, who can throw one of its world-shaking tantrums.”

Walter Winchell, the 1960-70s powerful and widely-syndicated gossip columnist of the New York Daily News, famously wrote that he lost his faith in the stock market when he saw that a stock could jump sharply in price simply because he happened to mention something related to the company in his column.

And all this occurs even when the stock market is operating in the supposedly honest way it was designed to operate. What are we to make of it when sophisticated investors devise a computer scam for instantaneous buying and selling, as has happened several times in recent years?

Yet President Trump and his fans would have us believe that the big jump in stock prices of the past year is testimony to his sterling leadership and oh-so-wise policies. What will they say when the market crashes? As Trump himself will crash.

Yes, that’s what they’re thinking of next. Among other things these cars will be able to catch speeders and issue tickets. But here’s the real test of the system’s Artificial Intelligence – Can the police car be taught how to recognize a young black man, drive to within a few feet of him, and fire a gun at his head?

US announces 2+2 ministerial dialogue with India to take place in Washington DC

In an on-going sign of growing partnership, the United States has announced that the inaugural “2+2” ministerial dialogue between its defense and state department secretaries and their Indian counterparts will take place in Washington. The dialogue is expected to be held on April 18 or 19.
“We expect to launch our inaugural 2+2 dialogue with India in Washington this spring, when secretary (Rex) Tillerson and secretary (James) Mattis will meet with their Indian counterparts to further deepen our security ties,” state department deputy secretary John Sullivan said during a senate hearing on the Trump administration’s Afghanistan-centric South Asia strategy.
The launch of the dialogue was announced in August last year. The White House had said in a statement, “establishing a new 2-by-2 ministerial dialogue … will elevate their (the two countries’) strategic consultations”.
While secretaries Mattis and Tillerson have met their Indian counterparts Nirmala Sitharaman and Sushma Swaraj before, this will be the first meeting in a 2+2 (or 2 by 2) format of simultaneous meeting.
This 2+2 replaces the strategic and commercial 2+2 that India and the US had been holding for a few years earlier, involving the defence and commerce ministries in discussions focussed on expanding defence and bilateral trade ties.
At the hearing, Sullivan spoke also of India’s involvement in Afghanistan in the context of President Trump’s south Asia strategy, which accords a larger role to India. “The United States and India share economic and humanitarian interests in Afghanistan,” he said.
“India has allocated more than $3 billion in assistance to Afghanistan since 2001. India further strengthened ties with Afghanistan with the signing of a development partnership agreement. We appreciate these contributions and will continue to look for more ways to work with India to promote economic growth …”

ICE arrests went up in 2017, with biggest increases in Florida, northern Texas, Oklahoma

After years of decline, the number of arrests made by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) climbed to a three-year high in fiscal 2017, according to data from the agency. The biggest percentage increases were in Florida, northern Texas and Oklahoma.
ICE made a total of 143,470 arrests in fiscal 2017, a 30% rise from fiscal 2016. The surge began after President Donald Trump took office in late January: From his Jan. 20 inauguration to the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30, ICE made 110,568 arrests, 42% more than in the same time period in 2016.
Trump signed an executive order on Jan. 25 that expanded ICE’s enforcement focus to most immigrants in the U.S. without authorization, regardless of whether they have a criminal record. Under President Barack Obama, by contrast, ICE focused its enforcement efforts more narrowly, such as by prioritizing the arrests of those convicted of serious crimes.
Despite the overall rise in arrests in 2017, ICE made about twice as many arrests in fiscal 2009, the year Obama came into office (297,898). This total generally declined in subsequent years.
ICE reports arrests geographically by “areas of responsibility.” Although they are named for field offices in major cities, these areas can encompass large regions of the U.S., with some covering four or more states. The Miami area of responsibility, which covers all of Florida, saw the largest percentage increase in ICE arrests between 2016 and 2017 (76%). Next were the Dallas and St. Paul regions (up 71% and 67%, respectively). Arrests increased by more than 50% in the New Orleans, Atlanta, Boston and Detroit regions as well.

Other ICE regions, including those on the U.S.-Mexico border, saw relatively little change in arrests compared with the 30% increase nationally. The Phoenix and El Paso areas, for example, rose around 20% each. The San Antonio and Houston areas in particular saw almost no growth from 2016 to 2017 (up 1% and 5%, respectively). No region reported a decrease in arrests.
The overall number of immigration arrests made by ICE in 2017 varied around the U.S., and the most arrests did not always occur in areas close to the U.S.-Mexico border or in places with the largest unauthorized immigrant populations (such as the New York and Los Angeles metro areas).
ICE arrests were highest in the agency’s Dallas area (16,520), which also saw the largest increase in absolute numbers between 2016 and 2017 (up 6,886). The Houston and Atlanta areas had the second- and third-highest totals in 2017 (each around 13,500), followed by the Chicago, San Antonio and Los Angeles areas (each with roughly 8,500 arrests).
The Dallas area led the nation in ICE arrests last year for the first time during the period analyzed (fiscal 2009-2017). In more recent years, areas closer to the Texas-Mexico border (including Houston and San Antonio) topped the list for arrests. However, the El Paso area, which is also located on the country’s southern border, had among the fewest ICE arrests in the nation in 2017, with fewer than 2,000 – just slightly more than in the Baltimore and Buffalo areas.
Despite a 39% increase in arrests, the New York area of responsibility had among the fewest total ICE arrests in 2017 (roughly 2,600), even though it includes the New York City metro area – home to one of the nation’s largest unauthorized immigrant populations, according to Pew Research Center estimates. The city itself has recently gained attention for its limited cooperation with federal immigration procedures and attempts to boost its “sanctuary city” status by expanding protections for unauthorized immigrants. New York was among several jurisdictions cited by ICE as having policies that restrict cooperation with federal immigration authorities. Jurisdictions within the Baltimore, Buffalo and El Paso areas also made the list. (Many of these policies were enacted long before Trump took office.)
Recent immigration arrest patterns demonstrate a growing emphasis by federal authorities on interior enforcement efforts. While ICE arrests went up significantly between 2016 and 2017, arrests made by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) – the federal agency responsible for enforcing U.S. immigration laws on the border – have declined. CBP agents made 310,531 apprehensions in 2017, down 25% from 2016 and the lowest total in over 45 years. Despite this decrease, CBP apprehensions still far outnumber arrests by ICE.

Trump Regime on the Verge of Okaying Two New Warheads That Could Make Nuclear War More Likely

As has been reported since last summer, the Trump regime seeks to build two new nuclear weapons, one of which—a low-yield warhead for submarine-launched ballistic missiles—could make nuclear war more likely, say critics. The other warhead would be developed to be carried by submarine-launched cruise missiles, which haven’t been equipped with nukes since 2010.
Developing and building these new nukes are elements included in the not-yet-finalized 2018 Nuclear Posture Review. The last NPR was released in 2010. If approved by President Trump, a move which is expected later this month, it would mark a significant change from the Obama era when the emphasis on nukes as part of U.S. strategy was reduced.
That white dot shows the Hiroshima blast, and the red surrounding it is the explosive power of the W78 workhorse bomb that is currently fitted on 149 of the 399 land-based U.S. ICBMS. The Union of Concerned Scientists that created the image note that the W78 has a yield of at least 335 kilotons; Hiroshima was 14-15kt. In addition to the ICBMs, the U.S. has hundreds of missiles equipped with the W76 warhead at 100 kilotons, and the W88 at 475kt (31 times as powerful as the Hiroshima bomb).
Advocates of installing the lower-yield warhead on the submarine-launched Trident ballistic missile say it is a good thing specifically because it would mean the warhead would be more usable. Currently they complain, there is reluctance to actually launch any nuclear-tipped missiles because their yields make them so incredibly destructive. In other words, having a lower-yield weapon at hand would make it easier to “push the button.”
The draft NPR has trickled into the news since September when Bryan Bender first wrote about it at Politico. On Thursday, Ashley Feinberg took up the matter at The Huffington Post, posting a lengthy analysis of what the Pentagon calls a  “pre-decisional” draft of the NPR along with a complete copy of it. On Monday, Michael R. Gordon at The Wall Street Journal reported from behind a paywall on the subject:
Supporters of the Pentagon’s plan say it is time for the U.S. to update its nuclear forces to deal with changing threats some three decades after the end of the Cold War. Critics worry that the Pentagon’s search for more flexible nuclear options could lower the threshold for their use.
The majority of the Russian and U.S. nuclear arsenals are held in “active reserve” and would take considerable time to bring back to operational status. But together, they have about 3,500 nuclear warheads actively deployed and ready for action in minutes.
One of those many critics told Bender:
“If the U.S. moves now to develop a new nuclear weapon, it will send exactly the wrong signal at a time when international efforts to discourage the spread of nuclear weapons are under severe challenge,” said Steven Andreasen, a State Department official in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush who served as the director of arms control on the National Security Council in the Clinton administration. “If the world’s greatest conventional and nuclear military power decides it cannot defend itself without new nuclear weapons, we will undermine our ability to prevent other nations from developing or enhancing their own nuclear capabilities and we will further deepen the divisions between the U.S. and other responsible countries
The Journal again:
A major concern for the Pentagon is a new Russian ground-launched cruise missile that American officials say violates the treaty banning intermediate-range missiles based on land, which was signed in 1987 by President Ronald Reagan and Mikhail S. Gorbachev, leader of the then-Soviet Union. Russia’s decision to develop and deploy that system is described by the review as part of a Russian doctrine that calls for threatening the limited use of nuclear weapons, or perhaps even carrying out a limited nuclear strike, to end a conventional war on terms favorable to the Kremlin.
By developing a new American “low yield” system, the Pentagon review argues the U.S. will have more credible options to respond to Russian threats without using more powerful strategic nuclear weapons, which the Kremlin may calculate Washington would be reluctant to use for fear of unleashing an all-out nuclear war. Because the new weapons it is proposing would be based at sea, the U.S. wouldn’t need the permission of other nations to deploy them and their deployment wouldn’t violate existing arms-control agreements.
It’s not hard to imagine that if the U.S. develops the new low-yield warhead, so will the Russians, and possibly the Chinese. If the U.S. were to launch one or a handful of such nukes against a Russian hard target—say a ballistic missile submarine base—a Kremlin response in kind could be expected. And once the little nukes start flying, nothing would stop the big ones from soon following. Next thing you know, the world’s survivors are acting out the script from The Road in real life.
The 890 nuclear warheads currently deployed on U.S. submarines each have a yield of 7 to 31 times more power than the one dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. Exactly what “low-yield” would mean is not yet defined. Trident missiles currently carry the city-busting W76 warhead at 100 kilotons (seven times more powerful than the 4-15 kiloton Hiroshima bomb) or the W88 at 475kt (31 times as powerful as the Hiroshima bomb). The new nuke would likely be in the 1kt-2kt range.
Although the actual toll will never be known for certain, the Hiroshima bomb killed around 80,000 people in a flash and at least another 100,000 from wounds and radiation-related sicknesses over the next 60 years. The fatalities from the bomb that took out Nagasaki were about half as many.
The horror of this alone gives pause to anyone except for the Dr. Strangeloves among us. However, decision-makers might be more willing to launch a nuke that yields, say, 10 percent of the Hiroshima bomb for use against a hard target such as, for instance, a deep underground weapons-manufacturing site in North Korea.
In other words, advocacy for building new mini-nukes is accompanied by a doctrinal shift that makes a mini-nuclear war “thinkable.” The main trouble with such thinking? Once such a war starts, keeping it mini by confining it to the delivery of a few small nukes—or solely to the nation that’s been hit with them—may well be impossible. Delivering two or three of these to North Korea might very well spur the Chinese to respond with some bombs from their own nuclear arsenal. Nuclear calculus is a dicey game.
The idea of building low-yield nukes is hardly new. Before the major global reduction of nuclear warheads that began in the late 1960s, the U.S. had thousands of such mini-nukes in its inventory—artillery shells, landmines, depth charges, torpedoes, short-range ballistic missiles, even a kind of bazooka.
It still has many nukes in the form of gravity bombs meant to be dropped from airplanes and warheads atop submarine-launched ballistic missiles and air-launched cruise missiles that can be instantly configured for low yields. Of a total active deployment of 1,740 bombs and warheads, the United States has several hundred with in-flight “dial-up” capabilities. This allows for variable yields as low as 0.3 kilotons of TNT (1/50th the yield of the Hiroshima bomb) and as high as 340 kilotons.
At few months ago, James Doyle at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists wrote: In December [2016], the Defense Science Board—an independent group of experts and former officials that provides advice to the Defense Department—submitted a report advising the Pentagon to invest in low-yield nuclear weapons that could provide “a rapid, tailored nuclear option for limited use.” This recommendation struck a familiar note.
In 2003, the board issued a study entitled “Future Strategic Strike Forces” that suggested building small nuclear weapons with “great precision, deep penetration, [and] greatly reduced” yield and radioactivity. The board’s call led to investments in new warhead designs such as the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator—a warhead designed to destroy deeply buried or hardened targets including underground military command centers—and the Reliable Replacement Warhead. Both programs were cancelled in 2008, after millions of dollars had been spent.
Despite the board’s renewed interest in smaller nuclear weapons, and in weapons tailored for limited uses or specific effects, any effort to develop these weapons would encounter the same problem that earlier such efforts have encountered: It is impossible to determine if introducing weapons with these characteristics into the US stockpile, and planning for their use in certain scenarios, would strengthen deterrence or make nuclear war by miscalculation more likely. Building “mini” or tailored nuclear weapons might well lower the threshold to nuclear war; risking that outcome would only make sense if it were absolutely clear that introducing these weapons would remedy some dangerous weakness in deterrence.
Fortunately, no such weakness exists. Any nation using nuclear weapons against the United States or its allies risks a devastating response whose negative consequences would far outweigh any gains delivered by crossing the nuclear threshold.
One key aspect of mini-nukes is their potential for use as first-strike weapons in internationally prohibited “preventive wars” that the Bush Doctrine posited. For instance, striking suspected or actual nuclear facilities in Iran or chemical weapons operations in Libya was one of the rationales for promoting development of low-yield nukes in the early 2000s. Such attacks might not develop into all-out war when directed against non-nuclear nations. But there are no guarantees and the potential for guessing wrong in this matter is enormous.
Doyle continues:
Just as in the early 2000s, current proponents of mini-nukes or of vague “limited nuclear options” offer no convincing evidence that new weapons in this category are needed—or more importantly, that they would make nuclear use less likely. Instead, potential nuclear adversaries are likely to see the acquisition of additional weapons in this category as an indication that US opposition to nuclear use has decreased and that Washington may be the first to cross the nuclear threshold. Such an outcome would undermine global stability and increase the risk of nuclear war. Defense resources are better spent on strengthening US conventional forces.
And here’s Bender again: “It is difficult to imagine the circumstances under which we would need a military option in between our formidable conventional capabilities and our current low-yield nuclear weapons capabilities,” added Alexandra Bell, a former State Department arms control official. “Lawmakers should be very wary of any attempt to reduce the threshold for nuclear use. There is no such thing as a minor nuclear war.”
There is a much-ignored part of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty—Article VI:
Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.
That should be item No. 1 on the minds of the drafters of the latest Nuclear Posture Review, not the development and building of more nuclear weapons.
Ronald Reagan didn’t have the right idea about a lot of things. But he was right in pursuing “a world free of nuclear weapons,” which he considered to be “totally irrational, totally inhumane, good for nothing but killing, possibly destructive of life on earth and civilization.” He and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev put that vision on a path to reality with their disarmament negotiations. Barack Obama also wanted a world with zero nuclear weapons. Less than three months into his first term of office, he said in Prague:
Some argue that the spread of these weapons cannot be stopped, cannot be checked — that we are destined to live in a world where more nations and more people possess the ultimate tools of destruction. Such fatalism is a deadly adversary, for if we believe that the spread of nuclear weapons is inevitable, then in some way we are admitting to ourselves that the use of nuclear weapons is inevitable.
Just as we stood for freedom in the 20th century, we must stand together for the right of people everywhere to live free from fear in the 21st century. And as nuclear power — as a nuclear power, as the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon, the United States has a moral responsibility to act. We cannot succeed in this endeavor alone, but we can lead it, we can start it.
So today, I state clearly and with conviction America’s commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. I’m not naive. This goal will not be reached quickly — perhaps not in my lifetime. It will take patience and persistence. But now we, too, must ignore the voices who tell us that the world cannot change. We have to insist, “Yes, we can.”
It’s true that most of the specific moves President Obama outlined in Prague toward global zero for nukes haven’t borne any fruit. But that doesn’t make his or President Reagan’s push in the no-nukes direction pollyanna-ish or in any other way wrongheaded. The last thing the man now in the White House should be doing is endorsing the building of more nuclear weapons based on the views of people who think deploying and using some small nukes would be valuable to U.S. security. But if it adds to his fantasies about raining fire and fury on North Korea, he no doubt will adopt this recommendation to the detriment of us all.

