Ramaswamy has pledged to bow out of the Colorado state primary elections after the state’s Supreme Court ordered Trump’s name to be struck out from the ballot
Indian American Republican presidential primary candidate Vivek Ramaswamy has threatened withdraw from the ballot following Donald Trump’s disqualification from contesting the presidential elections in Colorado.
“I pledge to withdraw from the Colorado GOP primary ballot until Trump is also allowed to be on the ballot,” Ramaswamy said in a post on X. calling upon the other Republican candidates in the race to follow his lead.
“I demand that Ron DeSantis, Chris Christie, and Nikki Haley do the same immediately – or else they are tacitly endorsing this illegal maneuver which will have disastrous consequences for our country,” his post on X read.
The Colorado Supreme court ruled on December 19 that Trump was disqualified from holding the presidency under the constitution’s insurrection clause, and ordered the Secretary of State to strike his name out from the state’s GOP presidential primary ballot.
According to Ramaswamy, blocking Trump from contesting the elections was “unconstitutional.” He argued that the Deep State does not select the leadership of the U.S., and the right is reserved only for U.S. citizens. He asked DeSantis, Christie, and Haley to pledge the same vow as him, failure to do so would prove they are “complicit in this unconstitutional attack on the way we conduct our constitutional Republic.”
The Indian American has backed Trump several times this year, including when the latter was named in four criminal indictments. Ramaswmay said he would pardon Trump after being elected as President and also urged his GOP opponents to commit to doing the same.
“Each of our paths to electoral success would be easier if President Trump were eliminated from competition, but that is the wrong result for our country,” said a letter circulated by Ramaswamy campaign to every Democratic and Republican White House contender in June 2023, in the wake of the unsealing of a federal indictment against Trump.
“I condemn these charges by the U.S. Department of Justice. Below, I have signed a commitment to pardon President Trump promptly on January 20, 2025, for the federal charges … I respectfully request that you join me in this commitment or else publicly explain why you will not,” Ramaswamy said in the letter.
(AP) — With the GOP primary process just about to start, many Republicans aren’t certain that votes will be counted correctly in their presidential primary contest, amid widespread pessimism about the future of both the Democratic and Republican parties, according to a new poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.
About one-third of Republicans say they have a “great deal” or “quite a bit” of confidence that votes in the upcoming Republican primary elections and caucuses will be counted correctly. About three in 10 Republicans report a “moderate” amount of confidence, and 32% say they have “only a little” or “none at all.” In contrast, 72% of Democrats have high confidence their party will count votes accurately in its primary contests. Democrats are also slightly more likely than Republicans to have a high level of confidence in the Republican Party’s vote count being accurate.
Republicans continue to be broadly doubtful about votes being counted accurately — in the early contests or beyond them. About one-quarter of Republicans say they have at least “quite a bit” of confidence that the votes in the 2024 presidential election will be counted accurately, significantly lower than Democrats. Slightly fewer than half of U.S. adults overall (46%) believe the same, which is in line with an AP-NORC poll conducted in June.
“Nothing will be fair because the last election was rigged,” said Julie Duggan, 32, of Chicago, a Trump voter, referring to 2020. “I don’t trust any of them at this point.”
The AP-NORC poll found a widespread lack of trust in both major political parties among U.S. adults overall.
About one-quarter of U.S. adults say they have “only a little” confidence or “none at all” that both the Democratic Party and Republican Party have a fair process for selecting a presidential nominee. About half of Independents have that low level of confidence in both party’s processes, compared with one-quarter of Republicans and 19% of Democrats.
The bureaucratic burden of enduring months-long passport processing times may soon be lifted for US travelers, marking a welcome change after a three-year ordeal. As of November 6, the State Department has substantially reduced passport processing times, estimating regular applications to be processed within 7 to 10 weeks and expedited service within 3 to 5 weeks. This stands in stark contrast to earlier this year when wait times, excluding mailing time, stretched to a daunting 13 weeks due to an influx of applications during the peak spring and summer travel seasons.
Despite the delays, the State Department reports a remarkable achievement, processing a record-breaking 24 million passport books and cards between October 2022 and September 2023. This surge, declared “the most ever in our nation’s history” on the department’s website, signals a significant effort to address the passport backlog. Officials express the intention to return to pre-pandemic processing times by the end of 2023, reflecting a time when routine passport processing took a mere 6 to 8 weeks and expedited applications were swiftly processed in 2 to 3 weeks.
To expedite the reduction of processing times, the State Department has mobilized additional resources for its passport teams. A department release states, “We’re addressing the increased workload through a number of efforts, aggressively recruiting and hiring across our passport agencies and centers. Our passport team members contribute tens of thousands of hours of overtime a month, and we have opened a satellite office to help process the large number of applications we are receiving.”
It’s crucial to note that the processing periods provided by the State Department exclude mailing time. These time frames commence when documents reach a passport center. For a more accurate estimate, officials recommend adding up to two weeks on both ends to account for mailing time. For those seeking expedited delivery, an additional $19.53 can secure one- to two-day delivery of the new passport.
While the alleviation of processing times is a positive development, it comes with associated costs. A regular first-time application entails a fee of $165, a regular renewal costs $130, and expedited processing incurs an additional $60. For urgent situations, there are courier services available, albeit at a steep cost, often several hundred dollars on top of the State Department’s charges.
In special circumstances, the State Department offers urgent processing for travelers with international trips in less than 14 days and emergency processing for those with a verifiable life-or-death reason, such as a seriously ill family member, requiring travel outside of the US within three business days. Both options involve contacting the nearest passport agency for an in-person appointment. Securing these appointments can be competitive and demanding, necessitating persistence such as frequent calls and potentially traveling to the first available agency location.
Despite the recent improvements, it remains advisable to avoid procrastination when renewing a passport. Earlier this fall, the State Department recommended submitting passport applications at least six to nine months before an international trip. While wait times have shortened, allowing a six-month window for the entire process is still a prudent approach.
Former presidents often choose between a private life and staying in the public eye. Take George Washington’s retreat to privacy versus the continued spotlight for figures like Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. Enter Donald Trump, who maintained his position as the lead contender for the Republican presidential nomination in 2023 amid a cascade of legal challenges, prompting pundits to exhaust the term “unprecedented.” Prior to Trump’s 91 charges spanning four indictments, no former U.S. President had faced even a single indictment.
The legal saga began in March in New York, linking Trump to attempts to conceal an affair with an adult-film actress. Subsequent federal charges in June revolved around classified documents, while charges in August, both federal and in Georgia, related to his endeavors to overturn the 2020 election loss. These cases, unprecedented in scope, will shape the 2024 campaigns and strain the justice and political systems. Meanwhile, they test the system’s ability to hold a former President accountable while fitting into Trump’s narrative of perpetual victimhood due to political retaliation.
The Manhattan district attorney’s initial charges, while grabbing headlines, face challenges in proving their merit. Hinging on an untested legal theory, the case revolves around Trump potentially being charged in New York for falsifying business records to cover up state election-law violations and exceeding federal tax contribution limits. In contrast, Special Counsel Jack Smith’s cases carry weight. He filed the first federal charges against Trump over classified documents taken to his Mar-a-Lago residence after his presidency ended. Subsequent charges allege Trump conspired to subvert American democracy, linking him to the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021. This second case triggered an extraordinary request to the Supreme Court to determine if Trump had immunity from prosecution for actions during his presidency, aiming to expedite proceedings for a potential trial early next year.
However, the most persistent threat to Trump’s legal standing emerges in Georgia, where Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis contends Trump was central to a broad conspiracy to reverse election results. This case operates independently of federal proceedings, ensuring its continuation even if Trump secures the presidency and attempts to halt federal charges. Evidence in Georgia, including Trump’s recorded request to find votes, seems compelling, with individuals directly in contact with Trump cooperating with prosecutors.
Trump’s legal battles crowd his 2024 calendar, competing with crucial moments in his potential presidential campaign. In January, concurrent with the Iowa caucuses, a civil trial over defaming writer E. Jean Carroll awaits, alongside a class-action lawsuit accusing Trump and his company of a pyramid scheme. March brings the federal trial over Jan. 6, potentially overlapping with Super Tuesday primaries. Later that month, the New York State hush-money case commences, followed by court dates in May for the classified-documents case. Georgia prosecutors might initiate Trump’s trial in early August.
Adding to the mix is the recent move by the Colorado Supreme Court, removing Trump from the Republican primary ballot and asserting his ineligibility for the White House under the U.S. Constitution’s insurrection clause. This case is poised for the U.S. Supreme Court, marking one of several instances where the nine justices may weigh in on Trump’s fate in the coming months.
Trump, previewing his likely belligerent stance in criminal trials, testified in November in a civil fraud trial that threatens his Manhattan real estate empire. Under oath, he admitted adjusting property valuations and reviewing annual reports but faced scolding from the judge for evasive behavior, exaggerated claims, and insults hurled at adversaries. Despite Trump’s resilience in the Republican Party, the outcomes of these cases could significantly impact the November election. While polls indicate Trump leading Joe Biden in a general-election matchup, a notable number of Trump-leaning voters express openness to supporting Biden if Trump is convicted.
This situation poses a substantial test for American democracy, pushing the justice and political systems beyond their designed capacities. Trump’s statements about using the Justice Department to punish political enemies if he returns to the White House only add to the complexity, as he suggests the genie has been released by the act of charging him in court.
The Supreme Court has declined to immediately address special counsel Jack Smith’s plea to rule on whether former President Donald Trump can face prosecution for his alleged actions to overturn the 2020 election results. This decision is considered a scheduling victory for Trump and his legal team, as they have consistently sought to postpone the criminal cases against him while he actively campaigns for the 2024 presidential election. The court’s refusal avoids a prompt ruling on Trump’s claims of immunity, casting further uncertainty on the scheduled March 4 landmark trial.
In light of the Supreme Court’s decision, the responsibility to adjudicate this matter now falls on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. This court has signaled its intent to expedite the decision-making process. Special counsel Jack Smith had warned that even if the appellate court acts swiftly, the case might not reach the Supreme Court in time for review and a final decision before the traditional summer break.
Smith had urged the Supreme Court to intervene, emphasizing the significant public interest in a swift resolution to the case. His unusual request to bypass the appeals court, which he acknowledged as “extraordinary,” highlighted prosecutors’ concerns that prolonged legal battles could postpone Trump’s trial beyond the upcoming presidential election in the following year.
The Supreme Court rejected Smith’s plea in a concise order issued on Friday, adhering to its customary practice of providing no explanation for the decision. With the justices refraining from involvement in the dispute at this juncture, it is anticipated that further appeals may ensue, potentially causing additional delays in the case. Should the appeals court, scheduled to hear arguments on Jan. 9, dismiss Trump’s immunity claims, he retains the option to petition the Supreme Court for intervention, providing the justices with another opportunity to determine their stance on the matter.
The 2024 presidential election has taken a decisive turn, with the Supreme Court emerging as the pivotal player, navigating various disputes surrounding the GOP frontrunner, Donald Trump. The court, no stranger to election controversies, faces a critical juncture in determining Trump’s eligibility for the ballot and assessing his immunity to prosecution linked to his attempts to overturn the 2020 election, culminating in the Capitol attack on January 6, 2021.
According to Justin Levitt, an election law specialist at Loyola Law School, these cases, usually avoidable by the Supreme Court, have become unavoidable national controversies thrust upon the court. The stakes are high, given the impact on both the primary and general elections. The Colorado Supreme Court, in a 4-3 decision, ruled Trump constitutionally ineligible for the 2024 run based on the 14th Amendment’s prohibition on insurrectionists holding public office. This decision, anticipating an appeal, awaits resolution at the national level.
Nick Akerman, a former Watergate prosecutor, emphasized the significance of this decision, asserting that its implications extend beyond Colorado to impact all 50 states. The 14th Amendment’s insurrectionist clause, a focal point of the case, awaits the scrutiny of the U.S. Supreme Court, underscoring the national gravity of the issue.
Trump’s legal challenges also encompass claims of immunity from January 6 prosecutors. His strategy relies heavily on asserting presidential immunity to dismiss charges related to his alleged subversion of the 2020 election. Special counsel Jack Smith seeks a prompt resolution, urging the Supreme Court to address the immunity question and double jeopardy concerns. The court’s decision on these matters could significantly influence the trajectory of Trump’s trial, scheduled for March 4.
In a parallel case in Atlanta, the 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals rejected an attempt by former Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows to move his criminal case to federal court. This decision, critical in determining the nature of post-election conduct, supports Smith’s argument that Trump’s actions were not within his official capacity as president.
Another key issue the Supreme Court will scrutinize revolves around a federal obstruction law and its applicability to individuals involved in the Capitol attack. The outcome may impact Trump’s case and numerous other DOJ prosecutions related to January 6. The ripple effect is already evident, with defendants seeking modifications in ongoing cases, highlighting the broader implications of the court’s decision.
Trump’s legal battles extend to a dispute over a gag order issued against him in the federal election subversion case. While the DC Circuit upheld most of the gag order, it narrowed restrictions on comments about Smith and altered the prohibition on speaking about witnesses. Trump’s legal team, viewing the order as an unconstitutional restriction on political speech, intends to escalate the fight to the Supreme Court if necessary.
Amidst these legal challenges, the Supreme Court’s docket for the term includes impactful policy issues that will resonate with voters. The court will address the availability of the abortion drug mifepristone, a significant case following its reversal of Roe v. Wade last year. Additionally, a major Second Amendment case and two cases challenging decades-old precedent on federal agency power further contribute to the court’s role in shaping the political landscape.
As the Supreme Court takes center stage in these critical matters, public opinion remains at historic lows, and ethical concerns persist. Chief Justice John Roberts’ recent attempt to address ethics criticism was met with skepticism, highlighting the challenges faced by the court in maintaining public trust.
The Supreme Court’s decisions on Trump’s eligibility, immunity, and other pivotal issues will profoundly impact the 2024 presidential election, marking a defining moment for the court and the nation.
President Joe Biden is grappling with a historic low in job approval, as revealed by the latest Monmouth University survey spanning 22 months of his presidency. The data, collected from 803 respondents between November 30 and December 4, indicates a notable decline from 38% in September to a new low of 34% this month, with a margin of error of five points.
One key driver of this downturn is dissatisfaction across five pivotal policy areas: immigration, inflation, climate change, jobs and unemployment, and transportation and energy infrastructure. The concerning figures come at a time when hypothetical general election matchups show Biden trailing former President Donald Trump by 4 points, according to the RealClearPolitics polling average. Trump’s consistent lead or tie with Biden in nine of the last ten national polls further adds to the challenges faced by the current administration.
President Biden, however, dismisses these polls, stating, “You’re [reading] the wrong polls.” This isn’t the first time he’s rejected such findings, as in November, he insisted that he was either leading or tied with Trump in eight of the ten recent polls, though the specific surveys he referred to remain unclear.
A significant metric reflecting the public’s discontent is the 61% of respondents who now disapprove of Biden—an increase of six points since September and his worst rating since taking office, according to Monmouth University.
Biden’s approval rating has been on a steady decline since the summer, when it reached a 14-month high at 44% in July. The downturn coincided with economic concerns, particularly regarding inflation, which hit a record high last June. The president also faces disapproval in his handling of the Israel-Hamas war, along with persistent concerns about his age, which is now 81.
Despite Biden’s attempts to emphasize key achievements such as the Inflation Reduction Act, efforts to lower healthcare costs, and his student loan forgiveness program, these messages seem to be falling short in resonating with voters. The decline in approval indicates that the public is not fully convinced by these campaign strategies.
Recent reports suggest that Biden is increasingly frustrated with his poll results, expressing dissatisfaction in private. The Washington Post, citing sources familiar with his thinking, reported that Biden has urged his team to address the negative numbers. He has also acknowledged that his messaging strategy on the economy is not effectively connecting with voters.
President Biden is facing a challenging period marked by a historic low in job approval, trailing in hypothetical matchups against Trump, and growing dissatisfaction among respondents across key policy areas. The president’s attempts to address these concerns through various campaign strategies have not yielded the desired results, leaving him frustrated and seeking ways to reverse the negative trends in public opinion.
Joe Biden’s precipitous decline in the polls is proving to be a significant boon for Donald Trump as the 2024 GOP presidential race gains momentum. Biden’s abysmal polling has not only bolstered Trump but also weakened potential Republican rivals, sending a clear signal that “TRUMP CAN WIN.”
In the run-up to the first contests of the 2024 GOP presidential race, Biden’s dismal performance in polls has become a powerful factor in shaping the political landscape. As a neon sign reading “TRUMP CAN WIN” is illuminated, it underscores the impact of Biden’s fading popularity on the broader political narrative.
Trump’s already strong position in the fight for the Republican nomination has been further solidified by two key external events. Firstly, indictments from the Justice Department and Democratic prosecutors triggered a rally-around-Trump effect, propelling him to a higher trajectory in the race. Secondly, Biden’s consistently poor polling has eliminated any grounds for making an electability argument against Trump.
While selecting opponents through strategic advertisements is a common political tactic, Biden’s own weaknesses have unintentionally made Trump more appealing to his supporters. The primary concern among undecided Republicans has never been Trump’s policy priorities or governance effectiveness but rather his perceived ability to win elections.
Following the 2022 elections, where Republicans underperformed, Trump’s standing within the party was momentarily shaken. The electoral success of Ron DeSantis in Florida created an opportunity for an argument centered around electability—stick with Trump and risk losing, or opt for a fresh face and win. However, this electability argument lost its potency due to Biden’s declining poll numbers.
The electability debate sidesteps many issues about Trump that Republicans may prefer to avoid. Asserting that Trump can’t win is presented as a practical claim rather than a moral critique, providing a tone of sorrow rather than anger. Nevertheless, the effectiveness of this argument depends heavily on polling data, which has not cooperated due to Biden’s downward spiral.
In 2016, Trump often relied on less reputable polls to demonstrate his public support. Now, he can reference highly credible polls that depict Biden’s comprehensive collapse. Biden is losing in hypothetical matchups against Trump, with an approval rating scraping the bottom and trailing on major issues.
The latest Wall Street Journal poll indicates Trump leading Biden by 4 points in a two-way race and 6 points in a multi-candidate field. Only 37 percent approve of Biden’s job performance, while 61 percent disapprove. Trump leads significantly on economic issues, inflation, crime, foreign affairs, and public perception of physical and mental fitness for the job.
Despite the possibility of early, showy, and potentially unsustainable Trump support, it’s crucial to note that Trump never led in 2020 polling. Recent polls, including one by CNN, show Trump leading in crucial states like Georgia and Michigan, further fueling the belief among Republican voters that 2024 is a lock.
Trump’s perceived electoral prowess has grown, with polls indicating increasing confidence among Republicans that he would be the strongest general election candidate. Even in the face of criminal charges, belief in Trump’s electability is rising among Republicans, particularly in states like Iowa.
For potential rivals like Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley, navigating the political landscape becomes challenging. DeSantis, despite claiming victory, faces a significant gap in national polling against Trump. Nikki Haley, while appearing strong against Biden, must contend with the overarching question for Republicans—can Trump win?
The Democrats’ ideal scenario involves Biden’s weakness being illusory, leading Republicans to nominate Trump based on current polling only to discover his weaker standing against Biden. However, the prevailing possibility is that Biden’s political standing is indeed dire, potentially paving the way for Trump’s resurgence to the White House.
In the realm of political axioms among Republicans, the idea that Trump benefits from having formidable enemies finds its best proof in Biden’s political unraveling.
The Shri Swaminarayan Mandir in New Jersey stands as a testament to the grandeur of Hindu architecture in America. Recently expanded and re-inaugurated, this monumental temple is now the largest Hindu temple in the country, constructed with meticulous craftsmanship using hand-carved Italian Carrara marble, Indian pink stone, and limestone. Originally completed in 2017, the temple underwent enhancements in 2023, solidifying its position as a spiritual and architectural marvel in Robbinsville, Central New Jersey.
The Sri Sri Radha Krishna Temple in Utah is renowned for its vibrant celebrations, particularly the Holi Festival of Colors, held in its expansive natural amphitheater with a capacity for thousands of visitors. A true embodiment of Indian festivities, the temple in Utah provides a unique experience, drawing devotees and curious onlookers alike.
In New York, the Ganesh Temple holds the distinction of being the oldest Hindu temple in the United States, tracing its origins back to 1977. Over the years, it has evolved into one of the most celebrated Hindu temples in the country, attesting to the growing presence of Hinduism in the diverse American landscape.
The proliferation of Hindu temples across the United States and Canada is indicative of the flourishing Hindu community. Notably, the United States now hosts the largest Hindu temple outside of Asia, overshadowing the historical significance of Cambodia’s Angkor Wat, which, despite being the largest Hindu temple in the world, was eventually converted into a Buddhist temple. The Temple of the Vedic Planetarium, currently under construction in India, is poised to claim the title of the new largest Hindu temple globally.
From coast to coast, Hindu temples in the USA offer a rich tapestry of spirituality and cultural diversity. Here are ten remarkable Hindu temples worth exploring, each with its own unique charm and significance.
Shri Swaminarayan Mandir, New Jersey:
The recently expanded Shri Swaminarayan Mandir in New Jersey, constructed with Italian Carrara marble, Indian pink stone, and limestone, is now the largest Hindu temple in America. Inaugurated in 2023, it stands as a majestic symbol of Hindu devotion and architectural brilliance.
“The massive Hindu temple Shri Swaminarayan Mandir in New Jersey has just been expanded and re-inaugurated and is the largest Hindu temple in America.”
Sri Sri Radha Krishna Temple, Utah:
Known for hosting large Hindu festivals and events, the Sri Sri Radha Krishna Temple in Utah boasts a spacious natural amphitheater, providing a captivating setting for gatherings and celebrations. The Holi Festival of Colors, a highlight at this temple, offers visitors an authentic Indian experience.
“The Sri Sri Radha Krishna Temple in Utah is famous for its large Hindu festivals and celebrations. The temple has a large natural amphitheater that has the capacity for thousands of visitors.”
Hindu Temple Of Central Indiana, Indiana:
Situated in Indianapolis, the Hindu Temple of Central Indiana is a breathtaking monument to Hindu architecture. Established in 2006, it serves as a key hub for learning about the Hindu community in Indiana, contributing to the cultural mosaic of the region.
“Located in Indianapolis, the Hindu Temple of Central Indiana is something of a breathtaking monument to Hindu architecture. It first opened in 2006 and is one of the top places to visit to learn about the Hindu community in Indiana.”*
Malibu Hindu Temple, California:
Nestled in Calabasas near Malibu, the Malibu Hindu Temple is dedicated to the worship of Lord Venkateswara. With two complexes, each presided over by different deities, this temple offers a serene and spiritual escape in the heart of California.
“The Malibu Hindu Temple is located in Calabasas near Malibu in California and is dedicated to the worship of the Hindu god Venkateswara. It is made up of two complexes.”
Shri Swaminarayan Sanstha, Illinois:
A prominent Hindu temple in Chicago, the Shri Swaminarayan Sanstha covers a sprawling 27 acres. Constructed in 2004 with Turkish limestone and hand-carved Italian marble, it stands as a testament to the artistic and cultural richness of Hinduism.
“One of the top Hindu temples to explore in Chicago is the Shri Swaminarayan Sanstha Hindu temple, which covers 27 acres. It opened in 2004 and was constructed with Turkish limestone and hand-carved Italian marble.”
Ganesh Temple, New York:
Situated in Flushing, New York, the Ganesh Temple is not only the oldest Hindu temple in the United States, built in 1977, but has also become one of the most renowned Hindu temples in the country. Its enduring legacy reflects the remarkable growth of Hinduism in the past five decades.
“The Ganesh Temple in Flushing, New York (in Queens, NYC) is the oldest Hindu temple in the United States. It was built in 1977 and is now considered among the most famous Hindu temples in the country.”
Shri Swaminarayan Mandir, Georgia:
Inaugurated in 2007, the Shri Swaminarayan Mandir in Atlanta is a traditional Hindu place of worship. It held the distinction of being the largest mandir outside India at the time of its construction, featuring a large assembly hall, classrooms, and an exhibition on key Hindu tenets.
“The Shri Swaminarayan Mandir is a traditional Hindu place of worship in Atlanta, inaugurated in 2007. It was the largest mandir (or Hindu place of worship) outside India when it was built.”
Sri Siva Vishnu Temple, Maryland:
Among the largest temples in the United States, the Sri Siva Vishnu Temple in Maryland, built between 1988 and 2002, is located just 12 kilometers from Washington, DC, in the city of Lanham. The temple’s significance lies in its dedication to the main deities, Shiva and Vishnu.
“Sri Siva Vishnu Temple in Maryland is among the largest temples in the United States and was built between 1988 and 2002. It is located only 12 kilometers or 8 miles from Washington, DC, in the Maryland city of Lanham.”
New Vrindaban Temple, West Virginia:
Named after the sacred town of Vrindaban in India, the New Vrindaban Temple in West Virginia, also known as The Palace of God, pays homage to the religious significance of Krishna’s childhood. Set amidst 500 acres of land, it stands as a stunning complex amid the scenic Appalachian Trail.
“The New Vrindaban Temple (also called The Palace of God) is named after the town of Vrindaban in India. Vrindaban is of religious significance to Hinduism, as Krishna is said to have spent most of his childhood in the city.”
Shri Swaminarayan Mandir, Texas:
In Houston, the Shri Swaminarayan Mandir stands as a top Hindu attraction in Texas, crafted from over 33,000 pieces of hand-carved marble and limestone. With a Hindu exhibit elucidating the fundamental tenets of Hinduism, this temple welcomes visitors and worshippers daily, offering a profound cultural experience.
Swaminarayan Mandir in Houston is one of the top Hindu attractions in Texas, built from over 33,000 pieces of hand-carved marble and limestone. The temple has a Hindu exhibit that explains the fundamental tenets of Hinduism for visitors, and it is open every day for visitors and for worshippers.”*
These ten Hindu temples in the United States not only serve as places of worship but also stand as architectural marvels, reflecting the rich tapestry of Hindu culture and spirituality across the diverse landscapes of America. As more individuals seek to explore and understand different cultures, these temples offer a glimpse into the vibrant and enduring traditions of Hinduism on American soil.
The high-stakes fourth Republican presidential debate on Wednesday night highlighted why former President Donald Trump has been avoiding the 2024 primary debate circuit. The event featured four contenders: former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, and entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy. However, the debate was marked by intense infighting among the candidates, diverting attention from the primary focus on the frontrunner.
Despite the smallest debate field to date and the Iowa caucuses approaching in less than six weeks, the candidates utilized the two-hour debate to showcase their policy beliefs and emphasize major differences. However, the evening was dominated by personal attacks, with Ramaswamy referring to Haley as “lipstick on a Dick Cheney,” Christie mocking Ramaswamy’s “smartass mouth,” and DeSantis claiming Haley “caves every time the left comes after her.”
The candidates seemed united in their belief that establishing themselves as the GOP’s sole alternative to Trump was essential before making a concentrated case against him. However, this strategy also underscored why Trump’s absence from the debates hasn’t affected his standing in the polls. Although there were occasional attacks on the former president, such as Christie’s anti-Trump campaign message and Haley’s criticism of his China approach, the majority of the debate was dominated by clashes between the present candidates.
DeSantis and Ramaswamy Target Haley
The debate’s first hour highlighted Haley’s increasing prominence in the race, as both DeSantis and Ramaswamy focused on criticizing her. DeSantis wasted no time taking aim at Haley, drawing her into a dispute over transgender bathroom usage. Ramaswamy continued his critique from the third debate, targeting Haley for her association with Boeing while serving on its board.
DeSantis and Ramaswamy collaborated at various points, criticizing Haley’s recent support from donors like Reid Hoffman and Larry Fink. Ramaswamy even held up a notepad with the message “Nikki = Corrupt.” Haley defended herself, stating she welcomed support but wouldn’t let it dictate her policies, adding that her competitors would accept similar support if offered.
Christie, however, broke the pattern by defending Haley against Ramaswamy’s foreign policy insults, emphasizing her intelligence and accomplishments. Haley expressed gratitude for Christie’s support.
Christie’s Resurgence and Criticisms
Chris Christie, who has struggled to recreate the success of the 2016 presidential primary debates, regained some momentum in Tuscaloosa. He portrayed his opponents as immature and unprepared for the job, making it challenging for DeSantis and Ramaswamy.
Christie criticized DeSantis for avoiding basic questions and challenged him on sending US troops to rescue American hostages in Gaza. Later, when asked about Trump’s fitness for office, Christie insisted on a straightforward answer, accusing DeSantis of being afraid or not listening. He also targeted Ramaswamy’s tendency to backtrack on comments, labeling him the “most obnoxious blowhard in America.”
In a departure from his previous allegiance to Trump, Christie reserved his most severe criticism for all three opponents, accusing them of being afraid to offend the former president and emphasizing the importance of speaking the truth.
Avoidance of Trump Criticism
While the candidates engaged in intense personal clashes, Chris Christie attempted to refocus the debate by highlighting Trump’s significant lead in the polls. He compared his rivals to characters avoiding saying the name of the villain in the Harry Potter series, suggesting they were hesitant to directly confront Trump.
Christie implied that candidates refrained from criticizing Trump directly to safeguard their chances of becoming his vice presidential nominee or securing future presidential prospects. He emphasized the necessity of telling the truth, even if it meant offending, to avoid denial and secure the party’s success.
DeSantis’ Culture War and Criticism of Haley
DeSantis, known for his “war on woke,” shifted the focus to domestic culture war issues like environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) investing and transgender rights. He used these issues to paint Haley as a moderate, criticizing her stance on gender-affirming care for transgender minors.
DeSantis accused Haley of opposing a bill in Florida to prevent gender mutilation of minors, linking her support from wealthy donors to the ESG investing movement. He argued that these donors sought to impose a left-wing agenda on the country through economic power.
Haley clarified her position, stating that while she believed the law should stay out of it, parents should take the lead in such matters. She emphasized that she did not endorse youth gender transition.
Ramaswamy’s Conspiracy Theories
Vivek Ramaswamy, potentially in his last appearance on a GOP debate stage, embraced extreme conspiracy theories. He asserted that the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack was an “inside job,” claimed the 2020 election was “stolen by Big Tech,” and accused the government of lying about Saudi Arabia’s involvement in the 9/11 attacks.
Ramaswamy also endorsed the “great replacement” theory, a racist conspiracy suggesting non-White people are being brought in to replace White voters. He labeled it a basic statement of the Democratic Party platform. In his closing statement, he declared the “climate change agenda” a hoax.
The fourth Republican primary debate showcased intense personal clashes, candidates avoiding direct criticism of Trump, and a divergence into culture war issues. Each contender sought to position themselves as the GOP’s primary alternative, but the evening was marked by memorable confrontations and minimal attention on Trump’s absence from the debate stage.
In a move not seen in decades, U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres activated a long-dormant provision known as “Article 99” to raise an alarm about the deepening humanitarian crisis in Gaza. As the Israeli offensive intensified and civilian casualties mounted, Guterres utilized this rarely exercised power to alert the Security Council of an impending “humanitarian catastrophe” and called for an immediate humanitarian cease-fire.
Article 99, embedded in the United Nations Charter, grants the secretary-general the authority to bring attention to any situation that, in their judgment, may jeopardize international peace and security. Edith M. Lederer, the chief U.N. correspondent for The Associated Press, elucidates the significance of this seldom-invoked provision.
Lederer explains, “It’s a provision of the United Nations Charter, the U.N.’s constitution. It states that the secretary-general — the U.N.’s top diplomat — may bring to the attention of the Security Council ‘any matter which, in his opinion, may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security.'” This provision bestows added influence upon the secretary-general, recognizing that ultimate authority at the U.N. lies with its 193 member nations and the 15 countries on the Security Council.
The infrequent use of Article 99 is underscored by its last invocation during the 1971 conflict leading to the creation of Bangladesh. Guterres took this step because he perceives the situation in Gaza as at risk of a “complete collapse” of the humanitarian system and civil order, emphasizing the urgency of his action.
Given the pivotal role of the United States, which holds veto power, the effectiveness of Article 99 remains uncertain. Arab and Islamic nations swiftly responded to Guterres’s plea, with the United Arab Emirates presenting a resolution to the Security Council, urging an immediate humanitarian cease-fire. The resolution is slated for a vote on Friday morning.
However, the U.S., Israel’s staunch ally, has not endorsed a cease-fire. Deputy Ambassador Robert Wood expressed on Tuesday that the Security Council’s role is not to impede ongoing diplomacy in the Israel-Gaza conflict, stating that a resolution at this time “would not be useful.” While this suggests a potential veto, the U.S. has not definitively declared its stance.
Despite the potential for a U.S. veto, Guterres invoked Article 99 due to his concern for the deteriorating humanitarian situation in Gaza. He highlighted in his letter that the territory’s humanitarian system and operations are on the brink of collapse. The ongoing Israeli Defense Forces bombardment, coupled with the lack of shelter and essential supplies, may lead to a breakdown of public order, making even limited humanitarian assistance impossible.
Guterres’s letter also warned of escalating conditions, pointing to the possibility of epidemics and a mass displacement of Palestinians into neighboring countries. He envisions a looming disaster and emphasizes the gravity of the situation. Past secretaries-general have brought threats to international peace and security before the Security Council without specifically invoking Article 99. Instances include Congo in 1960, the U.S. hostage crisis in Iran (1979), the Iran-Iraq war (1980), and Myanmar in 2017.
The reasons for not invoking Article 99 in these cases remain unknown, and many of the former secretaries-general are no longer alive. Guterres, however, has been vocal about both the Hamas attacks on Israel and the alarming death toll of Palestinian civilians in Gaza, underscoring the urgency of international intervention.
The final GOP presidential debate of the year unfolded on Wednesday, featuring prominent figures such as Nikki Haley, Ron DeSantis, Chris Christie, and Vivek Ramaswamy. Hosted by NewsNation, a sister news organization of The Hill, the two-hour event in Tuscaloosa, Ala., became a stage where Haley and DeSantis vied to solidify their positions behind former President Trump, who opted to skip the debate once again. Moderators Elizabeth Vargas, Megyn Kelly, and Eliana Johnson pressed the candidates on Trump, casting his shadow over the proceedings. CNN has also announced plans to host two Republican primary debates in January.
Haley, the former United Nations ambassador, found herself under the spotlight as the potential second-tier candidate to beat. Threatening to overshadow DeSantis as the leading Trump alternative, Haley faced challenges from DeSantis and Ramaswamy during the debate. However, former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie came to her defense, rebuffing Ramaswamy’s insults with a firm stance, declaring, “stop insulting her.” Despite the scrutiny, Haley maintained her composure, expressing gratitude for the attention and asserting her neck-and-neck position with DeSantis in recent Iowa caucus polls.
DeSantis, the Governor of Florida, emerged as a winner in the debate, delivering a strong performance that injected new momentum into his campaign. Responding to questions about his low poll numbers, DeSantis dismissed the polls, highlighting his landslide reelection in Florida last year and criticizing Haley for allegedly succumbing to pressure. Once considered a shoo-in alternative to Trump, DeSantis now faces a challenge from Haley’s rising popularity, leaving the primary outcome uncertain.
Chris Christie, despite facing calls to exit the race, demonstrated resilience within the GOP field. Taking a bold stance against Trump, Christie labeled him a “dictator” and a “bully,” urging fellow candidates to denounce the former president. In Alabama, Christie unequivocally stated, “His conduct is unacceptable. He’s unfit, and be careful of what you’re gonna get.” Christie’s refusal to back down showcased his determination to maintain relevance in the crowded GOP race.
Entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, whose favorability among voters continues to decline, utilized the prime-time platform to launch personal attacks and promote conspiracy theories. His performance, including a scribbled note targeting Haley, drew strong reactions from the audience. Christie, in a memorable moment, called out Ramaswamy, saying, “This is the fourth debate that you would be voted in the first 20 minutes as the most obnoxious blowhard in America, so shut up for a while.”
Even in his absence, former President Trump loomed large as a dominant force. Trump’s decision to skip all debates has not diminished his lead in the primary field. The day before the crucial debate, he made headlines with comments during a Fox News town hall, where he asserted that he would not act as a dictator except on day one. While Haley and DeSantis compete for second place in recent polls, with Haley at 10 percent and DeSantis at 11 percent, Trump maintains a commanding 60-point lead over the field.
Meticulously, it is no small matter that the term “homeless” or “homelessness” is dimming the brightness of the major cities of America, but exudes an aura of nasty politics or indirect support to the-drug-mafia!
When American President Trump passed through some of the beautiful roads of India, Trump did not ask why green tarpaulin was beautifully stretched for kilometers on one side.
But when the dark streets of most American cities, especially Los Angeles and San Francisco, in the state of California, are turning into the ‘mecca of homeless’, it is just hypocritical to laugh at the broad-mindedness of this great country and not hide it by applying “Modi tech ” here.
America is the so-called paradise on earth for developing countries, but its streets are rapidly being invaded by the homeless. In many places, morning scenes of their excrement, piles of stale food, and hardboard carton waste are becoming so common and obscure
.Unsheltered homeless means sleeping somewhere at night, not primarily designed for human habitation, such as a car, park, abandoned building, or train station. Over the past seven years, 40 percent of the nation’s homeless are now unsheltered homeless.
What are the causes of homelessness? The causes vary widely, but are often linked to homelessness and poverty. Poor people generally do not have enough money to cover basic needs like housing, food, child care, health care, and education; with the nominal social security benefits they get every month.
Individuals may have terminal illnesses, an accident, or a lack of permanent employment. But the reasons we hear from those living on the streets are many.
Irresponsible gambling, misappropriation of money through money laundering, drug addiction, etc.
Factors that drive young and old to the streets more strongly than other causes are not particularly evident. Unsheltered homeless means sleeping somewhere at night not primarily designed for human habitation, such as a car, park, abandoned building, or train station. Over the past seven years, 40 percent of the nation’s homeless are now unsheltered homeless.
Lack of affordable housing, unemployment, poverty, low wages, mental illness, substance abuse, and lack of needed services are creating more homeless people.
I recently happened to visit Los Angeles and San Francisco, the major cities in the state of California, and the miserable situation of the homeless in these cities prompted me to write a few lines on the subject. All facts and figures are supported by the internet and only my opinions are non-political. By evening, many of San Francisco’s streets were filled with homeless wretches. Homeless people crowded the alley leading to Eddy Street, where there were several hotels. It is not a group of old beggars, but a permanent group of people of all ages who have become homeless due to bad decisions, unemployment, and victims of drug abuse.
In the middle of the night, singing and shouting were heard, like a moment of pure jubilation and celebration. From the window of the fifth floor of the hotel where we were staying, I was astonished to see a young woman dancing naked but wearing only a hat: she could also be seen collecting dollar bills and shoving them into the hat. She also seems to be the one who distributes the drugs. In between, her show seems to have been a bonus for her intoxicated audience.
As light rain began to fall, many people began to move elsewhere. Seeing the old and unable to walk, huddled in the same shelter with the old hardboard sheets they had to sit and lie on, was saddened by the plight of the homeless. But when it came to know that most of them were “drug addicts”, the irresponsibility of the drug policy of this great country began to be realized. Freedom without restraint will never produce good results.
Los Angeles has a very high rate of homelessness. But most of the tents were finished and seemed a little more cramped. According to the city’s own statistics, about 30% of the homeless have already moved there after losing their housing. Another 17% were said to have lived in the city for less than a year before becoming homeless.