Indian Americans in Trump Administration

In the US, people of Indian origin are among the strongest supporters of the country’s Democratic Party, a recent study showed. In the past decade, the number of Asian-American voters nearly doubled to 3.9 million in 2012 from 2 million, making them among the fastest growing groups of voters in the U.S., according to the survey.

The researchers asked Indian-Americans how they would vote in the 2016 Presidential elections. Close to 60% of Indian-Americans polled said they viewed the Republican Party unfavorably. Only 17% said viewed Republican party hopeful Donald Trump’s party favorably. The remaining 24% said they didn’t have an opinion.

An impressive 84% of the 2.85 million-strong Indian-American community voted for Barack Obama in 2008, second perhaps only to African-Americans as a minority group. According to a Pew Research Center survey, of all the Asian American groups surveyed, Indian-Americans were the most Democratic-leaning, again at 65%. Only 18% favored Republicans.

However, since President Trump assumed office as the President of the United States, Indian Americans have been on his administration in record numbers. For the first time ever, an Indian American, Nikki Haley, was elevated to the Cabinet level position. The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, is thought to be the first Indian-American woman appointed to a cabinet-level position. Other than Haley, there are currently only three other people of color in the Trump administration’s 24 cabinet or cabinet-level positions.

Trump, keeping his promise at the campaign, gave India a “leadership role” in Washington’s global strategy across a broad geographic swath. “I am thrilled to salute you, Prime Minister Modi, and the Indian people for all you are accomplishing together,” Trump told the Indian premier last June. “We welcome India’s emergence as a leading global power and stronger strategic and defence partner,” said his national strategy unveiled last month.

Indian-Americans appear to be disproportionately represented in Trump’s nominations compared to other minority groups, said Karthick Ramakrishnan, a political science professor at the University of California, Riverside, who researches Asian Americans’ civic participation.

But Ramakrishnan suggests that the appointments don’t seem to be a conscious attempt on the White House’s part to diversify its ranks. Rather, the choices appear to be about filling vacancies with experienced and highly connected individuals who are ideologically aligned with the Trump administration ― some of whom just happen to be of Indian descent.

“As far as we can tell, the Trump administration is not taking race or ethnicity into account much, if at all, in terms of appointments, unlike the Obama administration, which was trying to have as diverse set of appointments as possible,” Ramakrishnan said. “I think it’s almost incidental that these people happen to be Indian-American. The fact that they’re Indian-American [doesn’t appear] to make any difference over and beyond what their prior background or political orientation is.”

Trump appointed Ajit Pai as the Chairman of the Federal Communication Commission, a position with a vast portfolio overseeing of the Internet, mobile phones, airwaves, broadcast and communications. Raj Shah serves as his deputy adviser and principal deputy press secretary. Uttam Dhillon, another deputy adviser, is also his deputy counsel.

Seema Verma serves as the administrator of the health insurance programs for seniors and the poor. Trump also tapped Vishal J. Amin, a senior counsel on the House Judiciary Committee, as the White House’s new intellectual property enforcement coordinator, and Neil Chatterjee, an energy adviser for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, as a member of the federal energy regulatory commission. Krishna R. Urs, a career member of the Foreign Service, was nominated to be the ambassador to Peru.

These prominent Indian-Americans are now helping the Trump White House push its conservative agenda on everything from repealing the Affordable Care Act to overhauling government regulations and scrapping net neutrality rules.

While Ajit Pai has been in the news for his controversial move to do away with net neutrality, as the administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Verma hasemerged as a key player in Republicans’ controversial quest to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. She is a health policy expert from Indiana who crafted an alternative to Medicaid in her state that won the approval of conservatives.

“I think Indian-Americans and certainly the Indian immigrant press certainly takes notice when people get appointed, and there’s a little bit of ethnic pride knowing there are Indian-Americans in powerful positions, regardless of the administration,” Ramakrishnan said. “But I don’t think Trump is making inroads with the Indian-American community based on the appointments he has made. Policies like the immigration ban, anti-immigrant rhetoric, the Affordable Care Act, are issues that Indian Americans care about. [Trump’s positions] are opposed to the way the vast majority of Indian-Americans stand.”

Several groups working on raising political profile of Indian-Americans

Immigrants from India first arrived in the United States in small numbers during the early 19th century, primarily as low-skilled farm laborers. In recent decades the population has grown substantially, with 2.4 million Indian immigrants resident in the United States as of 2015. This makes the foreign born from India the second-largest immigrant group after Mexicans, accounting for almost 6 percent of the 43.3 million foreign-born population.

In 1960, just 12,000 Indian immigrants lived in the United States, representing less than 0.5 percent of the 9.7 million overall immigrant population. Migration from India swelled between 1965 and 1990 as a series of legislative changes removed national-origin quotas, introduced temporary skilled worker programs, and created employment-based permanent visas. In 2016, Indians were the top recipients of high-skilled H-1B temporary visas and were the second-largest group of international students in the United States.

Today, the majority of Indian immigrants are young and highly educated, and have strong English skills. Many work in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields. From 1980 to 2010, the population grew more than eleven-fold, roughly doubling every decade (see Figure 1). In 2013, India and China supplanted Mexico as the top sources of newly arriving immigrants in the United States.

Along with the success stories in the academic, business and high-skilled jobs along with one of the highest income groups, Indian Americans have come to celebrate,  the unprecedented successes in the recent elections, specifically the November 2017 polls, a group of Indian American philanthropists, community leaders, and political operatives have come together to formally launch initiatives to keep things headed in the right direction.

The group has launched the Indian American Impact Project and the Indian American Impact Fund — collectively known as “Impact” — to build a nationwide pipeline of Indian American leaders in politics, policy and government

Impact, co-founded by Raj Goyle, chief executive officer of Bodhala and former member of the Kansas state House, and Deepak Raj, chairman of Pratham USA and founder of the Raj Center on Indian Economic Policies at Columbia University, the new initiatives will help talented and patriotic Indian Americans run for office, win and lead, it said.

“Despite rapid growth and professional success, for too long Indian Americans have been underrepresented in elected office from state capitols to the U.S. Congress,” said Goyle in a statement. “As a result, our needs, concerns, and priorities often go unheard in the halls of power. At a time when our community and our values are under attack by xenophobic rhetoric and regressive policies, it is more critical than ever that Indian Americans build and wield political power to fight back.”

The Impact Project and Impact Fund was formally launched Jan. 17. It is based in Washington, D.C. and is co-founded by former Kansas Democratic State lawmaker Raj Goyle, currently the CEO of Bodhala, a company that helps the legal community optimize operations, and Deepak Raj, chairman of the well-known non-profit Pratham USA and founder of the Raj Center on Indian Economic Policies at Columbia University.

Both initiatives are led by Gautam Raghavan, who previously served as vice president of policy for the Gill Foundation, as an Advisor in the Obama White House, and in various roles for the 2008 Obama campaign and Democratic National Committee.

“Despite rapid growth and professional success, for too long Indian Americans have been underrepresented in elected office from state capitols to the U.S. Congress,” Goyle is quoted saying in the press release. “As a result, our needs, concerns, and priorities often go unheard in the halls of power. At a time when our community and our values are under attack by xenophobic rhetoric and regressive policies, it is more critical than ever that Indian Americans build and wield political power to fight back,” he added.

As of January 2018, five Indian Americans currently serve in the United States Congress: Senator Kamala Harris, D-California; and Representatives Ami Bera, D-California, Pramila Jayapal, D-Washington, Ro Khanna, D-California, and Raja Krishnamoorthi, D-Illinois.

Impact said it is also tracking an additional 60 Indian-Americans currently serving in state and local office as state legislators, mayors, city council members, judges, and other elected positions.

The Impact Project Board of Directors includes Priya Dayananda, managing director of Federal Government Affairs for KPMG LLP, Vinai Thummalapally, former U.S. Ambassador to Belize and former executive director of SelectUSA, and Mini Timmaraju, executive director of External Affairs at Comcast and former National Women’s Vote Director for Hillary for America.

The Impact Fund Board of Directors includes Ravi Akhoury, former chairman and CEO of MacKay Shields LLC, and Raghu Devaguptapu, partner at Left Hook Strategies and former political director for the Democratic Governors Association (DGA) and Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee (DLCC). Vikas Raj, managing director of Accion Venture Lab, will serve as a non-voting observer on both boards.

“This is our time,” said Raj. “Across the country, a record number of Indian Americans are running for office. We can’t leave it to chance that they will win on their own. We owe them our support — and we have a plan to help them run, win, and lead.”

Indiaspora, another grp with similar objectives, is one of the most influential Indian American organizations in recent years. It has announced the appointment of Mumbai-born Sanjeev Joshipura, 42, as executive director. Joshipura previously served as director of the group founded and chaired by Silicon Valley entrepreneur and community activist M.R. Rangaswami.