As Mayor London Breed admits, one of the reasons people come is because drugs are readily available here. The San Francisco Standard attempted a one-week cleanup two months ago, taking over the homeless encampment at Van Ness Avenue and Eddy Street. A completely different look was seen that day, the planting boxes of plants and trees were lined up at many places on the pavement.
APEC 2023 is the year-long hosting of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation meetings in the United States in 2023 in San Francisco. Although some things were put together for that purpose,
The situation is worse than before.
Minna Street, lined with tents between Seventh and Julia Streets, about a mile from APEC, disappeared two months ago. But neither the political parties nor the rulers are interested in finding a permanent solution.
All of this leads us to several questions: We found many of San Francisco’s homeless population on Willow Street. The busy transit corridor has become the latest scene of controversy over the city’s drug, mental health, and homelessness crises, as residents and visitors alike decry increasingly unsanitary street conditions. They say the situation has had a devastating effect on surrounding businesses. It is becoming difficult to park our car there or eat in a restaurant in peace.
In recent years, court rulings have made it more difficult for cities, especially on the West Coast, to remove homeless encampments. In 2018, the US Ninth Circuit Court found that homeless people cannot be punished for sleeping outside in public places unless adequate alternatives are available.
There is another side to this. In September 2022, the Coalition on Homelessness sued San Francisco for violating its own laws to remove homeless shelters. A federal judge has barred the removal of homeless shelters in San Francisco unless people can find alternative shelter.
Los Angeles will have the largest homeless population in the country in 2022. According to 2022 Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) data, approximately 582,000 Americans were homeless on the streets. The city of San Francisco was officially named “Little Saigon” for a portion of the western stretch of Tenderloin, Larkin, and Hyde Streets between Turk and O’Farrell. The area has one of the highest levels of homelessness and crime in the city.
Experts say the biggest reason California’s per capita homelessness rate is five times that of Texas is because housing in California is so expensive;
The average one-bedroom unit in California rents for $2,300 per month, compared to $1,200 in Texas. Although both cities suffer from crime, Los Angeles is actually safer. LA’s crime rate was 2870 per 100,000 residents, 22% higher than the national average. The violent crime rate is 722 per 100,000 residents, 86% higher than the national average. Many advocates claim that providing a welcoming environment for camping and drugs does not attract the homeless and that only more subsidized housing can solve homelessness. San Francisco shows the folly of those arguments.
As Mayor London Breed admits, one of the reasons people come is the easy availability of drugs. Claims that adequate subsidized housing will solve the homelessness problem are belied by San Francisco’s efforts. In the last 15 years, the city has created more than 7,000 permanent housing units, reports said.
It is shameful to say that 7000 units have been built in a place with 70000 homeless people.
Homelessness and how to deal with it has become one of the most pressing political issues in recent elections in liberal cities like Portland, San Diego, Seattle, and Austin. Republicans have portrayed Democrats as incompetent and fearless when it comes to addressing the crisis. The public across the political spectrum wants elected officials to take action.
The local administration has to devise a mission to rehabilitate all the unimaginative-size of homeless people on a wartime basis. This requires the first establishment of bonded facilities, such as correctional centres. There should be strict controls to prevent intoxicants and drug dealers from entering these centers.
Because homeless people who have lived on the streets are accustomed to living with abusing their freedom, these centers may have difficulty keeping them. A good percentage of them are able to work. If nothing else, large farms created with these centers would be able to produce the fruits and grains needed by this country at a low cost.
Or small industrial units manufacturing other goods can be established within these centers.Rehabilitation would be more feasible if the funds for the running of these centers were raised and wages commensurate with the work.
Nothing will be solved if political parties continue to blame each other. True, the current administration may not be giving much importance to it. While the number of poor people in this country is increasing and the homeless people on the streets are dimming the brightness of this country, it is our rulers who turn a blind eye to it and dim the country’s prosperity and the tourists inflow to these cities.
Instead of guaranteeing the basic amenities of those at home, the “hidden agenda” of keeping the walls and gates open for anyone to come into this country and provide luxury living facilities and citizenship to those who come in the name of unaccountable refugees, while common people know, is nothing short of a double standard, USA is prosperous, only if no citizen is found wandering the streets of America as typical homeless. Otherwise the world will proclaim that we run on a shameful double standard policy.
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the first female justice on the US Supreme Court, faced a mix of admiration and skepticism when her successor was nominated, with her historic appointment in 1981 carrying the weight of expectations throughout her 26-year term. Despite being a self-professed “cowgirl from the Arizona desert,” O’Connor, a conservative justice, had to continually prove her worth against gender biases.
Quoting O’Connor’s sentiments, “Good in every way, except he’s not a woman,” encapsulated her ambivalence toward her successor. This echoed her consistent effort to demonstrate that she was not just as good as men but also an advocate for women’s rights, a balancing act she accomplished with political acumen gained as a Republican activist and state senator.
While ideologically a moderate, O’Connor often held the decisive swing vote in a sharply divided Supreme Court. Her consequential votes spanned contentious issues such as abortion rights and the disputed 2000 presidential election. As a trailblazer for gender equality, O’Connor paved the way for the second female justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, earning the title of the “queen of the court.”
O’Connor’s upbringing on Lazy B, a cattle ranch in the Arizona desert, shaped her independent and hard-working character. Despite facing gender bias in her legal career, she navigated through challenges, even setting up her own legal practice when law firms wouldn’t hire women. A brief hiatus to focus on family was followed by a remarkable return to public life, with O’Connor breaking gender barriers in Arizona’s Senate.
Her journey to the Supreme Court aligned with President Ronald Reagan’s commitment to appoint the first woman to the bench. O’Connor’s nomination was supported by Justice William Rehnquist, her old flame, and she secured an emphatic 99-0 confirmation vote. She became a symbol of progress for women but was also known for her pragmatic approach on legal matters.
O’Connor’s tenure saw her as a core member of the conservative bloc, but she later broke ranks on matters of equality and civil rights. Notably, in the 1992 case Planned Parenthood v Casey, she joined a majority in affirming Roe v Wade, a decision that conflicted with her personal views on abortion. However, her legacy was tarnished by the controversial Bush v Gore decision in 2000, where she voted to halt legal challenges, putting George W. Bush in the White House.
Upon her retirement in 2006, O’Connor dedicated herself to a second career focused on civic education. She expressed regret for leaving the court, but her efforts, including the iCivics initiative, left a lasting impact on educating young Americans. In 2018, O’Connor revealed her diagnosis of the beginning stages of dementia, emphasizing her gratitude for a fulfilling life.
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s legacy extends beyond her role as the first woman on the Supreme Court. Her impact on gender equality, constitutional law, and civic education reflects a genuine desire to be a good person and do good things. As she expressed at her confirmation hearings, she hoped her tombstone would read, “Here lies a good judge.”
House Speaker Mike Johnson expressed confidence on Saturday that Republicans possess adequate votes to initiate a formal impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden. In an interview with Fox News, Johnson stated, “I believe we will. I suspect no Democrats will assist in this effort, but they should.”
He emphasized the GOP’s obligation to proceed with the inquiry, asserting, “we cannot stop the process.” Johnson, joined by House GOP conference chair Elise Stefanik, contended that the inquiry wouldn’t be wielded as a partisan political tool, drawing a distinction from past instances.
“Elise and I both served on the impeachment defense team of Donald Trump twice, when the Democrats used it for brazen partisan political purposes. We decried that use of it. This is very different,” Johnson remarked.
He pointed out impediments faced by the Republicans, asserting, “Now we’re being stalled by the White House because they’re preventing at least two to three DOJ witnesses from coming forward” and withholding evidence from the National Archives. Johnson proposed that a formal impeachment inquiry vote would propel the process forward, deeming it a necessary step.
In response, a spokesman for the White House counsel’s office, Ian Sams, criticized the move, stating, “This is a baseless, politically-motivated attempt to smear President Biden with lies, and it reflects how this chaotic House GOP is focused on the wrong priorities, when they should be working on real issues Americans actually care about like the President is.”
As of now, House Republicans have been striving to formalize their impeachment inquiry into Biden but have encountered challenges in securing sufficient votes. Former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy had urged his committees in September to launch a formal impeachment inquiry into Biden, facing mounting pressure from the right flank. However, the conference remains divided over the existence of evidence warranting the president’s impeachment.
Addressing the issue of Hunter Biden’s lawyers seeking an open hearing instead of a deposition, Stefanik deemed the request “unacceptable” and emphasized, “the only correct response to a subpoena is a deposition.” She reasoned that an open hearing might devolve into a mere public spectacle, advocating for a legal and factual approach through a deposition.
“It’s the precedent,” Johnson added. “Every investigation of Congress in the modern era, the deposition has come first, and the public testimony follows. Why would we break that precedent now?”
This paraphrased rendition maintains the key elements and quotes from the original article while presenting the information in a slightly rephrased manner. The focus remains on the statements of House Speaker Mike Johnson, the White House’s response, and the broader context of the Republicans’ push for a formal impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden.
In a Fox News debate, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) and California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) engaged in a heated exchange over their records and policies. The 90-minute debate, titled “The Great Red vs. Blue State Debate” and moderated by Sean Hannity, delved into key issues such as the COVID-19 pandemic, crime, and abortion. Personal attacks, with both governors labeling each other as bullies, added intensity to the discussion. DeSantis, initially a threat to Donald Trump in the presidential race, now lags behind, while Newsom, despite denying interest in challenging President Biden, gains attention as a potential contender.
Five Takeaways from the Debate:
1.Newsom’s Resilience: Despite a challenging media environment, Newsom maintained composure, deflecting DeSantis’s attacks and launching counterarguments. Notably, he defended California’s COVID-19 response, citing differences in approach and challenging DeSantis’s claims about Florida’s measures.
Newsom responded to DeSantis: “Let’s talk about your record on COVID… Donald Trump laid you out on this.”
2.DeSantis’s Performance:As a GOP presidential primary candidate, DeSantis held his ground, showcasing research and using visual aids, including a map of San Francisco’s issues. Despite impactful moments, the debate felt somewhat biased, with Hannity’s questions often portraying California negatively.
DeSantis labeled Newsom a “liberal bully” and mocked his “shadow campaign” for the 2024 Democratic nomination.
3.Raucous Atmosphere: Hannity’s intent to let the debate flow led to a lively exchange, with frequent interruptions and bickering between DeSantis and Newsom. The lack of an in-person audience allowed for a more direct confrontation without the need for applause pauses.
Hannity remarked on the chaos: “I’m not a potted plant,” expressing frustration during the governors’ back-and-forth.
4.Biden as a Focal Point: DeSantis positioned President Biden as a central theme, connecting Newsom to the Biden-Harris administration. Newsom defended the Democratic agenda, emphasizing the contrast between parties. DeSantis portrayed California as the epitome of the “Biden-Harris agenda on steroids,” predicting disaster for the nation.
5. Limited Impact on Both: Despite the fiery exchanges, the debate is unlikely to significantly alter the political landscape for either governor. DeSantis continues to struggle against Trump in the GOP primary, while Newsom’s boosted national profile may not sway conservative opinions in the hyper-partisan environment.
The debate, though intense, is unlikely to alter the trajectory for either candidate significantly.
The Fox News debate between DeSantis and Newsom provided a platform for a fierce exchange, showcasing their contrasting approaches and political ideologies. While both governors received praise from their respective sides, the event’s broader impact on their political trajectories remains limited.
In anticipation of the 2024 elections, the global political landscape is poised for significant shifts. As we approach November 5, millions of Americans will cast their votes, potentially deciding whether incumbent Joe Biden will secure another term at the age of 86. Despite concerns about Biden’s age, a majority of voters view him as the favored candidate, setting the stage for a potential rematch with former President Donald Trump. However, echoes of disinformation from the previous contentious election, marked by the storming of the US Capitol, are likely to linger.
“Disinformation looks set to be a feature of the campaign,” reflecting the challenges of the past, where misinformation played a role in the polarized political climate. Trump, despite facing multiple criminal trials, stands as the standout favorite for the Republican party nomination.
Across the globe, another enduring political figure, Vladimir Putin, has been at Russia’s helm for 23 years, making him one of the longest-serving leaders. The constitutional amendment in 2020 allows him to extend his rule until 2036, potentially surpassing even Joseph Stalin’s reign. With the war in Ukraine quelling dissent and imprisoning opponents, Putin’s path to another six years seems unhindered, particularly with key challengers like Alexei Navalny and Igor Girkin detained.
Moving to India, where nearly a billion voters are gearing up for the April-May elections, Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his nationalist BJP party aim for a third term. Modi’s political strategy, criticized for stoking tensions with the Muslim minority, has garnered substantial support from the majority Hindu population. Despite concerns about civil liberties, Modi is the clear favorite, credited with elevating India’s global standing, notably achieving milestones in space exploration.
In June, the European Union will witness its largest transnational election, involving over 400 million eligible voters across 27 countries. This election will be a pivotal moment for right-wing populists, testing the momentum gained from recent successes in Dutch and Italian elections. The outcome will influence decisions on issues ranging from mobile phone roaming charges to online data privacy, reflecting the broad impact of the EU Parliament’s decisions.
Meanwhile, in Mexico, the June elections hold the promise of historic change. Two women, former Mexico City mayor Claudia Sheinbaum and businesswoman Xochitl Galvez, are vying to become the first female president in a country with a history of machismo. Sheinbaum, representing the Morena party, leads early polls, while Galvez, part of an opposition coalition, brings a diverse perspective to the race. Samuel Garcia, a young governor, adds another dimension to the electoral landscape.
As the world watches these elections unfold, the political dynamics are undoubtedly complex, with implications reaching far beyond national borders. The challenges of disinformation, power consolidation, and the push for historic milestones underscore the significance of these electoral events on the global stage.
Americans for Prosperity Action, a prominent advocacy organization supported by billionaire Charles Koch and his coalition of wealthy conservatives, has officially thrown its weight behind Nikki Haley as the preferred Republican alternative to Donald Trump in the upcoming 2024 primary, set to kick off in less than 50 days with the Iowa caucus.
According to a memo circulated by Emily Seidel, the CEO of Americans for Prosperity, Haley, a former U.N. ambassador and ex-governor of South Carolina, is seen as offering “America the opportunity to turn the page on the current political era.” Seidel emphasized Haley’s capability to lead a policy agenda that addresses the nation’s major challenges, expressing confidence that the organization’s grassroots and data capabilities uniquely position them to support Haley effectively.
Michael Palmer, a senior adviser to AFP Action, noted that Haley’s policies closely align with the group’s free market ideology, acknowledging that while disagreements on specific issues exist, Haley represents the best chance to enhance the lives of all Americans.
In response to the endorsement, Haley expressed her gratitude, stating, “AFP Action’s members know that there is too much at stake in this election to sit on the sidelines,” underscoring the importance of saving the country and expressing appreciation for AFP Action’s support.
Notably, the Koch-backed group refrained from involvement in the 2016 and 2020 presidential cycles but is now poised to channel significant resources into boosting Haley’s campaign. Although the exact amount of spending remains undisclosed, AFP Action, having raised over $70 million, including substantial contributions from Charles Koch and his nonprofit groups, aims to make a substantial impact.
The organization initially signaled opposition to Trump in February, citing concerns about his ability to defeat President Joe Biden. However, despite these reservations, Trump has strengthened his position within the Republican base, leading his closest primary rival, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, by nearly 50 points in national polls. In contrast, Haley trails DeSantis in the national average.
The dynamics shift in early-voting states, where Trump faces a relatively weaker position. DeSantis, Haley, and former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie are banking on potential upsets in Iowa, New Hampshire, or South Carolina to position themselves as viable alternatives, although their campaigns have yet to significantly erode Trump’s standing.
AFP Action, optimistic about its potential impact, revealed internal memos suggesting that a substantial portion of GOP voters in Iowa and New Hampshire are undecided or believe the primary campaign has just begun. Furthermore, the organization believes that a significant majority of Republicans are open to a Trump alternative if they perceive a better chance of victory.
Following the Tuesday endorsement, AFP Action plans to transition from identifying wavering Trump voters to persuading against him. Their strategy involves concentrated efforts on behalf of their chosen candidate, accompanied by a new ad spot released alongside the endorsement. Large-scale events and efforts to drive turnout are also in the works.
In response to the endorsement, DeSantis’ campaign sought to downplay its significance, labeling Haley as a “moderate” without a viable path to defeating the former president. The Trump campaign, in its statement, characterized AFP Action as part of an “America Last movement” but remained resolute that Washington’s “swamp creatures” would not impede Trump’s bid for the Republican nomination.
The endorsement of Haley introduces a potentially pivotal development in the 2024 race. While no candidate with leads as substantial as Trump’s in the primary has failed to secure their party’s nomination, Trump’s campaign faces unprecedented legal challenges, adding a layer of complexity with court appearances and trial dates.
Seidel, CEO of Americans for Prosperity, highlighted that early in the election cycle, 70% of Americans expressed a preference for neither Trump nor Biden to run. The organization’s endorsement aims to prevent squandering this opportunity for a different political trajectory.
In recent data released by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, an unprecedented surge in the number of undocumented Indian immigrants crossing U.S. borders on foot has been reported. The migration trend, which has been on the rise for several years, has witnessed a dramatic spike, with 96,917 Indians encountered – whether apprehended, expelled, or denied entry – from October 2022 to September 2023, marking a fivefold increase compared to the period from 2019 to 2020, when the figure stood at 19,883.
Experts in immigration attribute this surge to various factors, including the overall increase in global migration post-pandemic, the oppression of minority communities in India, the utilization of more sophisticated smuggling methods, and extreme visa backlogs. The number of undocumented Indians in the U.S. has steadily risen since the borders reopened after the COVID-19 pandemic, with 30,662 encounters in the 2021 fiscal year and 63,927 in the 2022 fiscal year.
Out of the nearly 97,000 encounters in the current year, 30,010 occurred at the Canadian border, and 41,770 took place at the Southern border. Muzaffar Chishti, the director of the Migration Policy Institute’s New York office, noted that the Southern border has become a preferred staging ground for migrants worldwide, as it allows for a quicker entry into the U.S. compared to waiting for a visitor visa in Delhi.Gaurav Khanna, an economics professor at the University of California, San Diego, highlighted the relatively unguarded stretches at the Canadian border, making it an attractive entry point. The migration route from India to the U.S. typically involves multiple legs, with migrants passing through various facilitators and regions like the Middle East, Europe, Africa, and South America before reaching the U.S.
Despite the challenges faced by migrants on these long and treacherous journeys, the overwhelmed immigration systems often leave them in limbo. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) emphasized that families entering the U.S. illegally would face removal, but experts argue that deporting individuals to faraway places is not as straightforward, as countries like Mexico may not readily accept them.
Pawan Dhingra, a professor of American studies at Amherst College, noted that the number of undocumented Indians crossing U.S. borders has been growing for years, reaching an unprecedented level in the current fiscal year. Concerns arise that the spike may be linked to worsening conditions for minorities, such as Muslims, Sikhs, and Christians, in India under Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government, which has faced criticism for human rights violations.
Dhingra pointed to the agricultural sector deregulation in India in 2020 as a potential trigger, leading to massive protests and unrest, especially in the state of Punjab. While the bills were repealed in December 2021, the destabilization and protests may still constitute grounds for asylum claims.
The promised new life in the U.S. appears ideal to migrants compared to perceived challenges in India, with success stories of Indian Americans and previous migrants serving as attractive factors. Decades-long visa backlogs and the aftermath of COVID-19 have created desperate migrants in India, who, with the help of social media-savvy groups posing as travel agencies, often pay their life savings for the perilous journey.
Gaurav Khanna and Muzaffar Chishti emphasized that misinformation, circulated on platforms like Facebook and WhatsApp, further complicates the situation. The treacherous nature of the journey is not always fully understood by migrants, contributing to the dangers they face. Last year, a tragic incident involved a lower-income family of four found dead near the U.S.-Canada border, underscoring the risks associated with these journeys.
Chishti concluded that the journey is extremely difficult, requiring individuals to either mortgage their life savings or take on significant risks, emphasizing the desperation for economic or political change among those willing to undergo such challenges.
Upon reaching the U.S. border, individuals who have embarked on journeys spanning multiple continents often encounter a disorganized immigration system that lacks the capacity to provide clear answers, according to Chishti. The Southern border processes have historically been designed with the assumption that single Mexican men are entering the country for work. However, the evolving dynamics, including the presence of more families and non-Mexican or Central American migrants, have outpaced the system’s ability to adapt to the new volume and challenges.
The current immigration system struggles to cope with the increased diversity of arrivals, primarily driven by asylum claims. Chishti highlighted the insufficient number of beds and Border Patrol officers to screen individuals, leading to a practice of allowing people in various categories. A spokesperson for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement emphasized that each case is individually assessed, considering the circumstances in accordance with U.S. law and Department of Homeland Security policy.
However, Chishti pointed out that returning asylum-seekers is diplomatically complex and necessitates agreements between countries. The absence of such agreements between the U.S. and India often results in Indian migrants being issued notices to appear before judges, contributing to the existing backlog in immigration courts. Without legal representation, migrants may face significant delays in their hearing dates, exacerbating the strain on the immigration system.
Chishti described the system as buckling under its own weight, and he noted that smugglers exploit this information, using it as part of their marketing strategy.
While other destinations like Europe or the U.K. may be logistically easier for migrants, the U.S. holds a distinct allure for Indian nationals, according to experts. Dhingra emphasized that the perception of the U.S. as a highly developed country with abundant opportunities makes it an attractive destination. Despite the logistical challenges and the strained immigration system, the U.S. remains a promised land for many in the South Asian diaspora.
As the number of undocumented Indian immigrants continues to rise, questions arise about how the Indian American community will respond to this growing group of lower-income immigrants. Dhingra pondered whether the community would advocate for acceptance and support for these migrants or adopt a stance focused on “law and order” with little sympathy for those crossing without full documents. The outcome, he noted, is challenging to predict.
In a recent NBC national poll gauging sentiments for the 2024 general election, former President Donald Trump has emerged ahead of President Joe Biden for the “first time” in the history of the network’s polling, as revealed by NBC host Kristen Welker. During a segment on the network’s “Meet the Press,” Welker, accompanied by national correspondent Steve Kornacki, delved into the latest polling data, indicating that Trump currently maintains a 2-point lead over Biden, holding at 46 percent.
“This is the first time in the history of our poll that former President Trump beats President Biden – still within the margin of error, but still significant,” acknowledged Welker in response to the noteworthy development. The survey, conducted between November 10 and November 14 among 1,000 registered voters, carries a margin of error ranging from 5.5 to 5.6 percentage points.
Highlighting the shift in dynamics, Kornacki pointed out, “In 2019, 2020 when Trump was president, he [Biden] trailed all of them. This year he’s trailed all of them in our poll. First time in more than a dozen polls we’ve seen a result like this.”
Biden, traditionally buoyed by his perceived likability compared to Trump, is now facing a leveled playing field, according to the poll. NBC News initially reported Biden’s likability at 39 percent and Trump’s at 32 percent in January. However, the current figures show both candidates at 36 percent, accompanied by a notable increase in Biden’s disapproval rating, climbing from 46 percent in January to 53 percent.
The younger demographic, aged 18 to 35, is demonstrating a noteworthy tilt towards the former president. The poll indicates Trump garnering 46 percent support among this age group, with Biden trailing at 42 percent.
Recognizing the electorate’s expressed dissatisfaction with the current candidates, the network conducted a hypothetical test pitting Biden against a “generic Republican candidate.” Surprisingly, the results showed that in this scenario, a “generic” Republican would outperform Biden by nearly 11 points, whereas Trump, in a similar matchup against a “generic” Democrat candidate, would lag behind by approximately 6 points.
Amidst these shifting dynamics, Democrats and liberal figures have begun voicing concerns regarding Biden’s viability as the party’s nominee for the 2024 presidential elections. Democratic Minnesota Representative Dean Phillips, for instance, recently challenged Biden for the nomination, emphasizing that it’s time for the president to “pass the torch.”
The evolving landscape of public opinion, as reflected in the NBC poll, suggests a departure from the conventional narrative that favored Biden’s likability over Trump. As the political landscape continues to evolve, the dynamics of the 2024 presidential race are becoming increasingly uncertain, with the emergence of new contenders and shifting voter preferences challenging the established political order.
Former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley has been rising in the polls in early voting states, especially after her strong performances in the three GOP sponsored presidential debates – Milwaukee, San Francisco and Florida. Though she still lags far behind Donald Trump, she argues she’s strongest nominee to take on President Joe Biden, US media reports said.
Her latest debate performance prompted more than $1 million in donations — and drew in Ray Hunt, a billionaire backer. She’s still banking on a breakthrough to catch up to the front-runner. Over the course of the two-hour face-off, Ms. Haley displayed her foreign policy credentials, parried attacks on her record and even transformed her shoes into a campaign weapon.
The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) says she’s what the US “needs to take on Trump and Biden in the 2024 presidential race”. “I don’t think you need to be 80 years old to go be a leader in D.C.,” she told Fox News in January. “It’s time for a new generation of leadership,” she said in the campaign video she released recently.
According to Policitco, “the pioneering former governor of South Carolina and Trump’s first United Nations ambassador, the 51-year-old daughter of Indian immigrants, was a Trump critic who became a Trump appointee who now officially is a Trump rival. Throughout her compelling, nearly two-decade-long political ascent, she has been nimble, or as her critics would say, uncommonly calculating. People who know her call her ambitious because she is.”
Haley was born to Indian Sikh parents who immigrated to the US from Canada. Her father is a biologist and her mother a lawyer turned boutique shop owner, that’s now a million dollar franchise. They came with $8 dollars in their pockets.
At 13, Haley began overseeing the store’s financial books, and after graduating from Clemson in 1994 with a bachelor’s degree in accounting, she became the company’s Chief Financial Officer. Haley met her husband William Michael Haley in the college, and got married in 1996. They have two children.
Haley’s career in politics began in 2004 when she defeated a longstanding incumbent to win a seat in the South Carolina House. Haley then ran for Governor in 2009, making her the first person to be elected the Governor of South Carolina who wasn’t a white. It has been a gradula rise to her prominence to national stage for this talented Indian American presidential candidate.
However, months of campaigning, a series of strong debate performances, healthy campaign accounts and rising numbers in surveys of early voting states haven’t been enough to put Ms. Haley within striking distance of Mr. Trump, who remains the dominant front-runner. While Ms. Haley’s support has increased, particularly in Iowa, voters have yet to flock to her candidacy in overwhelming numbers. One recent poll of Iowa had Ms. Haley tied at 16 percent support with Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida — with Mr. Trump 27 points ahead.
There are some signs major donors are turning their attention to her. Harlan Crow, a wealthy real estate developer, hosted a fund-raiser for her in October with well-connected real estate and oil and gas donors in attendance. Former Gov. Bruce Rauner of Illinois, a top giver to Mr. DeSantis, transferred his allegiance to Ms. Haley after the first debate. Last week, one of former Vice President Mike Pence’s top donors — the Arkansas poultry magnate Ron Cameron — said he would back her, after Mr. Pence dropped out of the race.
Haley, who served in Trump’s Cabinet as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, has said frequently on the campaign trail that Trump is unlikely to beat President Joe Biden in a general election, citing his four criminal indictments and mounting legal troubles.
If Trump becomes the nominee, she said, Republicans could see more losses on down-ballot races. Haley argued she could lead the party to “win up and down the ticket, governor’s races, congressional seats, all of those seats.”
“It’s not just the presidential. We’re trying to win across the board. I can do that,” she added
The U.S. Congress passed a stopgap funding bill late on Saturday with overwhelming Democratic support after Republican House Speaker Kevin McCarthy backed down from an earlier demand by his party’s hardliners for a partisan bill.
The Democratic-majority Senate voted 88-9 to pass the measure to avoid the federal government’s fourth partial shutdown in a decade, sending the bill to President Joe Biden, who signed it into law before the 12:01 a.m. ET (0401 GMT) deadline.
McCarthy abandoned party hardliners’ insistence that any bill pass the House with only Republican votes, a change that could cause one of his far-right members to try to oust him from his leadership role.
The House voted 335-91 to fund the government through Nov. 17, with more Democrats than Republicans supporting it.
Picture: BBC
That move marked a profound shift from earlier in the week, when a shutdown looked all but inevitable. A shutdown would mean that most of the government’s 4 million employees would not get paid – whether they were working or not – and also would shutter a range of federal services, from National Parks to financial regulators.
Federal agencies had already drawn up detailed plans that spell out what services would continue, such as airport screening and border patrols, and what must shut down, including scientific research and nutrition aid to 7 million poor mothers.
“The American people can breathe a sigh of relief: there will be no government shutdown tonight,” Democratic Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said after the vote. “Democrats have said from the start that the only solution for avoiding a shutdown is bipartisanship, and we are glad Speaker McCarthy has finally heeded our message.”
DEMOCRATS CALL IT A WIN
Some 209 Democrats supported the bill, far more than the 126 Republicans who did so, and Democrats described the result as a win.
“Extreme MAGA Republicans have lost, the American people have won,” top House Democrat Hakeem Jeffries told reporters ahead of the vote, referring to the “Make America Great Again” slogan used by former President Donald Trump and many hardline Republicans.
Democratic Representative Don Beyer said: “I am relieved that Speaker McCarthy folded and finally allowed a bipartisan vote at the 11th hour on legislation to stop Republicans’ rush to a disastrous shutdown.”
McCarthy’s shift won the support of top Senate Republican Mitch McConnell, who had backed a similar measure that was moving through the Senate with broad bipartisan support, even though the House version dropped aid for Ukraine.
Democratic Senator Michael Bennet held the bill up for several hours trying to negotiate a deal for further Ukraine aid.
“While I would have preferred to pass a bill now with additional assistance for Ukraine, which has bipartisan support in both the House and Senate, it is easier to help Ukraine with the government open than if it were closed,” Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen said in a statement.
McCarthy dismissed concerns that hardline Republicans could try to oust him as leader.
“I want to be the adult in the room, go ahead and try,” McCarthy told reporters. “And you know what? If I have to risk my job for standing up for the American public, I will do that.”
He said that House Republicans would push ahead with plans to pass more funding bills that would cut spending and include other conservative priorities, such as tighter border controls.
CREDIT CONCERNS
The standoff comes just months after Congress brought the federal government to the brink of defaulting on its $31.4 trillion debt. The drama has raised worries on Wall Street, where the Moody’s ratings agency has warned it could damage U.S. creditworthiness.
Congress typically passes stopgap spending bills to buy more time to negotiate the detailed legislation that sets funding for federal programs.
This year, a group of Republicans has blocked action in the House as they have pressed to tighten immigration and cut spending below levels agreed to in the debt-ceiling standoff in the spring.
The McCarthy-Biden deal that avoided default set a limit of $1.59 trillion in discretionary spending in fiscal 2024. House Republicans are demanding a further $120 billion in cuts.
The funding fight focuses on a relatively small slice of the $6.4 trillion U.S. budget for this fiscal year. Lawmakers are not considering cuts to popular benefit programs such as Social Security and Medicare.
“We should never have been in this position in the first place. Just a few months ago, Speaker McCarthy and I reached a budget agreement to avoid precisely this type of manufactured crisis,” Biden said in a statement after the vote. “House Republicans tried to walk away from that deal by demanding drastic cuts that would have been devastating for millions of Americans. They failed.”
Reporting by David Morgan, Makini Brice and Moira Warburton, additional reporting by Kanishka Singh, writing by Andy Sullivan; Editing by Scott Malone, Andrea Ricci and William Mallard
Indian American presidential primary candidate Nikki Haley attached little importance to her opponent Donald Trump’s lead among voters in the upcoming elections. In an interview with Fox News on November 12, Haley admitted that Trump has “strong support” but he is followed by “drama and negativity” and that Republicans will fail to win if he wins the GOP nomination.
Former President Trump has emerged as the GOP frontrunner, and polls have found him to be ahead of reigning President Joe Biden, but Haley believes the party will not benefit from his victory in the primary. “I think certainly Trump has some strong support. I’ve always said he was the right president at the right time and I agree with a lot of his policies,” she told Fox News. “The problem is, drama and chaos follow him, whether fairly or not, it is constantly following him and Americans feel it,” she added.
Haley further blamed Trump for the losses faced by GOP candidates recently and the party’s negatively impacted performance. Haley said the GOP has to “pay the price” for the former president’s presence in the party, as per a report. Haley said the Republican party should brace itself for more losses on the ballot races if Trump becomes the nominee for the Presidential elections, and endorsed herself as the better candidate.
“We need to make sure we have a new conservative leader. Republicans have lost the last seven out of eight popular votes for president. The way you do that is you send someone in there that doesn’t just beat Biden by two or three points like Trump does, you get somebody that beats Biden between nine and 13 points,” she said. Haley’s campaign had received a significant boost after the initial debates and polls suggested she could defeat President Biden by a wider margin than her primary rivals.
Haley also said she could be the candidate to lead the GOP to “win up and down the ticket, governor’s races, congressional seats, all of those seats.” She added, “It’s not just the presidential. We’re trying to win across the board. I can do that.”
Lack of Support Among South Asian Americans
Despite being prominently known as Indian American candidates in the race to the Oval Office in 2024, Republicans Vivek Ramaswamy and Nikki Haley are not as popular among or known to Asian Americans, a new poll conducted by AAPI Data and the Associated Press-National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago revealed.
According to the results, while more AAPI adults have unfavorable views than favorable views of Haley and Ramaswamy, a large proportion of them said they did not know enough about the two candidates to form an opinion.
The study found that only 18 percent and 23 percent of Asian American and Pacific Islander adults had favorable views of Ramaswamy and Haley, respectively, and 36 percent viewed both candidates as unfavorable. 40 percent of the respondents said they were not familiar with Haley, while Ramaswamy is unfamiliar to 46 percent of them.
“This is the first nationally representative survey that includes the views of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders about the major presidential candidates,” said Karthick Ramakrishnan, founder and director of AAPI Data. “Rather than speculate about where AAPIs stand on candidates like Nikki Haley and Vivek Ramaswamy, we have timely and reliable data that we will continue to follow through the rest of the presidential primary season.
The survey also dug into the political inclination of AAPI communities, with about half identifying as Democrats, over a quarter identifying as Republican, and about one in five identifying as independent or having no attachment to any party.
The current President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris are viewed more favorably among the AAPI communities, while former President and current contender for the Republican nomination for the upcoming presidential elections, Donald Trump, is viewed unfavorably, as is Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis.
Recent research published on November 13 in JAMA Internal Medicine reveals a concerning trend in U.S. life expectancy, highlighting a growing gender disparity. As of 2021, women in the United States are projected to outlive men by approximately six years, according to the study. This revelation comes amid a broader decline in overall life expectancy, which currently hovers around 76 years. The study sheds light on the contributing factors and emphasizes the need for targeted interventions to address the root causes behind this growing divide.
Gender-Based Life Expectancy Gap:
The gender-based life expectancy gap in the U.S. has reached its widest point since 1996, with women surpassing men in longevity. In 2021, U.S. men had a life expectancy of 73.5 years, in contrast to 79.3 years for women. Historically, women have tended to live longer than men, influenced by both biological and behavioral factors. Hormonal differences and healthier lifestyle choices, such as more frequent doctor visits and lower rates of smoking and excessive drinking among women, have contributed to this trend.
Pre-existing Trend and Acceleration:
The widening gender gap did not emerge solely in response to the COVID-19 pandemic; rather, it began before the pandemic and accelerated from 2019 to 2021. The authors of the study highlight that deaths from COVID-19 and unintentional injuries, including accidental drug overdoses, were the primary drivers behind this acceleration. However, differential rates of homicide, heart disease, and suicides also played a role in this disturbing trend.
Causes of Widening Gap:
The report identifies specific causes contributing to the widening gender-based life expectancy gap. Notably, deaths from COVID-19 and unintentional injuries, categorized to include drug overdoses, were major contributors. Men were disproportionately affected by these causes, as established by existing data that highlights higher mortality rates among men compared to women. In 2021, heart disease, COVID-19, and unintentional injuries ranked among the top five causes of death, underscoring the gravity of the situation.
The Role of Behavioral and Biological Factors:
While the study emphasizes the impact of external factors such as the pandemic and unintentional injuries, it also underscores the enduring influence of behavioral and biological differences. Men’s higher susceptibility to deaths from homicide, heart disease, and suicide compared to women contributes significantly to the widening gender gap. Recognizing and addressing these factors is crucial for developing effective strategies to mitigate the disparities.
Factors Mitigating the Gender Gap:
The authors acknowledge that certain factors helped mitigate the gender gap, preventing it from widening even further. Increases in maternal mortality and decreases in cancer deaths among men had a balancing effect. These findings highlight the complexity of the forces at play and underscore the need for a nuanced understanding of the multiple factors influencing life expectancy.
Implications for Public Health:
The research underscores the ongoing importance of addressing the impact of COVID-19 on life expectancy. Limiting the spread of the virus remains a critical priority. Additionally, the study emphasizes the need for comprehensive strategies to improve national mental health and prevent drug overdoses and suicides, often labeled as “deaths of despair” by experts. These interventions are crucial for addressing the root causes of the widening gender-based life expectancy gap.
The latest research on U.S. life expectancy reveals a disconcerting trend, with women projected to live significantly longer than men. While external factors such as the COVID-19 pandemic and unintentional injuries contribute to this widening gap, behavioral and biological differences also play a crucial role. Understanding the multifaceted nature of these influences is essential for developing targeted interventions to address the root causes and promote a more equitable and healthier society. As the findings highlight, a comprehensive approach that addresses both pandemic-related challenges and longstanding health disparities is imperative for improving overall life expectancy and well-being in the United States.
In a significant development on Tuesday, a Michigan judge dismissed a lawsuit attempting to utilize the 14th Amendment’s “insurrectionist ban” to prevent Donald Trump from appearing on the state’s 2024 ballot. The judge also affirmed that Michigan’s secretary of state lacks the authority under state law to determine the former president’s eligibility based on the 14th Amendment, which prohibits individuals who engaged in insurrection from holding office.
The rulings represent a substantial victory for Trump, who currently leads the 2024 Republican presidential primary race, despite facing legal challenges in various states alleging his involvement in the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol.
Last week, the Minnesota Supreme Court rejected a similar constitutional challenge against Trump, and a comparable case is pending in Colorado, with a ruling expected later this week. Experts anticipate that, regardless of the initial rulings, these cases are likely to reach the US Supreme Court, potentially settling the issue nationwide.
The liberal advocacy group involved in the Michigan case has announced an “immediate appeal” and intends to request the state Supreme Court’s intervention. The 14th Amendment, enacted after the Civil War, bars individuals who took an oath to uphold the Constitution from future office if they engaged in insurrection. However, the Constitution does not specify how to enforce this ban, and it has been applied only twice since 1919, making these challenges widely viewed as a long shot.
While these rulings maintain Trump’s position on key GOP primary ballots, they leave the door open to future challenges regarding his eligibility in the November 2024 general election.
Michigan Court of Claims Judge James Redford emphasized that questions about Trump’s role in the January 6 insurrection should be addressed by elected representatives in Congress, characterizing the matter as a “political question” outside the jurisdiction of the judicial branch. Redford stated, “A court disqualifying Trump would’ve taken that decision away from a body made up of elected representatives of the people of every state in the nation.”
He further argued that he lacked the authority under state law to compel election officials to scrutinize Trump’s eligibility based on the 14th Amendment. Redford’s decision was made in response to two cases seeking to block Trump from the Michigan ballot and a countersuit filed by Trump to preserve his position.
Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, a Democrat, had already announced the list of names for the 2024 presidential primaries in the state, including Trump. Rejecting arguments from anti-Trump challengers, the judge deemed it premature to disqualify Trump, considering he has not secured the GOP nomination and the 2024 general election has not taken place.
Redford acknowledged that even if Trump were to win the presidency and subsequently face new lawsuits questioning his eligibility, the 20th Amendment provides a process for addressing a president-elect no longer “qualified” to serve, wherein the vice president-elect would ascend to the presidency.
The Trump campaign welcomed the decision, highlighting victories in similar cases in Minnesota and New Hampshire. Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung criticized these legal challenges as “un-Constitutional left-wing fantasies orchestrated by monied allies of the Biden campaign.”
Conversely, Free Speech For People, the advocacy group behind the Michigan and Minnesota cases, condemned the judge’s decision, asserting that he adopted a “discredited theory” about Congress’ role in enforcing the 14th Amendment. The group plans to appeal the decision and continue legal actions in other states to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment against Donald Trump, as stated by Ron Fein, the group’s legal director.
By the end of the century, the U.S. population will be declining without substantial immigration, older adults will outnumber children and white, non-Hispanic residents will account for less than 50% of the population, according to projections released Thursday by the U.S. Census Bureau.
The population projections offer a glimpse of what the nation may look like at the turn of the next century, though a forecast decades into the future can’t predict the unexpected like a global pandemic.
The projections can help the U.S. prepare for change, from anticipating the demands of health care for seniors to providing insight into the number of schools that need to be built over the coming decades, said Paul Ong, a public affairs professor at UCLA.
“As most demographers realize, population projection is not an inevitable destiny, just a glimpse into a possible future,” Ong said. “Seeing that possibility also opens up opportunities for action.”
Population changes due to births and deaths, which are more predictable, and immigration, which is more uncertain. Because of that, the Census Bureau offers three different projections through 2100 based on high, medium and low immigration.
Under the low-immigration scenario, the U.S. population shrinks to 319 million people by 2100 from the current population of 333 million residents. It grows to 365 million people at the end of the century under the medium immigration scenario and to 435 million residents with high immigration. In each immigration scenario, the country is on track to become older and more diverse.
Americans of college age and younger are already part of a majority-minority cohort.
Aliana Mediratta, a 20-year-old student at Washington University in St. Louis, welcomes a future with a more diverse population and believes immigration “is great for our society and our economy.”
But that optimism is tempered by existential worries that things seem to be getting worse, including climate change and gun violence.
“I feel like I have to be optimistic about the future since, if I’m pessimistic, it disables me from doing things that I want to do, that are hard, but morally right to do,” Mediratta said.
Here’s a look at how the U.S. population is expected to change through 2100, using the medium immigration scenario.
2020s
By 2029, older adults will outnumber children, with 71 million U.S. residents aged 65 and older and 69 million residents under age 18.
The numeric superiority of seniors will mean fewer workers. Combined with children, they’ll represent 40% of the population. Only around 60% of the population that is of working age — between 18 and 64 — will be paying the bulk of taxes for Social Security and Medicare.
2030s
“Natural increase” in the U.S. will go negative in 2038, meaning deaths outpacing births due to an aging population and declines in fertility. The Census projects 13,000 more deaths than births in the U.S., and that shortfall grows to 1.2 million more deaths than births by 2100.
2050s
By 2050, the share of the U.S. population that is white and not Hispanic will be under 50% for the first time.
Currently, 58.9% of U.S. residents are white and not Hispanic. By 2050, Hispanic residents will account for a quarter of the U.S. population, up from 19.1% today. African Americans will make up 14.4% of the population, up from 13.6% currently. Asians will account for 8.6% of the population, up from 6.2% today.
Also in the 2050s, Asians will surpass Hispanics as the largest group of immigrants by race or ethnicity.
2060s
The increasing diversity of the nation will be most noticeable in children. By the 2060s, non-Hispanic white children will be a third of the population under age 18, compared to under half currently.
2080s
Under that medium immigration scenario, the U.S. population peaks at more than 369 million residents in 2081. After that, the Census Bureau predicts a slight population decline, with deaths outpacing births and immigration.
2090s
By the end of the 2090s, the foreign population will make up almost 19.5% of U.S. residents, the highest share since the Census Bureau started keeping track in 1850. The highest rate previously was 14.8% in 1890. It currently is 13.9%.
FOREIGN BORN AND IMMIGRATION
Experts say that predicting immigration trends is more difficult than in the past when migration was tightly linked to the pull of economic opportunity in the U.S.
When immigration is instead driven by the push of climate change, social tensions exacerbated by authoritarian rulers and gangs, as well as fluctuating anti-immigrant sentiment in the U.S., it is harder to predict, said Manuel Pastor, a professor of sociology and American Studies & Ethnicity at the University of Southern California.
“In the past we would say we get immigration from economics, and you can make some reasonable projections,” Pastor said. “Now, we have these push pressures for people to come to the U.S., and we have a further racialized reaction to migration, we have a much wider band or error, or the potential to make mistakes.”
RELIABILITY
How reliable will the numbers be, especially as race and ethnic definitions change, and immigration levels are hard to predict?
While there is an extreme level of uncertainty projecting almost eight decades into the future, it is a good starting point, said Ong, the UCLA professor.
“Over 80 years, birth and death rates, fertility rates and migration rates can be changed through policies, programs and resources,” Ong said.
Mediratta, the college student, imagines that 20-year-olds like her two centuries ago were also concerned about the future, but they didn’t have TikTok or Instagram to amplify their worries.
“It seems like things are bad all the time,” Mediratta said. “I feel that things were probably bad all the time 200 years ago, but nobody could tell everyone about it.” (Source: AP)
Amidst the ongoing conflicts in Israel, Hamas, and the Russia-Ukraine war, the ongoing fifth India-US 2+2 Ministerial Level Talks in New Delhi, has been described as very crucial.
US Secretary of State Antony J Blinken and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, both are for meetings with their Indian counterparts, Defense Minister Rajnath Singh and External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar.
Blinken has said that India-US defense cooperation is “a key pillar” for bolstering the partnership of the two countries in “international peace and security, and specifically, working to promote the rules-based order and uphold the principles at the heart of the UN Charter: sovereignty, territorial integrity, independence.”
“Our defense cooperation, which we’re strengthening again today, is a key pillar of that work,” Blinken said in his opening remarks at the 2+2 India-US Ministerial Dialogue that began in the national capital earlier in the day
Also in his opening remarks, US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said in his opening remarks that there have been “impressive gains in building our major defense partnership over the past year, and that will help us contribute even more together to the cause of peace and stability. We’re integrating our industrial bases, strengthening our interoperability, and sharing cutting-edge technology,” he added.
Blinken said the two countries were taking very concrete steps to deliver on the vision that President Joe Biden and Prime Minister Narendra Modi put forward at their meeting in Washington in June.
“We are promoting a free and open, prosperous, secure, and resilient Indo-Pacific, including by strengthening our partnership through the Quad, with Japan and Australia,” he explained.
Blinken went on to say that “one significant way we’re doing that is by enhancing maritime domain awareness: sharing commercial satellite data with countries in the region to boost their capacity, for example, to combat illegal fishing, piracy, drug trafficking”.
“We’re also coordinating humanitarian relief and disaster response efforts in the Indo-Pacific. We’re harnessing together the power of innovation to make our economies more resilient and to make our communities more secure, while expanding inclusive economic opportunity.
“That’s evident in the cooperation on semiconductors and advanced biotechnology; on our unprecedented investments in deploying clean energy at scale in our countries as well as across the region; and our joint research and exploration projects in space,” he added.
The top diplomat mentioned the people-to-people ties between the two countries and the steps that are being taken to reduce visa wait times and facilitate travel between India and the US.
Jaishankar held “an open and productive discussion” with visiting US Secretary of State Antony Blinken here on Friday on strengthening strategic New Delhi-Washington ties, the fallout of the raging Israel-Hamas war and regional issues including the geopolitical situation in the Indo-Pacific region.
The meeting took place ahead of the fifth edition of the India-US 2+2 Defence and Foreign Ministers’ Dialogue. “Pleased to meet with Secretary of State @SecBlinken this morning. An open and productive conversation on further developing our strategic partnership,” Jaishankar posted on X.
“This visit has a particular significance because we need to follow up on PM Modi’s June visit and President Biden’s September visit. This is a 2+2 Ministerial Dialogue, so we take a broader view of what we are doing.”
The central focus of these talks is to address the ongoing conflicts and regional security concerns while strengthening the strategic ties between India and the United States. The agenda is expansive, encompassing the India-US Strategic Relationship, as well as exploring avenues to enhance bilateral relations and collaboration within international forums such as the QUAD (Quadrilateral Security Dialogue) and I2U2.
One prominent subject for discussion is the military standoff on the northern borders between India and China. Both countries have a vested interest in resolving this standoff amicably, thereby contributing to regional stability.
Another matter of great concern is the global security implications of the Russia-Ukraine war. As members of the QUAD, a coalition dedicated to ensuring security in the Indo-Pacific region, India and the U.S. are likely to deliberate on their respective roles in the context of this global event. The ongoing conflict between Hamas and Israel in the Gaza region may also find a place on the agenda, with a focus on containment to prevent further escalation.
The fight between Indian-American Republican candidates got nastier with former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley calling tech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy “just a scumm” for bringing up her daughter as a reference at the party’s third presidential primary debate on Wednesday, November 8th, 2023.
At the debate held in Miami, the two leading Republican candidates sparred over the US policy on TikTok and whether it should be banned in the country because of its Chinese ownership.
The 38-year-old entrepreneur referred to Haley and said: “In the last debate, she made fun of me for actually joining TikTok while her own daughter was actually using the app for a long time, so you might want to take care of your family first.”
Picture: The Guardian
Haley then shot back saying, “Leave my daughter out of your voice”, and as Ramaswamy continued to speak, she told him, “You are just a scum.”
The former South Carolina Governor also took to her X handle on Wednesday to further slam the biotech entrepreneur, which was dismissed by a handful of netizens as “cringe.”
“Vivek, I wear heels. They’re not for a fashion statement — they’re for ammunition,” Haley said, inviting a comment from a user, which said: “All of the comebacks in the world, and you chose cringe.”
The two also locked horns in the previous presidential debate with Haley slamming him for his inexperience on foreign policy issues.
Hitting out at Haley, Ramaswamy’s campaign in a statement said that in a desperate attempt to raise funds for her languishing establishment campaign, the former US ambassador to the UN was intentionally lying about the tech entrepreneur.
Haley blasted Ramaswamy for not backing US allies, and said that “Vivek has no foreign policy experience and it shows.” Ramaswamy also used the ‘Namrata Randhawa’ instead of Nikki Haley on his website, which she said was a “childish name game.”
“I’m not going to get involved in these childish name games. It’s pretty pathetic. First of all, I was born with Nikki on my birth certificate. I was raised as Nikki. I married a Haley. And so that is what my name is,” Haley told Fox News in response.
Haley again called for reforming Social Security and other entitlement programs, drawing a contrast with Trump — and bringing up what Democrats say is a significant vulnerability for her candidacy.
“Any candidate that tells you that they’re not going to take on entitlements is not being serious,” she said. “Right now you have Ron and Trump joining Biden and Pelosi saying they’re not going to change, or do any entitlement reform.”
Haley has long called for making significant changes to the program, including raising the retirement age and removing cost of living increases in favor of increases based on the inflation rate.
She also called for limiting the program for the wealthy — namechecking Bernie Marcus, the former CEO of Home Depot and a major Republican donor, saying that he “hates getting that check.”
In a survey released on Monday by the Des Moines Register, Haley climbed 10 points to 16 per cent, putting her even with Florida Governor Ron DeSantis as he struggles to break through against former President Donald Trump.
In addition to Haley and Ramaswamy, three other candidates were on stage for the third debate — former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and South Carolina Senator Tim Scott.
The two-hour debate, hosted by NBC News, took off at the Adrienne Arsht Center for the Performing Arts of Miami-Dade County.
Trump, who has so far retained huge leads in polls, again skipped the debate, instead holding a rally not far from the Miami debate site in Hialeah, Florida.
The GOP candidates had one basic message for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: Do what you have to do to destroy the Hamas militant group.
“Finish the job,” DeSantis said. “Finish them,” Haley said. “Not only do you have the responsibility and the right to wipe Hamas off of the map, we will support you,” Scott said.
Ramaswamy ended the debate by calling not on his Republican rivals, but on Biden, to drop out. The president should “step aside and end his candidacy now so we can see whether it’s [California Gov. Gavin] Newsom or Michelle Obama or whoever else,” Ramaswamy said at the end of his closing pitch.
The prospect of a 2024 election rematch between President Biden and former President Donald J. Trump has left voters in six battleground states dissatisfied and searching for alternatives, as revealed by recent polls conducted by The New York Times and Siena College.
In these key states, both Mr. Biden and Mr. Trump are viewed unfavorably by the majority of voters. A significant portion of voters dislike both candidates, and overall enthusiasm for the upcoming election has waned compared to the 2020 contest.
This frustration and disillusionment have led voters to consider other options. When asked about the likely 2024 matchup between Mr. Biden and Mr. Trump, only 2 percent of respondents expressed support for another candidate. However, when Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s name was presented as an alternative, nearly a quarter of respondents indicated they would choose him.
It’s important to note that the support for Mr. Kennedy may be somewhat inflated, as two-thirds of those expressing support for him had previously mentioned a preference for one of the two major-party candidates.
The polling encompassed registered voters in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, and the results suggest that Mr. Kennedy is less a firmly established political figure in the minds of voters and more a symbol of their discontent with the choice between Mr. Biden and Mr. Trump.
Voters who hold unfavorable views of both major-party candidates, often referred to as “double haters,” played a significant role in the outcomes of recent presidential elections. The number of such voters has more than doubled since four years ago. Mr. Trump now enjoys more support from these voters in five of the six battleground states, with Arizona being the exception. Overall, 42 percent of “double haters” planned to vote for Mr. Trump, while 34 percent favored Mr. Biden, and 24 percent remained undecided.
The disapproval of both Mr. Biden and Mr. Trump is likely to fuel interest in outsider candidates like Mr. Kennedy, who recently transitioned from the Democratic primary to run as an independent. Cornel West, the liberal professor who switched from the Green Party to mount an independent campaign, is another candidate in the spotlight.
The accessibility of the ballot will present a significant challenge for independent candidates. Qualifying for the general election as a political independent is a costly endeavor, and legal obstacles from major parties may further complicate the process.
The appeal of outsider candidates stems from the widespread unpopularity of both Mr. Biden and Mr. Trump among voters in the battleground states. A majority of respondents held unfavorable views of both candidates, except for Black voters who had a favorable view of Mr. Biden.
Voters who dislike both major-party candidates but are open to alternative options are central to the potential impact of outsider candidates like Mr. Kennedy. The outcome in tightly contested states could be influenced by the presence of a candidate like Mr. Kennedy. In some states, he appears to benefit Mr. Trump, while in others, he aids Mr. Biden.
In a political landscape marked by polarization and increasing partisanship, third-party and independent candidates often reflect voter dissatisfaction with the choices offered by the major parties rather than genuine interest in outsider candidates. The impact of Mr. Kennedy as an independent candidate remains uncertain, as his support has fluctuated during his campaign. His potential to influence the 2024 election outcome may become clearer as the election season progresses.
The most recent data from the US Customs and Border Protection (UCBP) reveals a record-breaking surge in the apprehension of Indian nationals attempting to enter the United States illegally. Between October 2022 and September 2023, a staggering 96,917 Indians were arrested while crossing the US border without proper authorization.
This surge in Indians attempting to cross the US border unlawfully represents a five-fold increase over the past few years. To put this into perspective, in 2019-20, the number of Indians apprehended was 19,883. In the following year, 2020-21, this number rose to 30,662. By 2021-22, the figure had skyrocketed to 63,927.
The geographical distribution of these arrests is notable, with 30,010 individuals caught on the Canadian border and 41,770 at the US-Mexico frontier. These apprehended individuals are categorized into four distinct groups: Accompanied Minors (AM), Individuals in a Family Unit (FMUA), Single Adults, and Unaccompanied Children (UC).
Single adults constitute the largest category, with a staggering 84,000 Indian adults crossing into the United States illegally in fiscal year 2023. Additionally, 730 unaccompanied minors were among those arrested during this period.
It’s essential to note that the US federal government’s fiscal year spans from October 1 to September 30.
In a separate development, Senator James Lankford shed light on the lengths some of these individuals go to in their journey to reach the US. Senator Lankford mentioned on the Senate floor that many of these individuals take multiple flights, sometimes including layovers in countries like France, in order to reach Mexico, which serves as the closest airport for their intended border crossing. From there, they take a bus, often arranged by criminal cartels, to reach the US-Mexico border, where they aim to enter the United States.
Senator Lankford also highlighted a concerning aspect of this situation, where individuals claim to be fleeing their home countries due to fear. He stated, “So they can say, ‘I have fear in my country.'”
Moreover, Senator Lankford has consistently emphasized that criminal cartels in Mexico are coaching migrants from various parts of the world on what to say and where to go in order to navigate the asylum process effectively and gain entry into the United States while awaiting an asylum hearing.
He expressed his concern that the United States appears to be one of the few nations still adhering to this approach, stating, “Listen, this doesn’t make sense to just about everyone in the world. Just about everyone in the world has shifted on this except for us. We’re literally inviting people from all over the world to exploit our system.”
Senator Lankford underscored the fact that asylum and refugee status are equivalent under international law. A refugee flees their home country out of fear of persecution and seeks refuge in a designated refugee center, eventually declaring to the United Nations their dramatic fear of persecution in their home country. The UN, in response, facilitates their relocation to various parts of the world, including the United States.
Senator Lankford stressed that asylum seekers are supposed to follow the same international standard, which entails going to the nearest safe place and requesting asylum there. However, the United States appears to deviate from this standard in its policy and practices regarding asylum seekers.
The US dollar could encounter a formidable challenge from BRICS countries due to their expanding size and influence in global trade, warns former White House economist Joe Sullivan.
Sullivan, in a recent op-ed for Foreign Policy, highlighted the rising concerns that BRICS nations might introduce a currency to rival the US dollar in international trade. This potential currency could potentially displace the dollar from its current dominant position in global trade markets and as the primary reserve currency.
Although BRICS officials have denied the existence of such a rival currency, Sullivan cautioned that the bloc of emerging market countries, which has recently welcomed Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, poses a threat to the greenback based on its growing influence.
Sullivan also pointed out the substantial influence of the BRICS bloc in commodities markets. Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the United Arab Emirates are among the world’s leading exporters of fossil fuels, while Brazil, China, and Russia are significant exporters of precious metals.
The inclusion of Saudi Arabia, in particular, could provide BRICS+ with a significant advantage, as the Middle Eastern nation holds over $100 billion in US Treasury bonds, contributing to the total holdings of US Treasurys by BRICS countries surpassing $1 trillion, according to Sullivan.
Sullivan argued, “The BRICS+ nations do not need to wait until a shared trade currency meets the technical conditions typical of a global reserve currency before they swing their newly enlarged economic wrecking ball at the dollar.”
He also highlighted the growing prominence of China’s yuan in global trade, as Beijing’s trading partners increasingly use the renminbi.
Sullivan further warned that these trends could eventually place the US dollar in a position similar to that of the British pound in the 1800s when it lost its international dominance.
He explained, “The BRICS+ states do not even necessarily need to have a shared trade currency to chip away at King Dollar’s domain. If BRICS+ demanded that you pay each member in its own national currency to trade with any of them, the dollar’s role in the world economy would diminish. There would not be a clear replacement for the dollar as a global reserve. A variety of currencies would gain in importance.”
However, some economists hold a different view, suggesting that the US dollar’s role as the world’s primary trading and reserve currency will likely persist for an extended period. The data from the Bank of International Settlements and the International Monetary Fund show that the greenback continues to outperform rival currencies in international trade and central bank reserves by a significant margin. The yuan has only recently made modest gains in central banks’ holdings.