Indiaspora is a 501(c)(3) nonpartisan nonprofit organization which says it serves as “a platform to facilitate U.S.-India bilateral relations and trilateral ties with select countries, increasing Indian-American community engagement, and redefining philanthropy among Indian Americans.” It provides a network of Indian-Americans and Indian leaders.

“It is my privilege to work for this organization, whose mission and values I truly believe in, and whose members I enjoy interacting with daily,” said Joshipura. “Indiaspora has achieved a lot since its inception in 2012, and I look forward eagerly to working with and leading the team to even greater heights moving forward.”

“I can guarantee that you will not see MR on a golf course anytime soon,” Joshipura said. “He is far too passionate about the causes he is involved with to hang up his boots just yet.” He said his priorities in 2018 are in two areas. “First, fostering closer trilateral relationships among prominent Indian-Americans, Indians and leaders from third countries which have a large Indian diaspora, and/or have tremendous potential for collaboration in specific fields of activity. And, second, being a catalyst for effective philanthropy,” he said.

In 2017, the organization held a second gala to celebrate five Indian Americans who were elected to the House and Senate: Reps. Ami Bera and Ro Khanna, D-California; Pramila Jayapal, D-Washington; Raja Krishnamoorthi, D-Illinois; and Sen. Kamala Harris, D-California. The organization has raised more than $500,000 to bring two additional staffers on board, in addition to Joishipura, and Mansi Patel, who serves as marketing manager.

The organization is also launching a broad philanthropy study to determine how Indian Americans give back to India. Indiaspora is working with several NGOs to “better tell the India story, with the aim of getting more donor dollars to India,” said Rangaswami.

“There are not enough resources for anybody who happens to be Indian-American to win. There needs to be obviously criteria and we have that. And, in having people like Raghu [Devaguptapu], Mini [Timmaraju], Priya [Dayananda], Gautam [Raghavan] and obviously myself, we have a considerable amount of people of political talent and expertise associated with the organization.”

He called running for office “a brave and difficult thing to do. So we applaud anyone who is willing to step up and give it a shot. However, we also want to help prospective candidates think strategically about when, how, where, and why they are running for office so they are best positioned to win.”

International Hindi Day held at Indian Consulate in New York

The Hindi Sangam Foundation of USA celebrated International Hindi Day at the Consulate of India in New York on Saturday, January 13th. The Hindi Conference is part of a series of initiatives undertaken by the Consulate for promotion of Hindi language in the coming year.

“There is a great need to build capacity for the teaching of Hindi in the USA where most Hindi teachers lack formal teacher’s training to teach Hindi to 21st century digital learners”, Professor Janis Jensen, the director of STARTALK projects at Kean University, said.  Professor Janis Jensen was the keynote speaker at the Hindi Diwas event.

Jensen was concerned about the quality of the Hindi language teachers at the university and requested India’s Consul General Sandeep Chakravorty as well as the Indian-American community to support the Masters’ Program in Hindi pedagogy at Kean University. This master’s program, Jensen said, is the only program which prepares people to teach Hindi at schools and prepare for doctoral programs.

Chakravorty assured Jensen he would extend all possible support to keep the program running. He also emphasized the significance of the Hindi language adding, “it is high time that we supplement our talk to support the Hindi language and start acting on supporting meaningful teaching of the Hindi language and other learning programs outside of India.” He promised those present of support from the Government of India for such efforts.

Dr. Jennifer Eddy, presented information on the New York State Teacher Certification program for teaching the Hindi language in grades 7-12 and said that the Master of Arts in Teaching (MAT) in Critical Languages Education program, which is offered at Queens College, is willing to teach Hindi since there are many Indian-Americans living in Queens.

Also at the celebration, Ria Dadheech performed to the song “Ghoomar” from the upcoming film Padmaavat and recited the popular poem titled “Jhansi Ki Rani.” Other students representing Educators Society for the Heritage of India, Hindi USA and the Hindi Sangam Foundation STARTALK program also performed at the celebration.

The event was organized by Ashok Ojha, the president of Yuva Hindi Sansthan and Hindi Sangam Foundation and the ​program director of YHS and the Sangam-Franklin STARTALK Hindi Language and Culture Program 2017, who also announced that the Fifth International Hindi Conference will take place in September, this year.

In the past years Consulate General of India hosted a number of Hindi conferences, notably the third International Hindi Conference held in May 2016, which was attended by dozens of language experts associated with various US universities including Columbia, NYU, UCLA and UT Austin. In 2014 and 2015 the consulate collaborated with Hindi Sangam Foundation and the New York University and Rutgers University, NJ to organize the first and second International Hindi Conferences at the respective university campuses.

AAPI’s historic Global Healthcare Summit Concludes in Kolkata

CEOs Forum, Women’s Forum, Launching Free Health Clinic, First Responders Training, CMEs, Research Contest, Fashion Show, Cultural extravaganza, Touring Dubai, UAE Assam, Kolkata, & Bhutan Major Highlights
 (Kolkata, India: January 1st, 2018) The 11th edition of the annual Global Healthcare Summit organized by the American Association of Physicians of Indian Origin (AAPI), USA concluded here at the historic City of Joy, Kolkata in West Bengal, India on December 31st at the famous JW Marriott with CEOs Forum, Women’s Forum, Launching Free Health Clinic, First Responders Training, CMEs, Research Contest, Fashion Show, Cultural extravaganza, Touring Dubai, UAE Assam, Kolkata, & Bhutan to be major highlights of the Summit.
At the valedictory event presided over by India’s Vice President, Shri Venkaiah Naidu, he urged Physicians of Indian Origin to return to India and rededicate their lives for the wellbeing of their motherland, India, as all the opportunities are now available here.
  “I would be happier if you people can come back to India and do something to help the society. Earlier the opportunity was very less here so people went to different parts of the globe for work. But now everything is available in India,” Naidu said. “Apart from conducting CMEs, seminars and workshops, AAPI must consider collaborating with various governments and other private organizations in establishing a state-of-the-art healthcare facility in each district of the country where affordable treatment is dispensed,” the Vice President of India told the delegates.
The Governor of West Bengal, Shri Keshri Nath Tripathi, the Minister for Urban Development, West Bengal, Firhad Hakim and other dignitaries were present on the occasion. GHS 2017 was attended by the over 1000 leading experts from several countries, and focusses on sharing best practices, developing efficient and cost effective solutions for India.
In his welcome address, Dr. Gautam Samadder, President of AAPI, said, “This GHS has promised to be one with the greatest impact and significant contributions towards harnessing the power of international Indian diaspora to bring the most innovative, efficient, cost effective healthcare solutions to India,” described Dr. Samadder. “AAPI has capped the voluminous achievements of the past 34 years with a clear vision to move forward taking this noble organization to newer heights.”
According to Dr. Naresh Parikh, President-Elect of AAPI, who had proposed the vote of thanks, the scientific program of GHS 2017 was developed by leading experts with the contributions of a stellar Scientific Advisory Board and International Scientific Committee, while the event featuring plenary sessions, interactive round-tables, clinical practice workshops, and meet the expert sessions.
Dr. Ashok Jain, Chairman of AAPI’s BOD, in his address, summarized some of the achievements of AAPI including the 16 free healthcare clinics, AAPI’s legislative initiatives in the US, and the ongoing collaboration with the government of India and the state governments and several NGOs in helping healthcare efficient and cost effective.
The Vice President of India praised AAPI and its noble “mission for India is to play an important role in making quality healthcare accessible and affordable to all people of India. It is indeed a laudable objective as both accessibility and affordability are the need of the hour, especially in a vast developing country like India with a huge population of middle class and lower middle class.”
The Conference was organized in partnership with the ministry of overseas Indian affairs and ministry of health and family welfare, along with collaboration with over 15 professional associations from all over the world.
The GHS 2017 featured some of the biggest names in the healthcare industry, especially at the 6th annual CEO leadership forum with leaders from across the globe. GHS 2017 was attended by over 100 opinion leaders and expert speakers from many countries across the globe to present cutting edge scientific findings as these relate to clinical practice, representing major Centers of Excellence, Institutions, and Professional Associations are represented by the invited chairs and speakers.
Offering trainings to First Responders, a CEO Forum by a galaxy of CEOs from around the world, inauguration of AAPI-sponsored clinic, CMEs, cultural events, Dinner Cruise on the Ganges, interactive roundtables, clinical practice workshops, scientific poster/research session and meet-the-expert sessions, Women’s Forum by internally acclaimed successful worm from India, a special session on Public-Private Partnership featuring AAPI Healthcare Charitable showcase & innovation, and Town Hall sessions resulting in a White Paper on helping create policies benefitting the people of India, are only some of the major highlights of the Healthcare Summit, Dr. Samadder said.
AAPI, in collaboration with the Rotary Club of Madhyamgram Metropolitan lunched a healthcare clinic offering medical care to the much need people of the region at the Prajapati Bhavan, Basunagar, Madhyamgram in the outskirts of Kolkata on December 29th, 2017.
Over 30 physicians of Indian origin, led by Dr. Gautam Samadder, President of AAPI and Dr. Madhu Aggarwal, Chairwoman of the AAPI Charitable Foundation attended the free one day healthcare clinic at the suburban center, and treated over 200 patients during the day long clinic.
“This is the first ever clinic sponsored by AAPI in the state of West Bengal and this is the 15th across the nation,” Dr. Samadder told during a welcome reception organized by the local Rotary Club in honor of the physicians who had travelled early in the morning on a bus to serve the much needed patients at the clinic. “AAPI provides financial assistance and medical care by AAPI members to the people of this historic city,” he added.
During a press conference attended by the media at the Hotel, members of the leading print and electronic media interacted with AAPI leaders, including Dr. Samadder, President of AAPI, Dr. Sampat Shivangi, chair of AAPI’s Legislative Committee, Anwar Feroz, AAPI’s Strategic Adviser, and Dr. Chandan K Sen, Chairman, AAPI Global Healthcare Summit – Kolkata.
Dr. Chandan K Sen, Chairman, AAPI Global Healthcare Summit – Kolkata, said, “It has been a privilege to serve you as the Chairman of this XI AAPI Global Healthcare Summit. Americans with Indian heritage are uniquely positioned to enrich the United States as well as India through collaborative efforts utilizing the strengths unique to each of the two countries. I welcome you to Kolkata, where intellectual curiosity is woven deep into the fabric of its society.”
According to Dr. Sudhakar Jonnalagadda, Secretary of AAPI, the scientific program of GHS 2017 was developed by leading experts with the contributions of a stellar Scientific Advisory Board and International Scientific Committee, while the event featuring plenary sessions, interactive round-tables, clinical practice workshops, and meet the expert sessions.
The GHS Young Innovators Research Competition at the famous Calcutta Medical College helped facilitate dissemination and exchange of best practices among the upcoming young physicians of Indian origin from around the world. The winners of the Research Paper Competition conducted under various categories, were awarded with a citation, cash award and trophy at the inaugural gala this evening.
A special unique to the GHS 2017wais a session on the Impact of Cinema on Public Health and awareness with a live conversation with Bollywood stars and producers, including Dr. Kapasi, Shekar das, Dipankar Banerjee, who shared their personal experiences of making movies on social themes that imparts education on various social topics.
The Women’s Leadership Forum was coordinated by Dr. Udaya Shivangi, and had featured Bollywood star Sharmila Tagore. The Forum addressed as to how empowering women and educating them will help reduce infant mortality.
The Healthcare Forum, addressed by leading industry leaders, including Sudhanshu Pandey. Joint Secretary, Department of commerce, Indian Government; Dr. Gautam Samadder; Jayshree Mehta, Mediacl Council of India; Dr. Sanku Rao, GAPIO;  Dr. Girdhar Gyani, Hospital Association of India; Dr. B R Shetty; Dr. Sangita Reddy; Dr. D C Shah of IPA: Dr. Naresh Parikh; Preetha Rajaraman; Dr. Pradeep Majhajan; Dr. Rajeev Mehta of BAPIO;  Dr. Kali Pradip Chaudhury; Dr. Shubnum Singh; Dr. Anupam Sibal; and Jonathan Ward of the US Consulate in Kolkata.
In collaboration with the American University of Antigua (AUA) College of Medicine, AAPI  organized a 3-day workshop/training (EMTC) training over 150 first responders, including police, para-medical professional at the KPC Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata as part of the GHS.
Choreographed and designed by famous fashion designer, Nachiket Barve, AAPI members and leaders catwalked on the ramp, showcasing their talents, exquisite taste for the finest clothing and attire, proving yet again the Indian American physicians are not only famous for their brilliant healthcare, but also could be leaders in the fashion world.
The theme chosen for the GHS this year was Healthcare, Career and Commerce, with the focus on Women’s Healthcare, including high priority areas such as Cardiology, Maternal & Child Health, Diabetes, Oncology, Surgery, Mental Health, HIT, Allergy, Immunology & Lung Health, Gastroenterology, Transplant and impact of comorbidities.
The Summit had offered delegates a taste of delicious food each day and live music concerts by popular Bollywood singers Usha Uthup, Alka Ygnik who kept the audience spell bound for over two hours each with their melodious singing and live interaction with the audience.
Indian Americans comprise of 4 million people, representing around 1.25% of the U.S. population as of 2015. Indians contributed 17% of total earnings in the US from foreign students totaling $6.5 billion last year. An estimated 10% of all physicians and surgeons in the US are of Indian origin. An estimated 100,000 physicians and fellows of Indian origin currently serve in the US. In biological and biomedical sciences studies workforce, data from 2015 show that people of Indian origin in the US account for 14.6% of the total workforce holding 72000 jobs.
Earlier, as part of the GHS, AAPI delegates had a memorable visit from December 24-27, to the city of Dubai and the kingdom of Abu Dhabi, where they were greeted by the local high ranking officials, who have expressed interest in collaborating with the physicians of Indian origin in the Gulf Region. The delegates, apart from visiting the city and its major tourists attractions, had a fruitful visit to the famous NMC Hospital, Abu Dhabi and meeting with the founder and chairman, Dr. Shetty. The pre-summit tour to Dubai provided the AAPI delegates with a unique Christmas Dinner Cruise, City tour to Palm Island, Khalifa Tower, Burj Hotel, Dubai mall, Dubai Museum, etc.
Desert Safari including camel ride and belly dancing shows.
The Post GHS TOUR to the heavenly Bhutan from January 1-4, 2018, will take delegates to the world renowned and ancient Takshang Monestary, Hike in Tiger’s Nest, Buddha Dordenma, National Heritage museum & Dochula. For those who want to enjoy the beautiful Assam, can tour this beautiful state of Assam from January 4-8, 2018, touring Kaziranga National Park including Rhino Park, Nehru Stadium, Assam Rajyik State Museum, Guwahati Market, Kamakhya Temple and dinner at the Governor’s Mansion. The Summit will also offer everyday Guided Tours and Evening Entertainments to the delegates, and will conclude with a special New Year’s eve gala party, welcoming the New Year 2018 with family, fun and entertainment.
Founded in 1984, the American Association of Physicians of Indian Origin (AAPI) represents one of the largest health  care forum in the United States with the goal to facilitate and enable Indian American Physicians to excel in patient care, teaching and research and to pursue their aspirations in professional and community affairs. AAPI-Charitable Foundation is committed to serve the poorest of the poor in remote areas of India and USA. AAPI has always been present when calamities strike whether it is hurricane Harvey, Tsunami, Katrina, or earthquakes of Gujarat and Maharashtra. AAPI has hosted ten Indo-US/Global Healthcare Summits and developed strategic alliances with various organizations both in the US as well as in India. These summits are aimed at sharing of expertise towards improvement of healthcare in the US as well as in India.
AAPI has been strategically engaged in working with the Union and State Governments of India for the past ten years and has collaborated with more than 35 professional medical associations, pharmaceutical and medical device companies to address the health care challenges of a rapidly developing India. “It is the passion, willingness and staunch loyalty towards the former motherland that draws several AAPI members to join this effort & by working with experts in India, AAPI is able to bring solutions that are India centric & takes us closer to our lofty vision of making quality healthcare affordable & accessible to all people of India,” said Dr. Gautam Samadder.
“With the changing trends and statistics in healthcare, both in India and US, we are refocusing our mission and vision, AAPI would like to make a positive meaningful impact on the healthcare delivery system both in the US and in India,” Dr. Samadder said. For more information on Global Healthcare Summit, please visit www.aapiusa.org