A recent survey conducted by NBC News and the Des Moines Register, renowned for its reliability in Iowa, reveals that Vivek Ramaswamy’s popularity is on a downward slope as voters become more familiar with him.
The poll, which places former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis at 16% each, positions them as secondary Republican candidates, with Donald Trump leading at 43%. Vivek Ramaswamy is trailing behind, standing at 4%, even falling behind Senator Tim Scott (R-SC) at 7% and former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie at 5%.
The concerning aspect for Ramaswamy is the significant increase in his unfavorable ratings. Back in late summer, 38% of respondents viewed him favorably, while only 20% held an unfavorable opinion. Now, the unfavorable rating has nearly doubled, reaching 37%, while his favorability has increased by just 5% to 43%.
These changes in perception seem closely linked to Iowans’ growing familiarity with Ramaswamy. In August, 41% of respondents didn’t know enough about him to form an opinion. That figure has now dropped to 20%. This shift is supported by anecdotes reported by Meryl Kornfield of The Washington Post.
The unfavorable trends continue for Ramaswamy as he fails to capture the second-choice preference of most Trump supporters. DeSantis is the preferred choice of 41% of Trump voters, followed by Haley at 16%. Even though Haley’s platform differs significantly from Trump’s, she is favored as the second choice by 15% of Trump voters, outperforming Ramaswamy.
Of note is Haley’s growing popularity, which coincides with Ramaswamy’s campaign’s stagnation, despite Ramaswamy’s attempts to position her as his foil. In a recent conversation with Tucker Carlson, Ramaswamy even insinuated that Haley’s call for the destruction of Hamas after a terror attack in Israel was motivated by a profit incentive.
“I don’t think she’s a child; I think that she is somebody, like many politicians, in a position to profit from war,” Ramaswamy told Carlson earlier this month.
This comment prompted a challenging interview from Fox News’ Sean Hannity, focusing on this accusation and Ramaswamy’s broader foreign policy views, ultimately leading to a challenging interview for Ramaswamy.
As the Iowa caucuses draw nearer, the Republican Party finds itself in a race against time to rally behind a single candidate as an alternative to former President Trump. The recent exit of former Vice President Mike Pence from the race has increased pressure on low-polling candidates to follow suit, particularly as figures like former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley gain ground and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis faces a decline in popularity.
A new Iowa poll further underscores the challenge Republicans face in challenging Trump’s dominance. The NBC News/Des Moines Register/Mediacom poll revealed that Trump maintains a substantial 27-point lead over his nearest competitor in Iowa, an increase from his 23-point lead in August. Haley and DeSantis are tied for second place at 16 percent, with Haley gaining 10 points since August, while DeSantis has slipped by 3 points.
Non-Trump candidates continue to vie for the position of the primary alternative, but Trump’s substantial lead in key states and nationally poses a considerable hurdle. Republican consultant Nicole Schlinger of Iowa highlights the importance of undercard candidates confronting Trump head-on to improve their prospects.
While some minor candidates have dropped out during October, Pence’s withdrawal marks a significant exit from the race. Pence, a former Vice President and close ally of Trump, emphasized his conservative and religious values and the continuation of Trump’s policies but struggled to gain traction in polls and fundraising, particularly in a race dominated by Trump. His inability to meet fundraising requirements, despite having met polling criteria for the third GOP debate, demonstrates the challenges he faced.
Even in Iowa, where a strong evangelical base might have offered a significant opportunity for Pence, he garnered only 2 percent support in the poll.
Political economist Michael Strain suggests that candidates, except for Haley, should follow Pence’s lead. DeSantis has consistently held the second position in national and key state polls, though recent polls indicate that Haley is closing the gap. Republican strategist Saul Anuzis believes that the current polling data reflects movements in the race rather than determining the ultimate strength of fundraising or political infrastructure. He emphasizes that it is too early to make definitive judgments.
Anuzis does not expect Pence’s withdrawal to result in a major shift in the polls. However, the collective decision of some candidates to withdraw does increase the pressure on remaining contenders to make decisions about their future in the race.
The most likely opportunity to challenge Trump could be at the Republican convention, where delegates are unbound and allowed to vote for any candidate. The convention’s rules, set at the outset, will determine the viability of an alternative.
Rina Shah, a Republican strategist, believes that a larger field is not necessarily problematic at the beginning of the voting process. Voters have multiple options other than Trump. She suggests that it’s uncertain when a clear single alternative should emerge. Shah argues that Nikki Haley has a compelling case to be the primary alternative, given her strong performances in the first two GOP debates. She anticipates that Haley could benefit if former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina drop out and support her.
Shah points out that in 2020, many Republican voters felt compelled to support Trump even if they had reservations. Now, they have more choices. In 2020, Trump faced minimal opposition for the nomination, whereas the current larger primary field adds an element of unpredictability to the race.
Donald Trump and three of his children are set to provide testimony in a business fraud case in New York. A recent ruling by a judge has mandated that Ivanka Trump, the former president’s daughter, must testify in the case, despite her previous dismissal as a defendant. Her brothers, Eric and Donald Jr., remain involved in the case. The New York Attorney General’s Office has scheduled testimony from all four family members, starting with Donald Trump Jr., with the former president himself expected to testify on November 6th.
The trial, presided over by Judge Arthur Engoron, centers on allegations that Mr. Trump artificially inflated property values to secure favorable loans. Additionally, it encompasses six other claims, including falsification of business records, insurance fraud, and conspiracy. Trump and his co-defendants have consistently denied these allegations.
Donald Trump has expressed his willingness to testify from the outset. Ivanka, on the other hand, had previously sought to avoid providing testimony, citing her move to Florida and her disassociation from the Trump Organization in 2017. However, Judge Engoron determined that she still maintains connections to Trump-related enterprises and real estate in New York. Prosecutors argue that Ivanka Trump possesses crucial information relevant to the case.
In his decision to compel Ivanka’s testimony, Judge Engoron supported the prosecutors, asserting that “Ms. Trump has clearly availed herself of the privilege of doing business in New York.” He cited documentation illustrating her continued ownership or management involvement in some New York-based businesses and her ownership of Manhattan apartments.
This civil fraud case, initiated by New York Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat, seeks penalties of $250 million and severe constraints on Mr. Trump’s businesses. The former president, currently the leading contender for the Republican nomination in the 2024 election, has consistently dismissed the case as politically motivated and a “sham.”
Gun violence remains a persistent and divisive issue in the United States, sparking passionate debates between proponents of gun control and advocates of the right to bear arms. We delve into the numbers and trends surrounding firearms in the US, shedding light on the complex landscape of gun-related incidents and their impact on American society.
Rising Mass Shootings
The United States has witnessed a troubling increase in mass shootings, defined as incidents in which four or more individuals are injured or killed. The Gun Violence Archive reports that there have been over 560 mass shootings in the US so far this year. Notably, this issue encompasses shootings occurring both in public spaces and within homes. Over the past three years, the country has consistently experienced over 600 mass shootings annually, averaging nearly two per day.
The most devastating mass shooting occurred in Las Vegas in 2017, resulting in the deaths of more than 50 people and injuries to 500 others. However, the majority of mass shootings claim fewer than 10 lives.
Gun Deaths Breakdown
In 2021, there were 48,830 gun-related deaths in the US, marking an almost 8% increase from the previous year, which itself set a record for firearm-related fatalities. While mass shootings and gun homicides receive significant media attention, more than half of gun-related deaths in 2021 were suicides. Of the total deaths that year, over 20,000 were homicides, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Disturbingly, the data indicates that over 50 individuals are killed daily by firearms in the United States. This figure represents a substantially higher proportion of homicides than in several other countries, including Canada, Australia, England, and Wales.
The Proliferation of Guns
Estimating the precise number of privately owned firearms worldwide is a challenging task, but the Small Arms Survey, a Swiss-based research project, reported that there were 390 million guns in circulation in the US in 2018. The US’s gun-to-resident ratio stands at 120.5 firearms per 100 residents, a considerable increase from 88 per 100 residents in 2011.
More recent data suggests a significant surge in gun ownership in recent years. A study published in February by the Annals of Internal Medicine revealed that 7.5 million US adults became new gun owners between January 2019 and April 2021. Consequently, 11 million people were exposed to firearms in their households, including 5 million children. This increase in gun ownership reflects a shift, with roughly 50% of new gun owners being women, and 40% identifying as black or Hispanic.
Gun Control Advocates and Public Opinion
Gun control enjoys broad support among the American public. According to Gallup polling, 57% of Americans surveyed expressed a desire for stricter gun laws, although this figure saw a slight decrease in the past year. Meanwhile, 32% believe that existing laws should remain unchanged, and 10% called for less stringent regulations.
However, the issue remains highly polarized, primarily falling along party lines. Gallup studies highlight this divide, with nearly 91% of Democrats supporting stricter gun laws, while only 24% of Republicans and 45% of Independent voters share this viewpoint.
In response to the ongoing gun violence problem, several states have taken measures to ban or rigorously regulate the ownership of assault weapons, with California leading the way in banning such firearms, allowing limited exceptions.
Conversely, some states have notably relaxed restrictions on gun ownership. Texas, for instance, passed a “permitless carry bill” in June 2021, permitting residents to carry handguns without a license or training. Similarly, Georgia became the 25th state to eliminate the need for a permit to carry a firearm openly or concealed. The NRA supported this move, hailing it as a significant moment for the Second Amendment.
Additional Insights into Gun Violence
Despite the divisive nature of the gun control debate, research and statistics help paint a clearer picture of the ongoing gun violence issue in the United States. While the country continues to experience a disturbing number of mass shootings, it’s important to note that gun deaths encompass not only homicides but also suicides, highlighting the need for comprehensive approaches to address the problem.
Moreover, the proliferation of firearms, including a significant increase in gun ownership over recent years, underscores the challenge of curbing gun violence in the country. These dynamics emphasize the importance of balanced and informed discussions surrounding gun control policies and regulations, taking into account the complexities and deeply held beliefs that underpin this issue.
A judge presiding over Donald Trump’s New York fraud trial confronted a dilemma that the political world has struggled to address: how to rein in the former president’s anger, tantrums, and disregard for rules. This extraordinary day in court saw Trump ordered to testify about his conduct, offering a glimpse of what lies ahead as he faces four criminal trials in the coming year, adding complexity to the upcoming election season.
In a surprising reversal of power dynamics, the judge in New York firmly rebuked the former president, declaring him “not credible” and underscoring that no one is above the law. As a defendant, Trump is now constrained from acting and speaking without restraint, a dynamic that will extend beyond the current trial, setting a pattern for his legal battles as he positions himself as the front-runner for the 2024 GOP nomination.
Despite two impeachments and an electoral defeat, Trump’s ability to incite public outrage, manipulate facts, and distort reality has been largely unchecked. However, the courtroom’s commitment to factual accuracy may pose a challenge.
Trump has exhibited simmering frustration during the ongoing fraud trial, which could result in his eponymous company being prohibited from conducting business in New York. The presiding Judge Arthur Engoron had ruled before the trial began that Trump, his organization, and adult sons had engaged in fraudulent activities by inflating the value of his assets, a ruling the former president has appealed.
Trump’s apparent frustration erupted in unusual incidents on Wednesday. He seemingly violated a gag order by making a new attack on the judge’s clerk, labeling Engoron as partisan. In response, the judge called a hearing and fined Trump $10,000 for breaching the gag order, which specifically prohibited him from targeting court personnel. Trump, however, denied the accusation and claimed he was referring to his former associate, Michael Cohen, who had testified against him. Trump was previously fined $5,000 for an earlier violation of the same gag order, involving a social media post targeting the judge’s clerk.
These fines may be relatively insignificant for Trump, considering his wealth, but they serve as a reminder of the legal consequences he may face in multiple trials. These trials cover a range of topics, from his business dealings to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, mishandling classified documents, and a hush money payment to an adult film star. Trump denies any wrongdoing in all these pending cases.
In another dramatic moment, Trump left the courtroom in a huff after the judge refused to dismiss the case due to what appeared to be inconsistent testimony from Cohen regarding Trump’s request to inflate financial statements. The judge firmly rejected the motion, contradicting the Trump team’s argument that Cohen was a crucial witness.
Trump’s tendency to provide ongoing commentary to reporters, despite the trial not being televised, indicates that he might be a challenging client for his legal team. This behavior could persist in his future trials, potentially causing more problems. However, the courtroom customs and legal constraints do not bend to emotional or political arguments, rendering Trump’s outbursts ineffective.
Trump’s behavior aligns with his strategy of leveraging his fame and public profile to shape perceptions. While lawyers argue the case in the courtroom, Trump conducts his own public trial in the corridors. Trump expressed his belief that he’s being treated unfairly, stating, “We are being railroaded here.” Nevertheless, unlike his past as a business tycoon and president, his emotional outbursts won’t secure his desired outcomes, as the court’s rules and the law remain steadfast.
CNN’s senior legal analyst, Elie Honig, noted that aggressive cross-examination by Trump’s legal team is permissible, but inconsistencies in testimony do not automatically end a case. “It doesn’t mean game over, let’s go home,” Honig explained.
Trump’s legal defense strategy has evolved into a political campaign that portrays him as a victim of a legal system manipulated by President Joe Biden to undermine his 2024 White House bid. This strategy has been successful in the GOP primary, helping him amass campaign funds to cover legal expenses and maintain a strong media presence, diverting attention from his campaign rivals.
Several judges are grappling with how to handle Trump’s unconventional behavior. Judge Tanya Chutkan, overseeing the federal election subversion trial in Washington, temporarily suspended a gag order to consider Trump’s request to pause the order during his appeal. She previously warned Trump that as a criminal defendant, he has limitations on what he can say about a case, which Trump’s legal team challenged, claiming it’s an attempt to silence him and hinder his presidential campaign.
The American Civil Liberties Union and its Washington, DC, chapter surprisingly supported Trump in this case, arguing that the broad gag order violated his First Amendment rights. However, prosecutors requested Chutkan to reinstate the order, citing Trump’s recent social media posts about potential witnesses.
Trump’s history of acting with impunity, both in business and politics, is now shaping his defense in legal cases. In the federal election subversion case, his team argues that his efforts to overturn the election were part of his official duties and thus immune from prosecution. Special counsel Jack Smith countered this, asserting that such a stance would allow a sitting president to act unlawfully without fear of prosecution.
During his tenure, Trump often claimed unchecked authority, stating that “the authority is total” when one is the president and falsely asserting that he had the right to do anything as president due to Article II. Trump’s constitutional arguments suggest that a potential second term would be even more lawless, as he has hinted at using the legal system for retribution against his adversaries.
Former Rep. Liz Cheney warned that if Trump regains the presidency, there would be “no guardrails” in his administration. While Trump faces legal constraints for now, his future actions as a potential president remain uncertain.
The U.S. State Department issued a global travel advisory on October 19, calling on American citizens to “exercise increased caution” when traveling abroad due to heightened tensions in various parts of the world, the potential for terrorist attacks, and demonstrations or violent actions against U.S. citizens and interests. This advisory is prompted by a combination of factors, including the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas in the Middle East and protests happening worldwide. It does not necessarily mean you should cancel your travel plans but serves as a reminder to be vigilant and informed while in unfamiliar environments.
Some travel experts recommend staying informed about your intended destination, considering your destination’s relative risk, and evaluating your personal risk tolerance. They also suggest avoiding areas with ongoing conflicts, studying maps to steer clear of danger zones, and purchasing travel insurance. It’s important to understand that events in one part of a country or region do not necessarily affect the entirety of that area.
The State Department’s travel advisories are usually specified by country, and they have raised advisories for specific regions, such as Lebanon, Israel, and the West Bank, to different levels based on the perceived risks. The highest level is “Level 4: Do not travel.”
Ultimately, the decision to travel or not should be based on your assessment of the specific risks, your own comfort level, and the conditions in your intended destination. Traveling requires preparedness and a readiness to navigate various situations, regardless of where you go. It’s crucial to follow the advisory’s recommendations to stay alert in tourist areas and enroll in the Smart Traveler Enrollment Program (STEP) to receive information and alerts.
While some travelers may choose to postpone their trips, it’s also worth considering that tourism is a significant part of many economies worldwide. The effects of broad travel advisories can be long-lasting, and if you’re uncomfortable traveling at the moment, postponing your trip may be a suitable choice. Ultimately, trust your instincts and make decisions that allow you to enjoy your trip safely.
As we approach the one-year mark before the 2024 presidential election, new polling data sheds light on President Biden’s vulnerability. His consistently low approval ratings, concerns about his age, and neck-and-neck competition with former President Trump in head-to-head polls have raised alarms, particularly in battleground states.
Within the Democratic Party, there’s a division of opinion about the implications of these findings. Some criticize Biden’s team for perceived complacency, while others argue that he needs to energize his base. On a more optimistic note, some Democrats believe that Trump is a risky bet for a general election due in part to the aftermath of the January 6, 2021 events.
A Democratic strategist, speaking on the condition of anonymity, expressed concerns: “What the White House has not come to terms with is, next year’s election is going to be a referendum on the president — and right now he is losing that vote.”
The strategist further highlighted the astonishing aspect of Biden being tied with a former president facing numerous charges. Trump would be a slight favorite in a 2024 rematch if the election were held today, based on national polling and the electoral college dynamics.
National polling averages, such as RealClearPolitics (RCP), have shown Trump leading for the past month, although he trailed Biden during most of the summer. An Emerson College poll even gave Trump a 2-point lead nationally.
Moreover, recent Bloomberg/Morning Consult polls in key states, including Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, revealed Biden trailing, though by relatively narrow margins. It’s worth noting that Biden won all four of these states in the 2020 election.
While not all polls indicate a grim outlook for Biden, the closeness of the numbers underscores ongoing concerns within Democratic circles. Biden’s age, as the oldest president ever, has raised red flags. Several surveys have shown that over 70 percent of the public has doubts about his ability to serve a second term.
His overall approval rating, as per data from FiveThirtyEight, was a mere 41 percent with 54 percent disapproving.
Vice President Harris shares a similar approval rating, which becomes electorally relevant due to concerns about Biden’s age. Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley has consistently argued that a vote for Biden in 2024 would effectively usher in a Harris presidency.
For some on the left, given the tight election polls, it is imperative for Biden to energize the Democratic base, including Black and Latino voters, as well as younger voters.
As President Biden faces the lead-up to the 2024 election, energizing key demographics may prove to be a complex task. There have been limited advancements on issues significant to the Black community, such as voting rights. Immigration remains a contentious topic and one where the President’s approval ratings are notably lower. Additionally, young progressives often hold more progressive policy stances than the President, making it crucial to galvanize this base.
Michele Weindling, the political director of the Sunrise Movement, a youth-oriented progressive group, emphasized that simply portraying Biden as the “lesser of two evils” may not suffice. She noted that Biden’s age isn’t inherently a hindrance to rallying younger voters, pointing to the enthusiasm among youthful progressives for Senator Bernie Sanders, who is over 82 years old.
However, Weindling highlighted significant policy disparities between her group and the President, including issues like climate change and the Israel-Palestine conflict. She stressed the urgency of addressing ongoing conflicts, such as the Israel-Gaza situation.
Some Democrats are more optimistic about Biden’s chances in the 2024 election. They draw parallels with past Democratic presidents like Obama and Clinton, who overcame challenging polling periods in their first terms to secure reelection. Proponents also cite Biden’s robust job creation record, declining inflation, and the expectation that the benefits of his legislative achievements will become more apparent over time.
Biden’s experience and measured demeanor are seen as assets that could appeal to many voters. His recent visit to Israel and his efforts to address international crises, including the war in Ukraine, have been highlighted as indications of his leadership.