US-India strategic ties to grow in 2018

India’s relationship with the United States is expected to continue to grow in the New Year, analysts say. The new US security plan released last week said: “We will deepen our strategic partnership with India and support its leadership role in the Indian Ocean security and throughout the broader region.” Washington also pledged to increase quadrilateral cooperation with Japan, Australia and India. “We welcome India’s emergence as a leading global power and stronger strategic and defence partner. We will seek to increase quadrilateral cooperation with Japan, Australia and India.”

After US President Donald Trump gave a leadership role to India in his new “America First Security Strategy”, New Delhi voiced appreciation for Washington laying importance to the bilateral relationship.

“We appreciate the strategic importance given to India-US relationship in the new National Security Strategy released by the US,” External Affairs Ministry spokesperson Raveesh Kumar said last week. “As two responsible democracies, India and the US share common objectives, including combating terrorism and promoting peace and security throughout the world,” Kumar said.

In November, India, the US, Japan and Australia held a quadrilateral meeting in the Philippines on the sidelines of the East Asia and Asean Summits to discuss the security and prosperity of the Indo-Pacific region.

This assumes significance given China’s aggressiveness in the South China Sea and attempts to increase its influence in the Indian Ocean. Kumar said: “A close partnership between India and the US contributes to peace, stability and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific region, as well as to the economic progress of the two countries.”

Trump’s security strategy also stated that the US would continue to push Pakistan to speed up its counter-terrorism efforts. “We will press Pakistan to intensify its counter-terrorism efforts, since no partnership can survive a country’s support for militants and terrorists who target a partner’s own service members and officials,” it said.

The India-US relationship is going to get stronger and better under the Trump administration in a wide range of areas, including regional security issues, trade and economy, terrorism, a senior White House official has said.

“India is a natural ally of the United States, because of the shared commitment to democracy and to counterterrorism, and because the region is so vital to the US security,” Raj Shah, the White House Principal Deputy Press Secretary, told a group of India . Shah’s comments came hours after Prime Minister Narendra Modi and US President Donald Trump held their second bilateral meeting in Manila on the sidelines of the ASEAN Summit.

The two countries are going to have a “strong relationship and it’s going to get stronger” under this president, Shah, the highest-ranking Indian-American ever in the White House press wing, told a group of Indian reporters last week.

“India is a natural ally of the United States, because of the shared commitment to democracy and to counterterrorism, and because the region is so vital to the US security,” he said. Shah said that the US-India relationship should stand on its own leg and “not be contingent” on any other relationship.

There are a lot more in common between India and the US than that between the US and China, he said. “The relationship with Modi is his relationship with Modi. He likes (him),” he added. Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited the United States on 25-26 June at the invitation of the new President of the United States Donald trump. This was Modi’s first meeting with Trump, although the two leaders had spoken to each other on three occasions after Trump won the election. One call was made by Modi and two by Trump, the last one being by Trump in end-March to congratulate Modi for the emphatic victory of the BJP in the Uttar Pradesh elections.

Republican Tax Plan to increase inequality

Republicans, finally on Wednesday, December 20, 2017 muscled the most sweeping rewrite of the nation’s tax laws in more than three decades through the GOP-led House and Senate with a dozen GOP Congressmen voting against their own Bill, giving President Trum his biggest and first ever legislative victory.

The vote, largely along party lines in the House was 227-203, while in the Senate was 51-48, which capped a GOP sprint to deliver a major legislative accomplishment to President Donald Trump after a year of congressional stumbles and non-starters.

This bill is a massive handout to corporations and the wealthiest among us at the expense of average tax payers. Every independent analysis, including the Tax Policy Center, has determined that the vast majority of benefits will go to the top 1% of earners – like President Donald Trump himself. This bill will increase the already out of control income inequality in the country. Need more proof? The paltry tax credits to middle and lower income earners expire after 10 years while corporate tax cuts are permanent.

The massive $1.5 trillion package would touch every American taxpayer and every corner of the U.S. economy, providing steep tax cuts for businesses and the wealthy, and more modest tax cuts for middle- and low-income families. It would push the national debt ever higher.

Democrats called the bill a giveaway to corporations and the wealthy, providing little if any tax help to the less-than-well-to-do and no likelihood that business owners will use their gains to hire more workers or raise wages.

And the Republicans’ contention that the bill will make taxes so simple that millions can file “on a postcard” — an idea repeated often by the president — was simply mocked.

“What happened to the postcard? We’re going to have to carry around a billboard for tax simplification,” declared Rep. Richard Neal of Massachusetts, the top Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee.

Tax cuts for corporations would be permanent while the cuts for individuals would expire in 2026 in order to comply with Senate budget rules. The tax cuts would take effect in January. Workers would start to see changes in the amount of taxes withheld from their paychecks in February.

The standard deduction used by most families would be nearly doubled, to $24,000 for a married couple, while those who itemize would lose some deductions.

The Republicans went ahead with the Bill with over two-thirds of the nation still disapproving of it. House Speaker Paul Ryan dismissed criticism of the widely unpopular package and insisted “results are what’s going to make this popular.” The Republican tax bill is an audacious attempt to accelerate the economic trends of the last half-century.

Over the last few decades, the rich have not only enjoyed the largest pre-tax raises, by far. They have also received big tax cuts. The middle class and poor, meanwhile, have suffered from slow-growing incomes — and from overall tax rates that are higher today than in the mid-1960s. The second part of the story is less known. But it’s also crucial. The great tax-cutting revolution of the last half-century hasn’t actually been a tax-cutting revolution for most Americans. The middle-class and poor families now face higher total tax rates than a half-century ago.

Now the GOP tax plan is expected to widen inequality even further. Their tax bill doesn’t touch the payroll-tax rate — again, the single biggest tax that most households pay. The bill does cut income taxes for the middle class, but only modestly and only temporarily. The tax cuts benefiting the wealthy, including cuts to the inheritance tax and the corporate tax, are much larger and permanent.

The Tax Policy Center has estimated the long-term effects of the Tax plan on each income group with the tax bill amounting to an enormous effort to increase inequality.

The scoop of the weekend seems to have come from International Business Times, which reported that the final version of the Republican tax bill contains a real-estate provision that could enrich President Trump and multiple members of Congress. President Obama, on the other hand, made reducing inequality his top domestic priority. He kept the Bush tax cuts on the middle class and poor but not the rich. His health care law increased taxes on the affluent to pay for better medical care for the non-rich. Barack Obama, when he was President, called rising inequality “the defining challenge of our time.”

By redistributing money from richer households to poorer households, progressive tax systems can moderate the level of inequality in post-tax income. However, the 2017 GOP Tax Bill showers most of its goodies (tax cuts) on the richest people in the country while doing little for poor and middle-income households.

Since the past tax cuts by President George Bush and President Ronlad Regan, income inequality has continued to rise in the nation. The gap between the “haves” and “have nots” is widening, according to the latest data out this week.

The rich are money-making machines. Today, the top mega wealthy — the top 1% — earn an average of $1.3 million a year. It’s more than three times as much as the 1980s, when the rich “only” made $428,000, on average, according to economists Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman.

Meanwhile, the bottom 50% of the American population earned an average of $16,000 in pre-tax income in 1980. That hasn’t changed in over three decades. Millennials, born in the 1980s, only have a 50% likelihood — a coin toss chance — of earning more money than their parents did, according to research released by the Equality of Opportunity Project.

Over time, the rich became more lucky — or more greedy. Today the top 1% take home more than 20% of all U.S. income. As the wealthy earned more, someone else in America had to get less. The bottom 50% went from capturing over 20% of national income for much of the 1970s to earning barely 12% today. The turning point started around 1980, as seen in the graph below. By the mid-1990s, the fortunes of the top 1% were clearly on the rise and those of the bottom half were declining rapidly.

During the last several decades, income inequality in the United States has increased significantly — and the trend shows no sign of reversing. The last time inequality was as high as it is now was just before the Great Depression. Such a high level of inequality is not only incompatible with widely held norms of social justice and equality of opportunity; it poses a serious threat to America’s economy and democracy.

The current tax plan by the Republicans will sure to add to the already growing disparity of income and the poor and the middle class are bound to stagnate or become poorer while the rich and the multi-national corporations will continue to grow and amass more wealth at the cost of the poor.

Republicans-led US Senate approves Tax Bill that benefits the wealthy and big corporations

In the early hours of Saturday morning, December 2nd, Senate Republicans passed their version of a sweeping tax overhaul. Roughly five hours earlier, the Senate Finance Committee publicly released their final proposal of the Bill after weeks of closed door consultations and few days of public scrutiny of the important Tax Bill that will leave over a over a Trillion Dollars to the US deficit.
The Senate passed its tax plan in a 51-49 vote early on Saturday morning, with Vice-President Mike Pence presiding over the chamber and after a frantic rewrite. Bob Corker was the sole Republican to vote against the bill, which would bestow huge benefits on US corporations and the wealthiest Americans. “We think this is a great day for the country,” the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, said at a celebratory press conference.
Democrats remained united in their opposition, attacking the legislation as a giveaway to corporate America and the wealthy. “In the waning hours, this bill is tilting further towards businesses and away from families,” said Chuck Schumer, the Senate minority leader, in a floor speech on Friday. “Every time the choice is between corporations and families, the Republicans choose corporations.”
The bill, among other things will continue to create inequality in the nation. The rich bnenfitting from the tax-cuts, while the poor and the middle income groups to be marginally benefitting from the plan, and that to for a period of 10 years only. The richest 20 percent of households reap 90 percent of the benefit of the tax cuts over that time period, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.
The main focus of the tax bill is business. Republicans’ stated goal is to boost the economy. They argue that the best way to do this is to cut the taxes that businesses pay on profits, allowing companies to reinvest the money in new equipment and workers. In fact, the Senate bill centers on provisions to permanently cut the corporate tax rate — the rate paid directly by companies like Apple or Ford Motor — to 20% (from a top rate of 35%) starting in 2019, while also allowing a new deduction for individual taxpayers who own their own businesses.
Business owners tend to be wealthy — whether their assets take the form of stock holdings or privately owned ventures. The upshot is that the Senate tax plan’s benefits skew dramatically toward top earners.
According to the preliminary Tax Policy Center analysis, the top 1% of earners — those taking home more than about $900,000 a year — were set to reap about 60% of the total tax cut, for an average of more than $32,000 annually apiece. The top 0.1% — those earning $5 million or more — were to get an extra $200,000.
The GOP’s Senate tax bill, which passed in a close party-line vote, could give President Donald Trump his first legislative victory after Congress failed to overhaul the nation’s health system earlier this year.
It’s too early to tell precisely how the GOP tax plan would affect individual taxpayers. That’s because, in an effort to muster votes, Republicans continued tinkering with the tax bill behind closed doors up until a few hours before it actually passed, and the economists who typically crunch the numbers on new legislation haven’t had time to examine the tax bill’s results.
Like the House tax bill, passed earlier this month, the Senate version is largely built around reorganizing and lowering what corporations and other businesses pay in taxes in hopes of spurring economic growth. That said, middle-class Americans could be able to count on a tax cut too, at least during the next few years — assuming, that is, that the Senate bill can be reconciled with the House version and become law. You’ll probably see a tax cut, but maybe only in the short term.
Senate Republicans initially repealed the Alternative Minimum Tax, but have brought it back now in order to pay for some other additions. The AMT is intended to be a minimum tax on the wealthy. In this version, the GOP raises the income levels where it hits so it will affect fewer people. For individuals, the minimum threshold goes from $50,600 to $70,600. For those filing jointly, the threshold rises from $78,750 to $109,400.
Trump campaigned on a promise to cut middle-class taxes. And the Senate is delivering — sort of. One analysis of the tax plan, by the Tax Policy Center, a centrist think tank, found the average middle earner (someone taking home about $50,000 to $90,000) would reap an $850 tax break in 2019, benefiting in part from a standard deduction that would double to $12,000 for singles and $24,000 four couples.
Another preliminary analysis, this one by The New York Times, defined middle-class earners as those making $40,000 to $140,000 — and found that many of those, particularly the people that rely on the state and local tax deduction, could actually see a tax increase next year. However, the last minute, at the instance of Maine’s Sen. Susan Collins, would allow taxpayers to continue to deduct up to $10,000 in property taxes, would likely soften the blow for at least some of these middle-income taxpayers.
For most of the Americans, the benefits of the tax cuts are also likely to be temporary, as the tax breaks for them will expire in 2026, while the huge tax cuts for the corporations are made permanent. The bill also uses a new way to account for inflation, which could push some taxpayers into higher brackets. By 2027, savings for the average taxpayer earning roughly $50,000 to $90,000 will have shrunk to just $50, the Tax Policy Center found.
During the campaign Trump promised a tax cut that would be “revenue neutral.” The idea was that, while government receipts might initially fall when rates were cut, economic growth would boost American’s incomes enough to replace the lost revenue despite the lower rates. Howver, even accounting for economic growth, the Senate plan will add about $1 trillion to the debt over the next decade, according a report from non-partisan Joint Committee On Taxation.
Many economist believe that piling still more debt on top of what the government already owes — currently $14 trillion — could eventually lead investors to sour on U.S. bonds. The result would be higher interest rates, which would push up borrowing costs for everyone from the government itself to most U.S. businesses. That in turn could choke off whatever extra growth the tax cuts spurred in the first place.
The stated goal of tax reform is improving the economy, and the right-leaning Tax Foundation predicted in November that the bill (as it stood at the time) could ultimately help the U.S. add almost a million new jobs over the next decade. But economists are divided about whether that growth will in fact play out as hoped.
The Tax Foundation tends to see rates remaining low, even as the deficit increases — hence its rosy job forecast. But many economists disagree. Earlier this month, researchers at the University of Pennsylvania estimated the tax cut could add as little as 0.03 to 0.08 percentage points to annual GDP growth over the next decade, which would presumably bring far fewer jobs.
the big winners in the GOP bill that the Senate passed early Saturday morning are corporations and the wealthy. Trump himself ― a billionaire ― stands to gain millions through the elimination of certain taxes. Far from being a middle-class tax cut, the measure is a massive corporate giveaway, a bill that recycles decades of Republican ideology on trickle-down economics and trusts that executives will hand over their new gains to average-income workers. “If my friends here want to give a tax cut to the middle class,” Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) asked on the Senate floor Thursday, “why don’t we give a tax cut to the middle class?”
And the bill makes other changes that reach far beyond the tax code itself. It repeals the individual mandate from the Affordable Care Act, a major change that was added in recent weeks as part of a broader GOP effort to dismantle the Obama-era law. The measure is expected to leave 13 million more people uninsured. It authorizes oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. And by curtailing deductions for state and local taxes, it will put pressure on some state and local spending on education, transportation and public health programs.
The tax package still must clear a couple more hurdles before it can become law. There are numerous differences between the House and Senate versions, ranging from when certain tax cuts expire to how the estate tax is handled, and though none are seen as showstoppers, complications could arise.
“The bill is investing heavily in the wealthy and their children — by boosting the value of their stock portfolios, creating new loopholes for them to avoid tax on their labor income, and cutting taxes on massive inheritances,” Lily Batchelder, a New York University professor who worked as an economist under President Barack Obama, said. “At the same time, it leaves low- and middle-income workers with even fewer resources to invest in their children, and increases the number of Americans without health insurance.”
America’s rich have gotten richer for decades, while the middle class and poor have seen meager gains. Since the mid-20th century, the top 1 percent have more than doubled their share of the nation’s income, from less than 10 percent to more than 20 percent.  The tax overhaul the Republican Party passed through the Senate would make America’s income inequality worse. Maybe a lot worse, economists say. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said on the Senate floor that this day would be remembered as one of the “great robberies in U.S. history.”

Preet Didbal is the 1st Indian-American Sikh woman to become mayor in the U.S.

Preet Didbal, a longtime Planning Commissioner and lifetime Yuba City resident, and City Councilmember since 2014, was sworn in on December 5th, possibly making her the first Indian-American Sikh woman in the U.S., to lead a city. She was appointed by the Council and was sworn-in as the mayor of the city that thousands of Indian-American Sikhs have called home for more than a 100 years, finally has a woman mayor belonging to that community.
“I’m speechless. It’s so humbling,” Didbal told the media. “Seeing someone that looks like you, that comes from the same faith as you, to be elected in a public office in this country is inspiring and exciting. And it’s definitely moving,” Sikh Coalition’s Jaydeep Singh is quoted saying in the a media report.
While there have been male Sikh mayors in the past, including the most recent, Ravi Bhalla of Hoboken, New Jersey, and before that, former Mayor of Laurel Hollow in New York, Harvinder Singh Anand, Didbal is likely the first Sikh woman to occupy that office, according to kcra.com. “Congratultions to Mayor Preet Didbal!” the Sikh Coalition tweeted.
Didbal, a single mother, has lived in Yuba City, raising her daughter who attends River Valley High School there. According to her bio on the Council website, Didbal’s “focus is built around children being raised in a community that invests in the success of young people and will look to develop more youth and family activities.” She is also committed to creating an economic environment that will provide good-paying jobs for returning college graduates, the site says. The Sikh Coalition estimates around 500,000 people who follow the Sikh faith live in the United States.

9.3 million family-based visas issued in 10 years, White House says

For the first time, the White House said, the federal government has counted the green cards issued between 2005 and 2015 to migrants admitted through family preference, or as immediate relatives of migrants already admitted into the country in perhaps the fullest portrait of “chain migration” ever developed.
“For years, we’ve known that large numbers of immigrants have been coming based on petitions from previous immigrants,” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Lee Cissna told Fox News. “But this is the first time we really kind of see the whole scope of the problem. And legislators or policymakers at DHS can do what they need to do address the problem.”
During the ten-year time frame, officials said, the U.S. permanently resettled roughly 9.3 million new immigrants on the basis of family ties. That’s more than 70 percent of all new immigration in that period, the White house said, adding it is also the primary driver of low-skilled workers’ entry into the U.S. A phenomenon analyst say most directly hurts American minority groups with comparable skills.
“These numbers are explosive. They show that American immigration skews almost entirely towards family-based admissions,” said a White House official who briefed Fox News on the data. Mexico is at the top of the list with 1.7 million admissions, India and the Philippines each have more than 600,000, and Iran has more than 80,000.
President Trump has urged congressional Democrats to address chain migration in any compromise on the so-called “Dreamers” immigrants brought here as children who will face deportation in March if a deal on their disposition is not reached.
On Fox News, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell echoed the President’s call to end chain migration in exchange for any deal on DACA. McConnell explained that last year’s Presidential election gave lawmakers a mandate to enact the pro-American immigration reforms that the President campaigned on. McConnell also warned that it would be “dumb” and political suicide for Democrats to shut down the government and endanger national security over unrelated legislative policy matters, such as granting work permits to illegal immigrants.
Republican Senators Tom Cotton of Arkansas and David Perdue of Georgia have proposed eliminating the preference afforded to extended and adult family members. “We have current immigrants determining who future immigrants will do – will be, independent of their ability to be contributory to our economy,” Perdue told Fox News.
The group “New American Economy,” compromised of 500 mayors and business leaders committed to comprehensive immigration reform notes that 40 percent of America’s Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or their children. “Could we do it better? Should we have more focus on merit? Absolutely,” said the group’s Executive Director Jeremy Robbins. “But that doesn’t mean in the least that we don’t want to be reuniting families, strengthening communities and bringing more people here.”

No change in H-1B visa system: US 

Amid the H-1B visa row in India, the US government has said there has been no change in law regarding the H-1B regime and the system continued to be as before. Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for State for South Asia Thomas Vajda said no legislation has been passed so far on the particular category of visa.

“(There is) no change in the law today for H-1B (visa) regime or system in the United States… President (Donald) Trump asked for review of the H-1B system…but no steps have been taken. Many changes in law, so many cases, require changes of legislation. But so far no legislation has been passed on H-1B. For the moment, the system remains as it has in the past,” Vajda told reporters after an interactive session with members of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

Following Trump’s election as US president on a protectionist platform, the US has announced stricter norms for issuing the H-1B and L1 visas. India’s Commerce Minister Suresh Prabhu said in October that the issue of H-1B and L1 visas, which have facilitated the entry of Indian IT professionals, has been raised strongly with Washington.

Responding to a query regarding reducing pet coke imports from the US, Vajda said the US sees energy as the most potential area for inc. “The US is committed to increase energy export and support for India’s economic development,” he said.

Vajda said both the governments of India and the US have been hopeful and supportive for completion of contract between the Westinghouse Electric Company and the Nuclear Power Corporation of India to build six nuclear reactors in India.

Republicans-led US Senate approves Tax Bill that benefits the wealthy and big corporations

In the early hours of Saturday morning, December 2nd, Senate Republicans passed their version of a sweeping tax overhaul. Roughly five hours earlier, the Senate Finance Committee publicly released their final proposal of the Bill after weeks of closed door consultations and few days of public scrutiny of the important Tax Bill that will leave over a over a Trillion Dollars to the US deficit.

The Senate passed its tax plan in a 51-49 vote early on Saturday morning, with Vice-President Mike Pence presiding over the chamber and after a frantic rewrite. Bob Corker was the sole Republican to vote against the bill, which would bestow huge benefits on US corporations and the wealthiest Americans. “We think this is a great day for the country,” the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, said at a celebratory press conference.

Democrats remained united in their opposition, attacking the legislation as a giveaway to corporate America and the wealthy. “In the waning hours, this bill is tilting further towards businesses and away from families,” said Chuck Schumer, the Senate minority leader, in a floor speech on Friday. “Every time the choice is between corporations and families, the Republicans choose corporations.”

 The bill, among other things will continue to create inequality in the nation. The rich bnenfitting from the tax-cuts, while the poor and the middle income groups to be marginally benefitting from the plan, and that to for a period of 10 years only. The richest 20 percent of households reap 90 percent of the benefit of the tax cuts over that time period, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.