Nonetheless, the most significant factor buoying Democratic optimism is the current state of the Republican Party. Former President Trump, the presumed GOP nominee, is entangled in various legal matters, including a civil trial and allegations related to January 6, election interference in Georgia, business conduct in New York, and the handling of sensitive documents at Mar-a-Lago. Additionally, the Republican House has been without a Speaker for over two weeks, reflecting internal divisions and challenges in governing.
The general perception is that these factors may hinder the Republican Party’s ability to effectively govern, contributing to guarded Democratic optimism about the 2024 election. Despite the closeness of the polls, many Democrats would prefer to be in President Biden’s position than that of former President Trump.
As the 2024 election approaches, the political landscape appears finely balanced, keeping many Democrats on edge.
The Supreme Court has granted a second major case on social media, focusing on whether the Biden administration violated the 1st Amendment by urging platforms to combat “misinformation and disinformation” related to COVID-19.
Three conservative justices dissented, advocating to maintain a judge’s order that prohibited administration officials from contacting social media sites, emphasizing the importance of protecting private speech. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch, criticized the court’s decision to take on the issue, considering it “highly disturbing.”
The Supreme Court now faces two opposing perspectives on how the 1st Amendment’s free speech right applies to social media. These perspectives were supported by conservative judges from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.
The first perspective argues that a state (in this case, Texas) doesn’t violate the 1st Amendment by imposing heavy fines on privately operated social media platforms for alleged discrimination against conservative viewpoints.
The second perspective suggests that federal officials violated the 1st Amendment by “significantly encouraging” social media sites to remove disinformation.
In both cases, Republican officials from Texas, Louisiana, and Missouri, along with 5th Circuit judges, assert that conservative viewpoints are unfairly suppressed on social media.
In the previous month, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a free-speech challenge to a Texas law granting the state the authority to regulate prominent social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. The law was criticized by NetChoice, a coalition of tech groups, for violating the free-speech rights of social media sites, but the 5th Circuit upheld it on the basis of combating “censorship.” The Supreme Court temporarily blocked the law with a 5-4 vote.
The new case emerged from a lawsuit initiated by Republican state attorneys general from Missouri and Louisiana, who alleged that federal officials, including the surgeon general and the FBI, had conspired to “censor disfavored speech” by “significantly encouraging social media platforms” to remove certain content.
They brought their complaint to U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty, a Trump appointee in Monroe, Louisiana, who issued a broad order on the Fourth of July that prohibited numerous federal officials and agencies from “urging or encouraging” the removal of “protected speech” from social media. He described the administration’s actions as “arguably … the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history.”
The Biden administration appealed to the 5th Circuit, and in early September, a different panel of three judges upheld most of the judge’s ruling. They argued that administration officials had engaged in a campaign to pressure social media companies into suppressing content disapproved by the government.
The injunction prohibits the White House and its employees from taking actions that coerce or significantly encourage social media companies to remove protected free speech content. U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar, representing the government, filed an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court, asking it to block the judge’s order and rule on the constitutional dispute.
She contended that the case involves an unprecedented injunction that empowers the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana to oversee the Executive Branch’s communications with and about social media platforms. She argued that the states lacked standing to sue, and White House officials had the right to speak out against the spread of falsehoods about COVID vaccines or the 2020 election.
The complaints from the Republican state attorneys general extended beyond COVID-19, as they claimed that “the FBI orchestrated a deceptive campaign to induce platforms to censor the New York Post’s October 14, 2020 story about Hunter Biden’s laptop, just before the 2020 election.” They also alleged that federal censorship activities intensified when President Biden took office in early 2021.
Jeff Landry, the Louisiana attorney general who initiated the lawsuit, was elected as the state’s governor last week.
The FBI expanded its data collection to include additional categories of religiously motivated hate crimes, including anti-Sikh incidents as a response to advocacy efforts by organisations like the Sikh Coalition.
Today, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) released its annual report of hate crimes statistics, reflecting information about hate crimes for 2022. The data reflect the highest-ever reported number of hate crime victimizations, with a 7 percent increase from 2021 to 2022.
Religiously motivated hate crime victimizations were at their highest since 2001, with an increase of 17 percent since 2021. Anti-Sikh hate crime victimizations were recorded by the FBI as the highest number ever at 198, and Sikhs still remain the second-most targeted group in the nation for religiously-motivated hate crime incidents. Victimizations were also on the rise for numerous other faith communities, with 1,217 anti-Jewish hate crimes, 200 anti-Islamic hate crimes, and 29 anti-Hindu hate crimes.
Picture: NDTV
In 2015, the FBI began collecting data about more categories of religiously motivated hate crimes (including anti-Sikh, anti-Hindu, and others) as a result of the Sikh Coalition’s advocacy.
We continue to believe that addressing hate remains an urgent policy priority in the United
States, and that Sikhs remain disproportionately under threat—due to our distinct and highly visible articles of faith as well as other intersectional aspects of identity.
We are encouraged that the White House consulted organizations like the Sikh Coalition to develop “Allied Against Hate: A Toolkit for Faith Communities” to help address hate crimes. However, this FBI data underscores the need for stronger initiatives by the federal government—especially as both international conflicts and divisive political rhetoric (in the United States and abroad) that demonizes marginalized groups continues to fuel more acts of hate against multiple different communities.
At the same time, as the Sikh Coalition has argued for years, the FBI’s hate crime data remains woefully incomplete so long as hate crime reporting is not mandated and undertaken with serious
care and standardized processes in law enforcement agencies across the country. This year’s data shows a fifth consecutive year of declines in law enforcement agency participation in the FBI’s
hate crime statistics program.
The Sikh Coalition and other leading civil rights organizations continue to document additional inaccuracies in hate crime reporting; as a reminder, federal-level estimates from the Bureau of
Justice Statistics put annual hate crime victimizations at 246,900, but this most recent data only captures 4 percent of that number.
Advocacy for federal and state policies that prevent, combat, and track hate crimes remains a top priority for the Sikh Coalition. We recently celebrated the passage of AB 449 in California, which will require every law enforcement agency across the state to adopt a hate crimes policy with detailed, specific protocols instructing officers on how to identify, respond to, and report hate crimes. Additionally, our flagship policy document, Combating Bias, Bigotry, and Backlash: Sikh American Civil Rights Policy Priorities, contains detailed recommendations for both Congress and the Biden Administration on how to improve, enforce, and gain better data from hate crime laws and policies.
Americans place a lot of importance on friendship. In fact, 61% of U.S. adults say having close friends is extremely or very important for people to live a fulfilling life, according to a recent Pew Research Center survey. This is far higher than the shares who say the same about being married (23%), having children (26%) or having a lot of money (24%).
How we did this
We decided to ask a few more questions to better understand how Americans are experiencing friendship today. Here’s what we found:
Number of close friends
A narrow majority of adults (53%) say they have between one and four close friends, while a significant share (38%) say they have five or more. Some 8% say they have no close friends.
There’s an age divide in the number of close friends people have. About half of adults 65 and older (49%) say they have five or more close friends, compared with 40% of those 50 to 64, 34% of those 30 to 49 and 32% of those younger than 30. In turn, adults under 50 are more likely than their older counterparts to say they have between one and four close friends.
There are only modest differences in the number of close friendships men and women have. Half of men and 55% of women say they have between one and four close friends. And 40% of men
and 36% of women say they have five or more close friends.
Gender of friends
Most adults (66%) say all or most of their close friends are the same gender as them. Women are more likely to say this than men (71% vs. 61%).
Among adults ages 50 and older, 74% of women – compared with 59% of men – say all or most of their close friends are the same gender as them. Among adults younger than 50, the difference
is much smaller: 67% of women in this age group say this, as do 63% of men.
majority of adults (63%) say all or most of their close friends are the same race or ethnicity as them – though this varies across racial and ethnic groups. White adults (70%) are more likely than Black (62%), Hispanic (47%) and Asian adults (52%) to say this.
This also differs by age. Adults 65 and older are the most likely (70%) to say all or most of their close friends share their race or ethnicity, compared with 53% of adults under 30 – the lowest
share among any age group.
Satisfaction with friendships
Picture: FOX
The majority of Americans with at least one close friend (72%) say they are either completely or very satisfied with the quality of their friendships. Those 50 and older are more likely than their
younger counterparts to be highly satisfied with their friendships (77% vs. 67%).
The survey also finds that having more friends is linked to being more satisfied with those friendships. Some 81% of those with five or more close friends say they are completely or very satisfied with their friendships. By comparison, 65% of those with one to four close friends say the same.
The survey didn’t ask adults who reported having no close friends about their level of satisfaction with their friendships.
What do friends talk about?
Of the conversation topics asked about, the most common are work and family life. Among those with at least one close friend, 58% say work comes up in conversation extremely often or often,
while 57% say family comes up this often. About half say the same about current events (48%).
There are differences by gender and age in the subjects that Americans discuss with their close friends:
Differences by gender
Women are much more likely than men to say they talk to their close friends about their family extremely often or often (67% vs. 47%).
Women also report talking about their physical health (41% vs. 31%) and mental health (31% vs.15%) more often than men do with close friends. The gender gap on mental health is particularly
wide among adults younger than 50: 43% of women in this age group, compared with 20% of men, say they often discuss this topic with close friends.
By smaller but still significant margins, women are also more likely than men to talk often about their work (61% vs. 54%) and pop culture (37% vs. 32%) with their close friends. Men, in turn, are more likely than women to say they talk with their close friends about sports (37% vs. 13%) and current events (53% vs. 44%).
Differences by age
Those ages 65 and older (45%) are more likely than younger Americans to say they often talk with their close friends about their physical health.
There are two topics where young adults – those under 30 – stand out from other age groups.
About half of these young adults (52%) say they often talk with their friends about pop culture.This compares with about a third or fewer among older age groups. And young adults are more
likely to say they often talk about their mental health with close friends: 37% say this, compared with 29% of those 30 to 49 and 14% of those 50 and older.
GOP Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio failed in his second attempt to become speaker of the House, again falling short of the 217 votes needed to be elected and casting doubt about the way forward in the still-leaderless lower chamber.
Jordan won just 199 votes in the House on Wednesday morning, with 22 Republicans withholding their support and voting for a variety of protest candidates. All 212 Democrats voted for Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, the party’s leader in the House.
Jordan’s total was one fewer than the 200 he secured on the first ballot on Tuesday, a sign that he has struggled to make any inroads among the GOP holdouts. Four Republicans who voted for him on Tuesday defected in the latest vote, while he picked up support from two others. One member who was absent for the first ballot also supported Jordan in this round.
Republican Lawmakers rejected Rep. Jim Jordan for House speaker on a first ballot Tuesday, October 17th, as an unexpectedly numerous 20 holdouts denied the hard-charging ally of Donald Trump the GOP majority needed to seize the gavel.
Additional voting was postponed as the House hit a standstill, stuck while Jordan works to shore up support from Republican colleagues to replace the ousted Kevin McCarthy for the job. Reluctant Republicans are refusing to give Jordan their votes, viewing the Ohio congressman as too extreme for the powerful position of House speaker, second in line to the presidency. Next votes were expected Wednesday.
“We’re going to keep working,” Jordan said at the Capitol as evening fell. It’s been two weeks of angry Republican infighting since McCarthy’s sudden removal by hard-liners, who are now within reach of a central seat of U.S. power. The vote for House speaker, once a formality in Congress, has devolved into another bitter showdown for the gavel.
Picture: The Hill
Jordan (R-Ohio) secured 200 of the necessary 217 votes, while Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) got the full backing of Democratic members, with 212 votes. Jordan had gained some major momentum, picking up endorsements from key players who had initially said they would not vote for him. But during Tuesday’s midday vote, 20 Republicans cast votes for other members.
Jordan’s loss of 20 GOP votes – one more than former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) in his first of 15 votes to secure the gavel – has left the GOP even more uncertain when it can reach consensus over who should lead the party. A second planned vote was abruptly postponed from Tuesday evening to Wednesday.
Many in the party are rallying behind efforts that would give McHenry more power to act as a temporary Speaker, expanding a role otherwise appears to be largely dedicated to organizing the process of electing a new speaker.
Rep. Carlos Giménez (R-Fla.) – who has pledged to continue to vote for McCarthy for speaker – told reporters Tuesday that moves to further empower McHenry have gained momentum – “as they should.”
The political climb has been steep for Jordan, the combative Judiciary Committee chairman and a founding member of the right-flank Freedom Caucus. He is known more as a chaos agent than a skilled legislator, raising questions about how he would lead. Congress faces daunting challenges, risking a federal shutdown at home if it fails to fund the government and fielding Biden’s requests for aid to help Ukraine and Israel in the wars abroad.
With the House Republican majority narrowly held at 221-212, Jordan can afford to lose only a few votes to reach the 217 majority threshold, if there are no further absences.
Jordan conferred immediately afterward with McCarthy, who fared nearly as badly in January, having lost almost as many votes on the first of what would become a historic 15 ballots for the gavel.
In a recent CNN poll conducted by SSRS, the public’s perception of the Republican Party and its congressional leaders has deteriorated, partly due to a leadership crisis in the House of Representatives. The poll reveals that Republican-aligned Americans are divided on how the GOP should govern, and even though many Americans are dissatisfied with both parties’ handling of the nation’s issues, they still express more confidence in the Republican Party’s leadership in Congress compared to President Joe Biden.
As of the poll, 54% of respondents have more confidence in Republicans in Congress to address major national issues, while 45% have more confidence in President Biden. This balance has remained unchanged since the summer.
Picture: CNN
The removal of Kevin McCarthy as House speaker, which occurred after the poll was conducted, received mixed reactions. Half of Americans approved of McCarthy’s removal, while 49% disapproved. McCarthy himself had a 46% unfavorable view, with 21% having a favorable opinion, and 33% expressing no opinion. Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz, who initiated the motion to remove McCarthy, had an unfavorable rating of 44%, a favorable rating of 14%, and 42% were unsure about him.
Opinions within the Republican camp were divided, with 49% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents approving of McCarthy’s removal and 50% disapproving. Furthermore, there was little consensus on whether McCarthy’s removal was a good or bad thing for the party, with 30% considering it a positive development and 34% seeing it as detrimental.
These divisions within the Republican Party are reflected in the party’s presidential nomination contest. Among Republican-aligned voters who support former President Donald Trump, 56% approved of McCarthy’s ouster, compared to only 37% of those who didn’t support Trump in the primary.
This internal division is evident across multiple aspects of the Republican Party’s performance and its future direction. For instance, when asked about Republican leaders in Congress, 51% of Trump supporters approved of their work, compared to just 35% of other Republican-aligned voters. On the question of whether Republicans in Congress should compromise or stand firm on their beliefs, 52% of Trump backers favored standing firm, while 77% of other Republicans preferred working across the aisle.
Even on topics where there is agreement between the two factions, disparities exist. For example, Trump’s supporters are more likely to feel entirely unrepresented by the government, with 57% of Trump primary supporters believing they are not well represented in Washington, compared to 47% of other GOP-aligned voters.
Additionally, they are less likely to consider continued aid to Ukraine as important, with 45% of non-Trump Republican voters deeming it very or somewhat important, compared to 27% of Trump supporters. Trump supporters are also more optimistic about the government reaching an agreement to avoid a shutdown before the November 17 deadline, with 67% of Trump supporters viewing it as likely, as opposed to 57% of other Republicans.
In terms of the 2024 presidential nomination race, Trump has extended his lead, with 58% of Republicans and Republican-leaning voters supporting him. Other candidates, such as Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, former Vice President Mike Pence, and tech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, garnered less support, each receiving 8% or less in the poll.
Despite these internal party dynamics, the overall public perception of the Republican Party is highly negative. Nearly three-quarters (74%) of respondents disapprove of the way the GOP’s congressional leaders are handling their roles, a notable increase from 67% in January. Furthermore, 52% of respondents have a negative impression of the Republican Party as a whole, an increase from 45% in December. Approval for GOP leadership in Congress has significantly dropped among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, decreasing from 58% in January to 44% at the time of the poll.
The public’s expectations for positive changes resulting from the Republican majority in the House have also diminished. Only 18% of respondents believe there has been a positive effect on the federal budget, 23% on oversight of the Biden administration, 17% on immigration laws, and 16% on the level of cooperation within the federal government. These figures reflect a decrease in optimism since December.
However, the challenges facing the Republican Party have not improved public opinion of Democrats. Just 35% of respondents approve of the way Democratic leaders in Congress are handling their roles, down from 40% in January. Additionally, 50% of respondents have an unfavorable opinion of the Democratic Party, an increase from 44% in December.
The poll indicates widespread frustration with both political parties, with 58% expressing anger at both parties’ handling of the nation’s problems. Another 15% are only angry at Republicans, and 13% are only angry at Democrats, leaving just 14% who are not angry with either party. Moreover, only 19% feel even somewhat well represented by the federal government in Washington, the lowest percentage in CNN polling since 2015. A substantial 81% now feel they are not represented well by the federal government.
Despite broad preferences for leaders in Congress and the White House to compromise in order to achieve results, 69% of respondents believe it is unlikely that attempts at bipartisanship on upcoming major legislation in Washington will be successful.
Regarding the imminent major legislation to fund the government by November 17, most Americans (57%) believe it is at least somewhat likely that a deal will be reached, with only 10% considering it “very likely.” Additionally, 81% of Americans find it unacceptable for members of Congress to threaten a government shutdown during budget negotiations to achieve their goals, with this sentiment being shared across party lines, including among Democrats (89%), independents (81%), and Republicans (72%).
This CNN Poll was conducted by SSRS from October 4-9 and included a random national sample of 1,255 adults, which also comprised 428 Republican and Republican-leaning independent voters. Surveys were conducted either online or by telephone with a live interviewer. The margin of sampling error for the full sample is plus or minus 3.4 points, and it is 5.7 points for results among Republican and Republican-leaning voters.
The prevalence of unexpected and added fees, encountered by consumers when purchasing airline tickets, renting a car, or even ordering takeout, is the focus of new initiatives announced by the Biden administration. Their aim is to combat these so-called “junk fees” and provide buyers with more transparency regarding their payments.
President Biden expressed his concerns at the White House, saying, “Folks are… tired of being taken advantage of, and being played for suckers.” He emphasized that while these “junk fees” may not be significant to the wealthy, they certainly matter to working-class families.
One significant move unveiled is a proposal by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) that would prevent companies in various sectors from imposing concealed and deceptive fees. This rule would mandate sellers to disclose all essential costs upfront. The FTC could potentially impose financial penalties on companies that violate this rule. Proponents argue that this regulation will enable consumers to make more informed price comparisons and create a level playing field for businesses that are transparent about their costs.
Additionally, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has instructed banks and credit unions to offer basic information to customers, such as their account balances, without any fees. The White House further disclosed that the CFPB will introduce a separate rule later this month, compelling financial institutions to enable customers to conveniently share their data with other banks if they wish to switch.
However, the Biden administration’s actions have sparked criticism from some quarters. Neil Bradley, the executive vice president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, argued that the crackdown on “junk fees” would negatively impact consumers. He expressed puzzlement at the notion that the administration believes it can assist consumers by regulating the pricing of the numerous transactions occurring daily.
On the contrary, consumer advocates have lauded the administration’s efforts. They estimate that “junk fees” cost consumers more than $64 billion annually. Erin Witte, the director of consumer protection at the Consumer Federation of America, affirmed that Americans, regardless of their political affiliations, are weary of being subjected to deceitful and worthless fees. She also pointed out that these fees disproportionately affect low-income consumers and communities of color.
Chip Rogers, the president and CEO of the American Hotel & Lodging Association, announced that the organization will review the FTC rule. However, he emphasized their support for establishing a uniform standard for displaying mandatory fees within the lodging industry. This standard would apply across short-term rental platforms, where such fees are prevalent, online travel agencies, metasearch sites, and hotels.
President Biden had previously urged lawmakers to pass the Junk Fees Prevention Act in his State of the Union speech earlier this year. The proposed legislation seeks to limit the excessive fees imposed by companies.