The main focus of the tax bill is business. Republicans’ stated goal is to boost the economy. They argue that the best way to do this is to cut the taxes that businesses pay on profits, allowing companies to reinvest the money in new equipment and workers. In fact, the Senate bill centers on provisions to permanently cut the corporate tax rate — the rate paid directly by companies like Apple or Ford Motor — to 20% (from a top rate of 35%) starting in 2019, while also allowing a new deduction for individual taxpayers who own their own businesses.

Business owners tend to be wealthy — whether their assets take the form of stock holdings or privately owned ventures. The upshot is that the Senate tax plan’s benefits skew dramatically toward top earners.

According to the preliminary Tax Policy Center analysis, the top 1% of earners — those taking home more than about $900,000 a year — were set to reap about 60% of the total tax cut, for an average of more than $32,000 annually apiece. The top 0.1% — those earning $5 million or more — were to get an extra $200,000.

The GOP’s Senate tax bill, which passed in a close party-line vote, could give President Donald Trump his first legislative victory after Congress failed to overhaul the nation’s health system earlier this year.

It’s too early to tell precisely how the GOP tax plan would affect individual taxpayers. That’s because, in an effort to muster votes, Republicans continued tinkering with the tax bill behind closed doors up until a few hours before it actually passed, and the economists who typically crunch the numbers on new legislation haven’t had time to examine the tax bill’s results.

Like the House tax bill, passed earlier this month, the Senate version is largely built around reorganizing and lowering what corporations and other businesses pay in taxes in hopes of spurring economic growth. That said, middle-class Americans could be able to count on a tax cut too, at least during the next few years — assuming, that is, that the Senate bill can be reconciled with the House version and become law. You’ll probably see a tax cut, but maybe only in the short term.

Senate Republicans initially repealed the Alternative Minimum Tax, but have brought it back now in order to pay for some other additions. The AMT is intended to be a minimum tax on the wealthy. In this version, the GOP raises the income levels where it hits so it will affect fewer people. For individuals, the minimum threshold goes from $50,600 to $70,600. For those filing jointly, the threshold rises from $78,750 to $109,400.

Trump campaigned on a promise to cut middle-class taxes. And the Senate is delivering — sort of. One analysis of the tax plan, by the Tax Policy Center, a centrist think tank, found the average middle earner (someone taking home about $50,000 to $90,000) would reap an $850 tax break in 2019, benefiting in part from a standard deduction that would double to $12,000 for singles and $24,000 four couples.

Another preliminary analysis, this one by The New York Times, defined middle-class earners as those making $40,000 to $140,000 — and found that many of those, particularly the people that rely on the state and local tax deduction, could actually see a tax increase next year. However, the last minute, at the instance of Maine’s Sen. Susan Collins, would allow taxpayers to continue to deduct up to $10,000 in property taxes, would likely soften the blow for at least some of these middle-income taxpayers.

For most of the Americans, the benefits of the tax cuts are also likely to be temporary, as the tax breaks for them will expire in 2026, while the huge tax cuts for the corporations are made permanent. The bill also uses a new way to account for inflation, which could push some taxpayers into higher brackets. By 2027, savings for the average taxpayer earning roughly $50,000 to $90,000 will have shrunk to just $50, the Tax Policy Center found.

During the campaign Trump promised a tax cut that would be “revenue neutral.” The idea was that, while government receipts might initially fall when rates were cut, economic growth would boost American’s incomes enough to replace the lost revenue despite the lower rates. Howver, even accounting for economic growth, the Senate plan will add about $1 trillion to the debt over the next decade, according a report from non-partisan Joint Committee On Taxation.

Many economist believe that piling still more debt on top of what the government already owes — currently $14 trillion — could eventually lead investors to sour on U.S. bonds. The result would be higher interest rates, which would push up borrowing costs for everyone from the government itself to most U.S. businesses. That in turn could choke off whatever extra growth the tax cuts spurred in the first place.

The stated goal of tax reform is improving the economy, and the right-leaning Tax Foundation predicted in November that the bill (as it stood at the time) could ultimately help the U.S. add almost a million new jobs over the next decade. But economists are divided about whether that growth will in fact play out as hoped.

The Tax Foundation tends to see rates remaining low, even as the deficit increases — hence its rosy job forecast. But many economists disagree. Earlier this month, researchers at the University of Pennsylvania estimated the tax cut could add as little as 0.03 to 0.08 percentage points to annual GDP growth over the next decade, which would presumably bring far fewer jobs.

the big winners in the GOP bill that the Senate passed early Saturday morning are corporations and the wealthy. Trump himself ― a billionaire ― stands to gain millions through the elimination of certain taxes. Far from being a middle-class tax cut, the measure is a massive corporate giveaway, a bill that recycles decades of Republican ideology on trickle-down economics and trusts that executives will hand over their new gains to average-income workers. “If my friends here want to give a tax cut to the middle class,” Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) asked on the Senate floor Thursday, “why don’t we give a tax cut to the middle class?”

And the bill makes other changes that reach far beyond the tax code itself. It repeals the individual mandate from the Affordable Care Act, a major change that was added in recent weeks as part of a broader GOP effort to dismantle the Obama-era law. The measure is expected to leave 13 million more people uninsured. It authorizes oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. And by curtailing deductions for state and local taxes, it will put pressure on some state and local spending on education, transportation and public health programs.

The tax package still must clear a couple more hurdles before it can become law. There are numerous differences between the House and Senate versions, ranging from when certain tax cuts expire to how the estate tax is handled, and though none are seen as showstoppers, complications could arise.

“The bill is investing heavily in the wealthy and their children — by boosting the value of their stock portfolios, creating new loopholes for them to avoid tax on their labor income, and cutting taxes on massive inheritances,” Lily Batchelder, a New York University professor who worked as an economist under President Barack Obama, said. “At the same time, it leaves low- and middle-income workers with even fewer resources to invest in their children, and increases the number of Americans without health insurance.”

America’s rich have gotten richer for decades, while the middle class and poor have seen meager gains. Since the mid-20th century, the top 1 percent have more than doubled their share of the nation’s income, from less than 10 percent to more than 20 percent.  The tax overhaul the Republican Party passed through the Senate would make America’s income inequality worse. Maybe a lot worse, economists say. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said on the Senate floor that this day would be remembered as one of the “great robberies in U.S. history.”

Ambassador Nikki Haley warns “N. Korean regime will be utterly destroyed” if war breaks out

Echoing the sentiments expressed by President Donald Trump during his address to the United Nations General Assembly in August this year, The U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations warned on Wednesday November 29th that the North Korean regime “will be utterly destroyed” if a war breaks out, a day after that country launched an intercontinental ballistic missile in a new provocative test.
Haley’s comments are a continuation of the Trump administration’s responses to North Korean military displays. The president stated in August that he would unleash “fire and fury” on North Korea if it continued threatening the US and its allies.
Nikki Haley ratcheted up talk of war with North Korea in reaction to the isolated country’s most recent intercontinental ballistic missile test, warning that Kim Jong-un’s government is on a road to ruin.
“We have never sought war with North Korea, and still today we do not seek it,” ambassador Nikki Haley said at an emergency UN Security Council meeting. “If war does come, it will be because of continued acts of aggression like we witnessed yesterday.”
“And if war comes, make no mistake, the North Korean regime will be utterly destroyed,” Haley said. “The nations of the world have it within their power to further isolate, diminish and, God willing, reverse the dangerous course of the North Korean regime.”
During an emergency session of the UN Security Council on Wednesday, Haley asked the members of the panel to increase the sanctions imposed on North Korea and to implement penalties established by the council earlier in the year, The Hill reported. Haley also warned the panel that North Korea’s latest missile test has brought Pyongyang and Washington “closer to war.”
If war comes, make no mistake, the North Korean regime will be utterly destroyed,” Haley said. “The dictator of North Korea made a choice yesterday that brings the world closer to war, not farther from it,” Ambassador Haley added.
Also on Wednesday, President Donald Trump said that he would put forth “additional major sanctions” against North Korea in reaction to the recent ICBM test. Trump added that “the situation will be handled.”
 North Korea’s latest ICBM test on Tuesday was its first in more than two months, and the rocket that was launched flew further than any previous launches. The distance of the launch allegedly put the US mainland into the range of the missile, according to North Korean state media. It is the third ICBM test conducted by North Korea, which has also carried out six past nuclear tests. In all, the North Koreans have test-fired rockets 18 times since Donald Trump took office in January. Of the missiles tested before that, one was intermediate-range, two were medium-range, eight were either short-range or medium-range and the range of one is unknown, according to various North Korea watchers. Four fired on June 8 were believed to be surface-to-ship cruise missiles.  U.S. military officials said that the missile tested Tuesday appears to be a new variant.
As a result of the continuous pressure the US has put on Pyongyang, on November 20, Trump officially declared North Korea a state sponsor of terrorism. While speaking of the designation, Trump said: “In addition to threatening the world with nuclear devastation, North Korea has supported international acts of terrorism including assassinations on foreign soil.”
 On November 15, as tensions between the two countries continued to heat up, the US military stated their B-1 bombers are capable of dropping nuclear weapons, and the US possesses “secret silos” of nuclear hardware.
“As long as there is a continuous hostile policy against my country by the US and as long as there are continued war games on our doorstep, then there will not be negotiations,” Pyongyang’s ambassador to the UN, Han Tae Song said.
 In October, North Korea mimicked the the Trump administration’s tough talk and threatened an “unimaginable” strike on the US, as tensions further ramped up over Pyongyang’s nuclear and missile programs, North Korean state media reported.
A missile capable of reaching the United States topped with a nuclear warhead is considered to be Pyongyang’s ultimate goal. They want it because they believe the US will eventually try to remove Kim Jong Un from power. But would the United States try to topple the Kim regime if North Korea could respond with a nuclear attack?
Pyongyang believes Washington wouldn’t, and that’s why the country sees nuclear weapons as the key to sparing Kim Jong Un from a fate similar to that which befell Moammar Gaddafi in Libya and Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
The long-range missile is what really scares the United States because it means there is an existential threat of a nuclear attack, according to John Delury, a professor at Seoul’s Yonsei University’s Graduate School of International Relations.
“We are in a somewhat dangerous period of a threat perception gap, as Americans adjust to the sense of vulnerability to North Korean retaliation that South Koreans and Japanese have lived with for quite some time,” he said.

Ajit Pai, FCC chairman wants net neutrality ended

Ajit Pai says his children are being harassed over net neutrality

Ajit Pai, President Trump appointed chairman of the Federal Communications Commission is all set to scrap rules around open internet access, a move that would allow giant cable and telecom companies to throttle broadband speeds and favor their own services if they wish.

Ajit Pai followed through on a pledge to try to repeal “net neutrality” regulations enacted under the Obama administration. The current rules treat internet service providers such as Comcast, AT&T and Verizon as if they were utility companies that provide essential services, like electricity. The rules mandate that they give equal access to all online content and apps.

Pai said those rules discourage investments that could provide even better and faster online access. Instead, he said new rules would force ISPs to be transparent about their services and management policies, and then would let the market decide.

“Under my proposal, the federal government will stop micromanaging the internet,” Pai said in a statement. Pai distributed his alternative plan to other FCC commissioners in preparation for a Dec. 14 vote. Although the FCC’s two Democrats said they will oppose the proposal, the repeal is likely to prevail as Republicans dominate 3-2. The vote for net neutrality in 2015 was also along party lines, but Democrats dominated then.

Equal treatment for all web traffic has been a fundamental principle of the internet since its creation but companies have increasingly put their thumb on the scales of access. AT&T, for example, doesn’t count use of its streaming service DirecTV Now against wireless data caps, potentially making it seem cheaper to its cellphone customers than rival TV services. Rivals would have to pay AT&T for that privilege. Regulators, consumer advocates and some tech companies are concerned that repealing net neutrality will give ISPs even more power to block or slow down rival offerings.

A repeal also opens the ability for ISPs to charge a company like Netflix for a faster path to its customers. Allowing this paid-priority market to exist could skew prices and create winners and losers among fledgling companies that require a high-speed connection to end users.

Meanwhile, in an interview this week, Ajit Pai said his family has become the target of harassment. Protesters against the new policy had put up cardboard signs at Pai’s home in suburban Virginia. One sign, appearing to refer to Pai’s children, read: “They will come to know the truth. Dad murdered Democracy in cold blood.”

Pai said those signs crossed a line, even as he noted the charged debate over net neutrality. “I understand that people are passionate about policy, but the one thing in America that should remain sacred is that families, wives and kids, should remain out of it. And stop harassing us at our homes.”

Pai has said his proposal would restore a “light-touch” regulatory framework for Internet services and would stop the government from micromanaging the Internet. Broadband and wireless companies such as Comcast and Verizon applauded Pai’s move. But Internet companies and activists see the undoing of net neutrality as an invitation for corporate abuse, in which service providers block websites they do not like and charge Web companies for speedier delivery of their content.

“It was a little nerve-racking, especially for my wife,” Pai said. Pai suggested that the intense criticism leveled at him for targeting neutrality rules can lead to the type of harassment his family experienced. “That’s one of the things I think is very unfortunate about all the vitriol and hot air that’s out there is that if you keep going out there and peddling this misinformation like, ‘This is the guy who is going to break the Internet and destroy democracy,’ it’s not surprising that some people get alarmed by it.”

Pai said in a statement, “Internet regulation activists have crossed the line by threatening and harassing my family. They should leave my family out of this and focus on debating the merits of the issue.”

Indo-US Democracy Foundation’ launched on Nehru’s Birthday

By George Abraham

‘Indo-US Democracy foundation,’ a Think Tank was inaugurated on November 14 – Nehru’s birthday – at a function held in Bayside, New York. Mr. Paul Vallone, a New York City Council Member, lighted a lamp and inaugurated the organization. He lauded the creation of the think tank and expressed hope that it will facilitate constructive dialogue between communities while promoting democratic values and principles.

“The mission of the Indo-US Democracy foundation is to create awareness on threats to democracies in India and U.S. and to educate the public. Towards that end, we will be analyzing developing trends and informing our audience of the increasing danger to our way of life” said George Abraham, the Executive Director of the think tank. “The primary reason we have done the inauguration on November 14 is quite significant. Our mission fits well within the Nehruvian vision for India and that is to be a strong advocate for individual liberty and human justice to all citizens regardless of color, caste, creed, religion or gender” Abraham added.

Prof. Manu Bhagavan, Professor at Hunter College,  the keynote speaker lauded the contribution of Nehru to India and reminded the gathering that Nehru’s vision of ‘Progressive internationalism was premised on the principle that free people everywhere should determine their future—together—under the aegis of forged common ideals.  Differe¬nce and the will of the locality had to be respected, under the proviso that neither could serve as an excuse to oppress’.

Dr. Jit Chandan, Professor at City University, noted Nehru’s contributions in the area of higher learning such as establishing IITs and IIMs and asked the new generation to seize the opportunities and create history.

Dr. Joseph Cheruvelil, a retired Professor at St. John’s University pointed out that the Nehruvian vision transformed India and the Institutions he has helped to create are continuing to provide stability and strength to Indian democracy.

 Mr. Yuvaraj Singh, a graduate student at Columbia University who was also a panel member, highlighted Nehruvian perspective on Democracy that it isn’t about propagating one set of ideologies or relying on one source of ideas. It’s about paying heed to your opposition, collaborating with those who you might not agree with you, and adopt the best of all ideas wholeheartedly for the advancement of the common goals and objectives. “Nobody embodied that better than Pt. Nehru. So the key lesson is that Democracy thrives on the opportunity to collaborate and not on the ambition to beat the opponent”  Mr. Singh added.

Mr. Harbachan Singh, Secretary-General of INOC, USA in his welcoming address said “In this very complex and fast-moving geo-political world environment and the nuclear age, it is essential for a think tank like body to be constantly up to speed and monitoring the world developments in every field of endeavor. It is to appraise national and international governments and to figure out which way the political and environmental winds were blowing through various technological means to forestall detrimental effects and calamities of war or natural disasters.”

Mr. Bipin Sangakar, the President of Jawaharlal Nehru foundation recollected the story of Martin Luther King’s visit to India upon Nehru’s invitation and how the civil rights movement in U.S. got transformed with Gandhian principles going forward.

Professor Inderjit Saluja,  Chief Editor of the Indian Panorama Newspaper moderated the meeting and added ‘the progressing India of today, ready to assume economic leadership of the world , is the gift of a visionary who knew it was important to strike a balance between the harsh realities of struggles facing a nascent nation and the need to take bold leap forward in the realms of economy and technology, notwithstanding the challenges of ensuring basic needs for the billions, to take the nation on a path to progress. He was acutely aware of the dire need to protect the fledgling democracy and attendant values of freedom, justice, and peace. Nehru’s legacy is a bright star on the horizon of India’s history, impossible to be overlooked or ignored”. Malini Shah thanked all the supporters and well-wishers at the meeting and urged close cooperation with the Think Tank.

Radhika Jones to lead pre-eminent celebrity-driven magazine ‘Vanity Fair’

Radhika Jones, 44, has been chosen to be the chief editor of Vanity Fair, the world’s celebrity driven magazine announced here on November 13th. Jones will take over as editor-in-chief of the celebrity-driven magazine that takes a splashy view of America and the world.

Jones garnered high praise from the likes of Anna Wintour, the editor in chief of Vogue and artistic director of Conde Nast which owns Vanity Fair. She becomes only the second woman to helm the magazine, and follows in the giant footsteps of the British media icon Tina Brown, who launched the new incarnation of the magazine as its editor in chief from 1984-1992. Jones succeeds current editor Graydon Carter, who has been there since 1992, and is known for raising the celebrity-driven bar of the magazine, which also however, carries serious political and economic pieces.

“In Radhika, we are so proud to have a fearless and brilliant editor whose intelligence and curiosity will define the future of Vanity Fair in the years to come,” Wintour said in a statement about Jones who lives in Brooklyn, New York, with her husband and son. “I’m honored and excited to succeed Graydon Carter as editor in chief of @VanityFair,” Jones tweeted Nov. 13.

The New York Times, where Jones has been the editorial director of the books department for the past year, broke the story about her appointment. The Times called Jones a “surprise choice” to lead Vanity Fair.

In an interview with Vanity Fair the day the announcement was made Nov. 13, Jones talked about her inspirations and hinted at where she may take the magazine. But not much about her parents, one of whom happens to be Indian, her mother, and Robert L. Jones, her father, a well-known singer and guitarist from the 1950s and ’60s, according to his biography on a folk music website.

Jones will lead Vanity Fair through its 24th annual Oscar Party in March, the fifth annual New Establishment Summit, the brand’s 105th anniversary and the continued digital expansion of The Hive, the title’s newest brand launch.

Jones, who takes over officially Dec. 11, previously held senior editorial roles at The New York Times, Time and The Paris Review. She joins Vanity Fair from the Times, where since November 2016 she was Editorial Director, Books, overseeing daily and Sunday reviews and expanding the desk’s digital coverage at the intersection of books, news and ideas. At Time, Jones led all arts and entertainment coverage for the brand.

“Radhika is an exceptionally talented editor who has the experience and insight to drive the cultural conversation—balancing distinctive journalism with culture and humor,” Bob Sauerberg, president and CEO of Condé Nast is quoted saying in the press release. “Her experience covering news and entertainment has given her a thorough understanding of the importance of chronicling and celebrating the moments that matter. With her expansive worldview, I know she will guide Vanity Fair’s history of provocative and enduring storytelling well into its future.”

Prior to The New York Times, Jones spent eight years at Time rapidly rising through the ranks to become deputy managing editor in 2013. Prior to joining Time in 2008, Jones was the managing editor of The Paris Review, managing editor at Grand Street, an editor at Artforum, and the arts editor of The Moscow Times, where she began her career.

Jones has a B.A. from Harvard University and holds a Ph.D. in English and Comparative Literature from Columbia, where she has also taught courses in writing and literature. Born in New York City, she grew up in Cincinnati and Connecticut. “There is nothing else out there quite like Vanity Fair,” Jones is quoted saying.

Assaults against Muslims in U.S. surpass 2001 level

By Katayoun Kishi

The number of assaults against Muslims in the United States rose significantly between 2015 and 2016, easily surpassing the modern peak reached in 2001, the year of the September 11 terrorist attacks, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of new hate crimes statistics from the FBI. In 2016, there were 127 reported victims of aggravated or simple assault, compared with 91 the year before and 93 in 2001.

But assaults are not the only form of hate crime carried out against Muslims and other religious groups. The most common is intimidation, which is defined as reasonable fear of bodily harm. Anti-Muslim intimidation also increased in 2016, with 144 reported victims, compared with 120 the previous year. These numbers, however, are still dwarfed by the 296 victims of anti-Muslim intimidation in 2001.

Certain types of crimes that damage or destroy property, including vandalism, also have risen, from 70 cases against Muslims in 2015 to 92 last year.

Overall, there were 307 incidents of anti-Muslim hate crimes in 2016, marking a 19% increase from the previous year. This rise in hate crimes builds on an even sharper increase the year before, when the total number of anti-Muslim incidents rose 67%, from 154 in 2014 to 257 in 2015.

As in previous years, the largest number of all types of hate crime incidents against religious groups targeted Jews. In 2016, there were 684 anti-Jewish hate crime incidents, marking a slight increase from 664 in 2015. By comparison, in 2016, there were 62 hate crimes against Catholics and 15 against Protestants.

Amid the recent rise in incidents of hate crimes, most Muslims in the U.S. say their community faces discrimination. In a Pew Research Center survey conducted in early 2017, three-quarters of Muslim American adults (75%) say there is “a lot” of discrimination against Muslims in the U.S., a view shared by nearly seven-in-ten adults in the general public (69%).

In addition, half of U.S. Muslim adults (50%) say that in recent years it has become more difficult to be a Muslim in the U.S., with 10% of this group attributing this to discrimination, racism and prejudice. In general, nearly a quarter of U.S. Muslim adults (23%) view discrimination, racism or prejudice as the most important problem facing American Muslims today.

The FBI collects hate crime data from about 15,000 law enforcement agencies that voluntarily participate, which means the annual statistics likely undercount the number of hate crimes in a given year. Still, the report is a useful tool for comparing hate crimes over time and tracking the minimum number of these crimes that have occurred in a given year.

Under Trump, US hate crimes rise, Hindus and Sikhs among those targeted

The FBI has reported an increase in hate crimes in the US for a second consecutive year, with Hindus and Sikhs among those targeted in the more than 6,000 incidents of crimes motivated by biases towards religions, race, ethnicity and sexual orientation.

There were 10 incidents of hate-crimes against Hindus and seven against Sikhs in 2016 — the year of the rise of Donald Trump as a politician and his election as president.

The maximum number of hate crimes were related to race or ethnicity in 2016— 3,483 — with more than half against African Americans. Religion-related hate crimes came second, with Jews and Muslims targeted the most. Another 1,076 hate crimes were linked to with sexual orientation, while other incidents were linked to disability, gender and gender-identity.

Hate crimes against Muslims— a group targeted by Trump — saw a steep rise, increasing to 307 incidents in 2016 from 257 in 2015 and 154 in 2014.

The Southern Poverty Law Centre (SPLC), an organization that tracks hate-crime and discrimination, said the rise in hate crimes “coincides with Donald Trump’s racist, xenophobic campaign and its immediate aftermath”.

The FBI and the justice department did not make that connection. “The department of justice is committed to ensuring that individuals can live without fear of being a victim of violent crime based on who they are, what they believe, or how they worship,” attorney general Jeff Sessions said in a statement.

The SPLC contends that the actual number of hate crimes may be much higher. In a report, they said that the “actual number of hate crimes may be as high as 250,000 – more than 40 times the 6,121 incidents that the FBI reports for 2016. But the FBI figures do serve as a rough barometer for what’s occurring in our country”.

The number of hate crimes against Hindus, whose numbers are estimated to be around of 2.1 million, were not listed separately in the 2014 FBI report, but have figured independently in the next two annual reports —with five in 2015 and 10 in 2016.

The number for hate crimes against Sikhs, whose population is estimated to be 500,000, went up from six in 2015 to seven in 2016. The community has been a victim of hate crimes as they are usually mistaken as Arabs due to their turbans. The targeting of Hindus is also usually due to their being mistaken as Arabs.

Abhijit Das to Run for Massachusetts Congressional Seat

Abhijit Das, the president and CEO of Troca Hotels, has announced he is running for the 3dr District Congress in Massachusetts. The Democrat candidate made the official announcement on his birthday amidst friends, family and community members at the Stonehedge Hotel and Spa in Tyngsborough. The seat ib being vacated by Niki Tsongas in November, 2018.

“As most of you know, I’m not a fan of [President] Donald Trump,” Das said, adding that the unequivocal denunciation of hatred, bigotry and racism should be a prerequisite to running for president. “That notwithstanding, we should not demonize those who voted for him nor can we simply ignore their voices. It is by engaging other viewpoints that we ultimately achieve understanding, compromise and progress,” he said.

Das attended the Brooks School in North Andover and earned a BA in political science from Middlebury College in Vermont. He later earned a law degree at the University of Michigan’s law school, focusing on constitutional law and the American political sector.

“It was there (at the University of Michigan) that I learned the power of democracy,” he said.

Early in his career, Das served as law clerk to U.S. District of Maryland Judge Benson Legg. There, Das said he was witness to the power of the federal government, its compassion and its injustice.

Before starting Troca Hotels in 2011, Das was senior director of development for Hilton Hotels in South Asia, resurrecting 28 hotels in India from none. With Troca Hotels, Das’ mission is to revitalize communities.

“Our state of the economy is troubling,” Das noted. “Something is not working and we need to fix that. We must work diligently to turn this place to one of opportunity and innovation.”

Das says his platform includes the economy, innovation, education and the mental health crisis, among other issues.

“Washington is broken. I entered the possibility of this race because I saw friends (on both sides) shouting at each other,” Das said. “True dialogue is what we need. We need someone who is going to cross over that line and say, ‘let’s talk.’”

The Democrat is among eight individuals from his party, as well as two Republicans, who hope to be victorious next November for the seat being vacated by Lowell-based Democratic incumbent Niki Tsongas, who is retiring after the current term.

 “Our state of the economy is troubling. Something is not working and we need to fix that. We must work diligently to turn this place to one of opportunity and innovation,” Das said at the time in his announcement. His platform, he said, will focus on the economy, innovation, education and the mental health crisis, among other issues.

The 44-year old Das was born in Woburn, and grew up in North Andover. He went to Brooks School, studied political science at Middlebury College in Vermont, and took two semesters of classes at UMass Lowell, where his mother Mitra Das is in her 45th year teaching sociology, the Eagle-Tribune reported.

Indian Americans score major victories in elections across the US

The November 7, 2017 elections across the United States underscored the growing influence of the Indian Americans and their coming of age and assuming greater roles in key states in the greatest democratic nation in the world’s political history. Indian Americans, a community of about 4 million people, who are now aggressively pursuing public office and a role in the country’s politics, matching their economic clout and academic advancements, also scored major victories, including to two state senates: Manka Dhingra in Washington on the west coast, whose victory flipped control of the senate to Democrats, and Vin Gopal’s victory on the east coast, flipping a long held Republican seat in New Jersey to the Democratic column.
Indian Americans Ravi Bhalla and Phalguni Patel easily won their respective races in New Jersey in which they had been targets of anonymous flyers that sought to portray them as a terrorist and an outsider, in the case of Patel, from a cricket-crazy immigrant community.
Manka Dhingra, the Indian American Democratic candidate for the Washington 45th Legislative District state Senate seat, won the Nov. 7 general election convincingly and, in turn, flipped the majority party of the state from Republican to Democrat.
Dhingra ousted her Republican counterpart, Jinyoung Lee Englund, to the tune of 55.4 percent to 44.6 percent in retaking control of the state. The former King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office senior deputy prosecuting attorney received 16,156 votes to Englund’s 12,997.
“I was proud of and excited about the result,” Dhingra said. “It reinforces the message from the beginning to make it about the people. It was about honesty, integrity and compassion. From the beginning I was clear I wanted a campaign run on values and not one that does attack ads. You are what Democracy looks like. And when Democracy wakes up, justice wins,” she said in her speech.
Vin Gopal, the former Monmouth County Democratic chairman with deep roots in the party there, defeated longtime state Sen. Jennifer Beck in the state’s 11th legislative district. According to unofficial results from the Monmouth County Clerk’s Office, Gopal defeated Beck 28,750 votes to 25,108 votes.
Beck, an 11-year legislator, conceded to Gopal on Tuesday night, dealing a blow to Republicans in the upper house of the New Jersey Legislature. The race was one of the most expensive and closely watched in the state.  “I have been so honored to serve you and I want to wish Vin Gopal the best as he now takes the reins in District 11,” Beck told her supporters. “I wish him the best of luck and offer him any assistance I can lend him in the transition.”
Another major victory for the NRI community was, despite an 11th hour racist attack which depicted him as a terrorist, Indian American Ravi Bhalla emerged victorious, as he was elected the first Sikh mayor of Hoboken, New Jersey. “I’m very humbled and honored to represent a great city and the Indian American community,” The Sikh-American City Council member topped five other candidates on Tuesday and succeeded Dawn Zimmer, who decided not to seek a third term.
While campaigning for the mayoral race, the Indian-American born and raised in New Jersey was called a “terrorist” in targeted racist attacks. Anonymously distributed flyers featured a picture of Bhalla with the message “Don’t let TERRORISM take over our Town!”
The 44-year-old politician responded to the flyers, saying last week they were troubling but “we won’t let hate win”. “I want to use this incident as an opportunity to affirm to each other and our children the value of living in a diverse community where we are judged by the content of our character — not by the color of our skin or how we worship,” Bhalla wrote in a Facebook post.
Phlaguni Patel was elected to the education board of New Jersey’s Edison county, a major hub where Indian Americans live.  The fifth big win of the night was Dimple Ajmera, to City Council, Charlotte, North Carolina.
“H(Y)UGE day yesterday,” wrote Shekar Narasimhan, a top Democratic strategist in an email to a request for response. The word “H(Y)UGE” was borrowed from Bernie Sanders, who ran against Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination in 2016. That was his way to describe something massive, momentous.
Elections were held on November 7 for the state executive, including governors, legislative, municipal and school boards in New Jersey and Virginia and for other state bodies, local boards, judicial bodies and vacancies in other states.
The victories give Democrats a huge psychological boost that could help their fundraising and candidate recruitment. It could also accelerate the pace of Republican retirements, as Republican Bob McDonnell’s win in the 2009 Virginia governor’s race did for Democrats.
Buoyed by the November 7, 2017 victory, Democrats declared the start of their comeback with the goal of reclaiming control of the two chambers of Congress—the Senate and the House of Representatives—from Republicans.
“The door is certainly open for us,” said Nancy Pelosi, top Democrat in the House, going over the election results with reporters and the implications for the 2018 congressional races.
Pelosi said she was reminded of victories in similar elections in 2005 that led to Democrats taking the two chambers in 2006.
Democrats posted victories in an entire range of elections held on Tuesday to governorships in Virginia and New Jersey, legislatures, municipal and judicial bodies, using an unprecedented demographic and cultural mix of candidates that were so representative of the new America.

Governor Rick Scott appoints Dr. Zach Zachariah to the Florida State University System Board of Governors

Dr. Zachariah P. Zachariah, one of the nation’s leading cardiologists, medical director of UHealth Cardiology in Fort Lauderdale, FL, has been appointed to the Florida State University System Board of Governors by the Governor of Florida, Rick Scott on October 27th, 2017. Dr. Zachariah has previously been appointed by Governor Rick Scott to serve on the Board of Medicine.
“It is an honor to serve on the 17-member board, whose responsibilities include defining each institution’s mission, setting the curriculum, and managing the system’s coordination and operation,” said Zachariah, whose term will run until January 9, 2019. “I am looking forward to exploring potential public-private educational partnerships and programs with academic institutions like the University of Miami.”
Along with the Indian American cardiologist, Gov. Scott also appointed another Indian American Jay Patel, and Patricia Frost, Tim Cerio, and Ned Lautenbach to be on the Board of Governors. They have been appointed to terms beginning Oct. 27 and ending Jan. 6, 2019.  The appointments are subject to confirmation by the Florida Senate, but are expected to be formalities.
The 17-member Board of Governors oversees the 12 universities within the State University System of Florida, which is the nation’s second-largest public university system, according to their website.
According to media reports, Zachariah, a GOP fundraiser considered among the most influential Indian-American Republicans, has been a longtime friend of the Bush family. During the tenure of President George H. W. Bush, and his sons, President George W. Bush and two-term former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, he held several influential positions. He belonged to the White House Commission on Asian and Pacific Islanders and was chairman of the Florida Board of Medicine.
Director of the Fort Lauderdale Heart Institute. In addition, he is also Clinical Professor of Medicine at the University of Miami School of Medicine, Chairman of the Florida Board of Medicine, and a member of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Advisory Council of the National Institutes of Health. Among Dr. Zachariah’s professional credentials are certification in the American Board of Internal Medicine and in the sub-specialty Board of Cardiovascular Diseases.
He is also a fellow of the American College of Cardiology, the Society for Cardiac Angiography, the American Heart Association Council on Clinical Cardiology, the American College of Chest Physicians, and the Society of Clinical Scientists. In addition, his research papers and abstracts have been published in Circulation, the American Journal of Cardiology, the Southern Medical Journal, the Royal Society of Medicine, and Clinical Research. Dr. Zachariah received his medical training at the Armed Forces Medical College in Poona, India, and did his medical residency at St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center in Paterson, New Jersey.
He was awarded a fellowship in cardiology at the Cleveland Clinic. There, he worked closely with the late Mason Sones, M.D., who pioneered the technique of coronary arteriography and paved the way for modern cardiology. Dr. Zachariah has personally performed over 10,000 cardiac catheterizations and 2,000 PTCA’s. In addition, Dr. Zachariah is a member of the Commission to study long-term care in the State of Florida and was appointed by Florida’s Insurance Commissioner.
Dr. Zachariah is a member of the Health Advisory Committee and the Citizen Advisory Committee appointed by U.S. Senator Connie Mack. Active with the American Heart Association, Dr. Zachariah is President of the Broward Region, and past President of the American Heart Association, Florida Affiliate.
Zachariah served at the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute at the NIH, as a member of the U.S. delegation to the World Health Organization in Geneva, Switzerland, and as President of the Fort Lauderdale Heart Institute at Holy Cross Hospital.
His awards include the Ellis Island American Legend Award, the Child Advocate of the Year Award, Father of the Year Award, Spirit of Life Award from City of Hope, the Golden Heart Award from the American Heart Association, Freedom Foundation Medal of Honor from the Freedom Foundation at Valley Forge and the Ellis Island Medal of Honor. Currently, Dr. Zachariah serves on the Advisory Board of The Universal News Network, www.theunn.com

Kenneth Juster unanimously confirmed as U.S. Ambassador to India

Kenneth Juster, who has worked to cement India-U.S. relations over the past 16 years, was unanimously confirmed by the Senate on November 2nd as the next U.S. Ambassador to India. Juster takes over from Indian American Richard Verma, an Obama appointee who was asked to step down Jan. 20, before President Donald Trump’s inauguration. The post has been vacant since January. Trump nominated Juster Sept. 5.
Juster currently serves as the deputy assistant to the president for international economic affairs and deputy director of the National Economic Council. “I was proud to support Ken’s nomination to be our country’s representative in India, one of our most important defense partners in the region,” said Sen. Mark Warner, D-Virginia, who co-chairs the Senate India Caucus with Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas.
“I have known Ken since we were in law school in the 1970s. As Ambassador, I trust his decades of work on critical issues like trade, cybersecurity and defense will help advance the U.S.-India relationship in a positive direction,” said Warner, who also serves as vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, in a press statement released shortly after Juster was confirmed.
Juster is seen as a veteran India hand. He founded and served as the U.S. Chair of the U.S.-India High Technology Cooperation Group, and was one of the key architects of the Next Steps in Strategic Partnership initiative between the United States and India.
“His work related to India played an important role in the transformation of the U.S.-India relationship and helped provide the foundation for the historic civil nuclear agreement between the two countries,” noted Warner.
Juster has also served at the State Department and at the Commerce Department. His first call of duty will be to attend the Global Entrepreneurship Summit in Hyderabad Nov. 28-30. After Trump was elected to office, several Indian American business leaders expressed concern as to whether the summit, co-hosted by India and the U.S., would occur this year.
Later this month, Trump’s daughter Ivanka will be leading a powerful delegation of business luminaries to the GES. Prime Minister Narendra Modi is expected to inaugurate the three-day event. On Sept. 28, Juster sailed through his hearing with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, handily fielding questions on bonded labor on human trafficking. The nominee emphasized that both countries could continue to work together to combat climate change, despite Trump’s pull-out of the Paris Agreement this summer. Juster noted that India has expressed great interest in clean technology and energy from renewable sources. He was unanimously confirmed by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Oct. 26.
Juster was nominated by President Trump in September, and is in time to join the ongoing preparations for the Global Economic Summit end of November, being hosted jointly by Washington and New Delhi, where the U.S. delegation will be led by the President’s daughter Ivanka Trump.
A key player in the making of the U.S. – India civil nuclear agreement back in 2005, Juster will be pushing forward the administration’s ambitious agenda of strengthening the strategic alliance with India particularly in the Indo-Pacific region. This in the midst of a rare asymmetric drumbeat from Washington about India’s emerging global power status and Pakistan’s harboring of terrorists.
In his testimony at the Committee hearings, Juster said he looked forward to advancing “our strategic partnership with India – a relationship that is critical to promoting U.S. national security and economic interests.” He also spoke of the contributions of the nearly 4 million Indian-Americans, and stressed that as a democracy, India’s government and its civil society community was already “grappling” with issues like bonded labor and human rights as well as sex trafficking. He said he would find the right “interlocutors” to address American concerns in every area of concern.
-+=