Republicans launched an attack on Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Monday as the prominent environmental attorney and anti-vaccine activist officially announced his independent bid for the White House. This move has stirred concerns among conservatives that Kennedy, a former Democrat, could siphon votes away from former President Donald Trump in the 2024 election.
The Republican National Committee and Trump’s campaign wasted no time in critiquing Kennedy’s liberal background. Meanwhile, national Democrats remained silent on the matter as Kennedy made it clear in a speech in Philadelphia that he was distancing himself from both political parties.
Trump spokesperson Steven Cheung issued a statement cautioning voters not to be misled by those who feign conservative values. Cheung described Kennedy’s campaign as a “vanity project for a liberal Kennedy looking to cash in on his family’s name.”
This strong reaction highlights the uncertainty surrounding Kennedy’s much-anticipated decision to run as an independent. While it is likely to impact the 2024 race, which is shaping up to be a rematch between Trump and President Joe Biden, the exact implications remain unclear.
Kennedy, a member of one of the most renowned families in Democratic politics, initially pursued an improbable primary bid and surprisingly held more favorability among Republicans than Democrats. Even Trump himself had expressed his positive opinion of Kennedy just two weeks prior, stating, “I like him a lot. I’ve known him for a long time.”
Both Biden and Trump’s allies had, at times, questioned whether Kennedy would act as a spoiler against their respective candidates. Kennedy acknowledged both sides’ concerns, stating, “The truth is, they’re both right. My intention is to spoil it for both of them.”
Speaking from Philadelphia’s Independence Mall, where America’s founding documents were adopted, Kennedy emphasized his desire to distance himself from either political party. He spoke of a “rising tide of discontent” in the nation and expressed his aim to make a “new declaration of independence” from corporations, the media, and the two major political parties.
Hundreds of supporters, holding signs with slogans like “Declare your independence,” and chanting “RFK, all the way!” were enthusiastic about his decision. His supporters comprised a diverse mix of disillusioned Democrats, Trump voters seeking change, and political outsiders whose beliefs did not align with any single party. They believed that Kennedy could bring them together.
Peter Pantazis, a 40-year-old business owner from Delaware, expressed his optimism, saying, “He’s going to win. I’ve been praying that he’s going to decentralize the campaign, get away from the party system, and actually be the candidate of the people for the people. And that’s what he announced today.”
Brent Snyder, a disabled veteran from south Philadelphia, stated, “The last couple of years I’ve been noticing the Republican Party’s been going a way I didn’t like. Not that I agree with everything that’s happening to Trump, but I think right now he has more baggage than his country needs. The division right now is just terrible. We need someone to bring both sides together to make us work.”
The atmosphere among the crowd was filled with joy, hope, and occasionally, the faint scent of marijuana. Kennedy invoked historical figures like John Adams and George Washington to make a case for unity and warned against the pitfalls of partisan politics.
However, Kennedy’s independent campaign faces significant challenges in competing with the well-funded, experienced campaigns of Trump and Biden. During his announcement, there was a brief delay when he found that his speech was loaded upside-down in the teleprompter.
Kennedy’s decision to run independently comes shortly after progressive activist Cornel West abandoned his Green Party bid in favor of an independent presidential run. Additionally, the centrist group No Labels is actively working to secure ballot access for an unnamed candidate.
Recognizing the risk that Kennedy might draw votes away from Republicans, Trump’s allies have begun circulating opposition research aimed at undermining his support among conservative voters. The Republican National Committee released a fact sheet titled “Radical DEMOCRAT RFK Jr.” that highlighted instances of Kennedy’s support for liberal politicians and ideas, as well as his endorsement of conspiracy theories related to COVID-19 and past election claims.
On the other hand, Biden’s allies have largely dismissed Kennedy’s primary campaign as unserious. When asked for comment before the announcement, a Democratic National Committee spokesman responded with an eye-roll emoji. The DNC declined to comment on Monday.
Four of Kennedy’s eight surviving siblings issued a joint statement denouncing his candidacy, expressing concern about the potential harm it could cause to the country. They emphasized that while Bobby shares their family name, his values, vision, and judgment differ significantly from theirs.
Tony Lyons, co-founder and co-chairman of American Values 2024, a super PAC supporting Kennedy, dismissed these comments as part of a strategy to discredit him. He pointed out that disagreements within families are a natural part of democracy.
While Kennedy has historically identified as a Democrat and often invoked the legacies of his late father, Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, and his uncle, President John F. Kennedy, on the campaign trail, he has also developed relationships with far-right figures in recent years. He appeared on a channel associated with Sandy Hook conspiracy theorist Alex Jones and headlined an event on the ReAwaken America Tour, organized by Trump’s former national security adviser Michael Flynn.
Polls indicate that Kennedy is more favorably viewed by Republicans than Democrats. Some far-right conservatives have supported him for his fringe views, including his vocal distrust of COVID-19 vaccines, despite scientific evidence demonstrating their safety and effectiveness in preventing severe disease and death.
Kennedy’s anti-vaccine organization, Children’s Health Defense, is currently involved in a lawsuit against several news organizations, including The Associated Press, alleging antitrust violations related to their actions in countering misinformation about COVID-19 and vaccines. Kennedy had temporarily stepped away from the group upon announcing his presidential run, but he is listed as one of its attorneys in the lawsuit.
In September, the gross national debt of the United States reached a staggering $33 trillion, a new record following its previous milestone of $32 trillion earlier in the year. This alarming figure is accompanied by a concerning trend: the U.S. is currently spending more on paying interest on its national debt than on its national defense, as reported by the Treasury’s monthly statement.
The fiscal year up to August saw the Treasury disbursing $807.84 billion in interest payments on its debt securities, while the Department of Defense’s budget for military programs amounted to only $695.44 billion during the same period. This juxtaposition becomes even more significant when considering that the United States outspends every other nation on defense.
The recent years have been marked by significant government spending, leading to a deficit, which occurs when government expenditures exceed tax revenues in a fiscal year. The COVID-19 pandemic triggered the approval of several substantial bills, including the American Rescue Plan Act, with a price tag of $1.9 trillion. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the debt ceiling package signed into law in the summer to prevent a national default could reduce the deficit by $1.5 trillion over the next decade. However, the Committee for a Responsible Budget (CRFB), a nonprofit organization specializing in federal budget and fiscal matters, suggests that the actual savings could be closer to $1 trillion, depending on “side deals” outside the agreement.
CRFB President Maya MacGuineas emphasized the necessity of addressing healthcare, Social Security, and the tax code to regain control over the national debt.
The government’s borrowing spree in recent years took place during a period of historically low interest rates. However, as interest rates rise and prices continue to climb, the cost of servicing this debt is set to increase. According to the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, nearly $2 billion is spent daily on interest payments for the national debt.
Furthermore, the government’s substantial debt levels can crowd out other borrowing opportunities in the economy, making it more difficult for corporations to secure loans. As Phillip Braun, a clinical professor of finance at Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management, explained, “There’s only so much money in the economy, and so with the government borrowing such large amounts, there’s only so much that people are willing to lend overall in the economy, so it pushes out other types of borrowing.” The government had an opportunity to refinance its debt when interest rates were low, but this opportunity was missed, leading to unnecessarily higher borrowing costs.
Who Owns America’s National Debt?
The national debt in the United States is diverse, similar to having various types of personal debt like credit cards, mortgages, and car payments. The U.S. Department of the Treasury manages the national debt, classifying it into two categories: intragovernmental debt and debt held by the public.
Intragovernmental debt, accounting for approximately $6.8 trillion of the national debt, represents obligations between different government agencies. The larger portion of the debt, around $26.2 trillion, is held by the public. This segment includes ownership by foreign governments, banks, private investors, state and local governments, and the Federal Reserve, primarily in the form of Treasury securities, bills, and bonds.
Foreign governments and private investors are among the most significant holders of public debt, possessing roughly $8 trillion. Approximately 50% of this debt is owned by private and public domestic entities, while the Federal Reserve Bank holds approximately 20%. However, there is a silver lining concerning the debt held by the Federal Reserve.
Phillip Braun explained, “The Federal Reserve owns a lot of government debt. The Treasury does pay interest payments to the Federal Reserve, but then the Federal Reserve turns around and gives it back to the Treasury — that alleviates some of the issues.”
A Warning Signal
Rising interest rates are poised to exacerbate the national debt crisis, complicating the government’s ability to respond to economic slowdowns. Michael A. Peterson, CEO of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, warned, “As we have seen with recent growth in inflation and interest rates, the cost of debt can mount suddenly and rapidly. With more than $10 trillion of interest costs over the next decade, this compounding fiscal cycle will only continue to do damage to our kids and grandkids.”
Republicans launched an attack on Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Monday as the prominent environmental attorney and anti-vaccine activist officially announced his independent bid for the White House. This move has stirred concerns among conservatives that Kennedy, a former Democrat, could siphon votes away from former President Donald Trump in the 2024 election.
The Republican National Committee and Trump’s campaign wasted no time in critiquing Kennedy’s liberal background. Meanwhile, national Democrats remained silent on the matter as Kennedy made it clear in a speech in Philadelphia that he was distancing himself from both political parties.
Trump spokesperson Steven Cheung issued a statement cautioning voters not to be misled by those who feign conservative values. Cheung described Kennedy’s campaign as a “vanity project for a liberal Kennedy looking to cash in on his family’s name.”
This strong reaction highlights the uncertainty surrounding Kennedy’s much-anticipated decision to run as an independent. While it is likely to impact the 2024 race, which is shaping up to be a rematch between Trump and President Joe Biden, the exact implications remain unclear.
Kennedy, a member of one of the most renowned families in Democratic politics, initially pursued an improbable primary bid and surprisingly held more favorability among Republicans than Democrats. Even Trump himself had expressed his positive opinion of Kennedy just two weeks prior, stating, “I like him a lot. I’ve known him for a long time.”
Both Biden and Trump’s allies had, at times, questioned whether Kennedy would act as a spoiler against their respective candidates. Kennedy acknowledged both sides’ concerns, stating, “The truth is, they’re both right. My intention is to spoil it for both of them.”
Picture: WPTV
Speaking from Philadelphia’s Independence Mall, where America’s founding documents were adopted, Kennedy emphasized his desire to distance himself from either political party. He spoke of a “rising tide of discontent” in the nation and expressed his aim to make a “new declaration of independence” from corporations, the media, and the two major political parties.
Hundreds of supporters, holding signs with slogans like “Declare your independence,” and chanting “RFK, all the way!” were enthusiastic about his decision. His supporters comprised a diverse mix of disillusioned Democrats, Trump voters seeking change, and political outsiders whose beliefs did not align with any single party. They believed that Kennedy could bring them together.
Peter Pantazis, a 40-year-old business owner from Delaware, expressed his optimism, saying, “He’s going to win. I’ve been praying that he’s going to decentralize the campaign, get away from the party system, and actually be the candidate of the people for the people. And that’s what he announced today.”
Brent Snyder, a disabled veteran from south Philadelphia, stated, “The last couple of years I’ve been noticing the Republican Party’s been going a way I didn’t like. Not that I agree with everything that’s happening to Trump, but I think right now he has more baggage than his country needs. The division right now is just terrible. We need someone to bring both sides together to make us work.”
The atmosphere among the crowd was filled with joy, hope, and occasionally, the faint scent of marijuana. Kennedy invoked historical figures like John Adams and George Washington to make a case for unity and warned against the pitfalls of partisan politics.
However, Kennedy’s independent campaign faces significant challenges in competing with the well-funded, experienced campaigns of Trump and Biden. During his announcement, there was a brief delay when he found that his speech was loaded upside-down in the teleprompter.
Kennedy’s decision to run independently comes shortly after progressive activist Cornel West abandoned his Green Party bid in favor of an independent presidential run. Additionally, the centrist group No Labels is actively working to secure ballot access for an unnamed candidate.
Recognizing the risk that Kennedy might draw votes away from Republicans, Trump’s allies have begun circulating opposition research aimed at undermining his support among conservative voters. The Republican National Committee released a fact sheet titled “Radical DEMOCRAT RFK Jr.” that highlighted instances of Kennedy’s support for liberal politicians and ideas, as well as his endorsement of conspiracy theories related to COVID-19 and past election claims.
On the other hand, Biden’s allies have largely dismissed Kennedy’s primary campaign as unserious. When asked for comment before the announcement, a Democratic National Committee spokesman responded with an eye-roll emoji. The DNC declined to comment on Monday.
Four of Kennedy’s eight surviving siblings issued a joint statement denouncing his candidacy, expressing concern about the potential harm it could cause to the country. They emphasized that while Bobby shares their family name, his values, vision, and judgment differ significantly from theirs.
Tony Lyons, co-founder and co-chairman of American Values 2024, a super PAC supporting Kennedy, dismissed these comments as part of a strategy to discredit him. He pointed out that disagreements within families are a natural part of democracy.
While Kennedy has historically identified as a Democrat and often invoked the legacies of his late father, Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, and his uncle, President John F. Kennedy, on the campaign trail, he has also developed relationships with far-right figures in recent years. He appeared on a channel associated with Sandy Hook conspiracy theorist Alex Jones and headlined an event on the ReAwaken America Tour, organized by Trump’s former national security adviser Michael Flynn.
Polls indicate that Kennedy is more favorably viewed by Republicans than Democrats. Some far-right conservatives have supported him for his fringe views, including his vocal distrust of COVID-19 vaccines, despite scientific evidence demonstrating their safety and effectiveness in preventing severe disease and death.
Kennedy’s anti-vaccine organization, Children’s Health Defense, is currently involved in a lawsuit against several news organizations, including The Associated Press, alleging antitrust violations related to their actions in countering misinformation about COVID-19 and vaccines. Kennedy had temporarily stepped away from the group upon announcing his presidential run, but he is listed as one of its attorneys in the lawsuit.
Charitable giving is a deeply ingrained tradition in the United States, reflecting a blend of entrepreneurial spirit, social consciousness, and religious values. The Philanthropy Roundtable reports that over 80% of all donations to charities and nonprofit organizations in the US come from individuals, and Americans outpace their European counterparts in giving by a factor of seven. Canadians, often known for their generosity, lag behind, contributing about half as much.
The philanthropic landscape in the US can be attributed to three unique elements:
1.Entrepreneurial Spirit: The American dream is synonymous with achieving success and giving back. Many individuals and corporations consider it a duty to help those less fortunate once they’ve achieved their goals.
2.Social Consciousness: From national organizations like the ACLU to local food banks and disaster relief funds, Americans have a rich tradition of assisting their neighbors in times of need.
3.Religion: The United States remains one of the most religious countries globally, with regular giving to churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, and other religious institutions forming an integral part of many Americans’ lives.
Now, let’s delve into the details of charitable giving in the US.
Percentage of American Households Engaging in Charitable Giving
The Philanthropy Roundtable reports that 60% of American households engage in charitable giving, reflecting the nation’s commitment to helping those in need.
Trends in Charitable Giving
Even amidst the global COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, charitable giving in the US continued to follow an upward trajectory. Charity Navigator, a watchdog for charities and nonprofits, notes that since 1977, Americans have increased their giving every year, with a few exceptions in 1987, 2008, and 2009. In this sense, 2020 simply continued the trend of giving more than the previous year.
Religious Giving
Determining which religious group is the most charitable is a complex task due to the diversity of America’s religious makeup. However, recent studies shed some light:
– Jews and Muslims donate more to public society benefit organizations involved in civil rights and social inequalities compared to their Christian and non-Christian counterparts.
– Among Christian groups, Mormons emerge as the most generous, followed by Evangelicals, Protestants, and American Catholics, particularly in the areas of family, children, and human services and causes.
– Jews stand out for their donations to non-Jewish organizations, showcasing the varied giving habits across different beliefs and traditions.
Average Charitable Contributions
The average annual charity donation for Americans in 2020 stood at $737 according to Giving USA. However, this figure can be misleading due to disparities:
– High net worth families donated an average of $29,269.
– For the general population, the average donation was only $2,514.
– The average online donation amounted to $177.
– Non-profit websites received an average of $1.13 from each visitor.
– Many Americans also contribute in-kind donations, such as goods to organizations like Goodwill, the Salvation Army, and local charities, as well as food pantries, which are often not monetarily quantified.
Thus, the average charitable contribution varies significantly based on income, donation method, and recipient.
Charitable Giving by Month
December is the peak month for charitable giving, maintaining its status as the preferred time for generosity in both 2019 and 2020. However, there are interesting nuances:
– In 2020, during the height of the pandemic, charitable giving experienced significant declines in March, April, and May, as reported by Nonprofit Source.
– Charities with recurring monthly giving programs receive an average of $52 each month per donor, showing the effectiveness of this approach.
– Donors who set up recurring monthly donations give 42% more than one-time givers, according to Nonprofit Source.
The Psychology of Asking for $19 a Month
Charities often request donations of $19 a month for two key reasons:
1.Psychology: Studies on consumer behavior suggest that prices ending in numbers like 4, 7, and 9 are perceived as more affordable and appealing. Thus, $19 appears more manageable than $20 to potential donors.
2.IRS Requirements: Charities and nonprofits must provide receipts for annual donations totaling $250 or more. Requesting $19 monthly ensures that the yearly total ($228) falls below this threshold, saving time and costs associated with sending receipts.
Charitable Giving Demographics
Understanding the demographics of charitable donors provides valuable insights:
Age Group: The average age of US donors is 64, predominantly representing the Baby Boomer generation.
Geographical Distribution: Utah stands out as the most charitable state in the US, with over half of the top ten states for total giving located in the South. This correlates with the generosity of Mormons and Evangelical Christians, who are among the country’s most significant donors.
Motivations for Charitable Giving
Research has identified seven key reasons why people give to charities:
1.Happiness: Giving triggers the release of dopamine, the “feel-good” chemical in the brain, leading to increased happiness.
2.Empowerment: Donors feel empowered when they witness their contributions directly benefiting their chosen causes.
3.Personal Connection: Many donors have personal or emotional ties to specific charitable causes.
4.Trustworthiness: Donors prefer charities and nonprofits with a track record of tangible impact.
5.Community: Being part of a larger community and making a difference motivates donors across various sectors, from animal welfare to the arts.
6.Awareness: Charities that effectively capture donors’ attention through advertising, social media, or community events tend to receive more support.
7.Tax Benefits: Tax deductions for charitable donations motivate a significant portion of donors, including those with modest incomes.
Charitable Giving by Income Group
A closer look at charitable giving by income brackets reveals some unexpected trends:
Those earning less than $50,000 annually donate a higher percentage of their income to charity.
Conversely, those with incomes ranging from $100,000 to $500,000 give the least in terms of total charitable donations relative to their gross income.
Charitable Giving Across Generations
Let’s delve into the fascinating world of charitable giving across different age groups, from the tech-savvy Millennials to the seasoned members of the Silent Generation.
Millennials: The Tech-Savvy Donors
Millennials, often associated with digital innovation, contribute an average of $481 to charitable causes annually, with a remarkable 84% engaging in philanthropy. They have a strong penchant for online giving, frequently opting for recurring donations, with over 40% setting up monthly deductions from their credit or debit cards. Furthermore, Millennials are avid users of mobile devices, employing phones, tablets, and laptops to research charities, make donations, and advocate for various causes.
The causes that resonate most with Millennials are children’s charities, health and medical nonprofits, local places of worship, and human rights and international affairs groups.
Generation X: Balancing Giving and Volunteering
Generation X, with an average donation of $732 per individual per year, boasts a 59% participation rate in charitable giving. While their donations may be fewer in number compared to Millennials, Gen Xers are more inclined to initiate fundraising campaigns and actively volunteer for charitable endeavors. Email outreach stands out as the most influential method for engaging this generation in philanthropy.
Gen Xers’ charitable preferences align with local social and human services organizations, animal-related causes, children’s charities, and local places of worship.
Baby Boomers: Generosity Knows No Bounds
Baby Boomers exhibit remarkable generosity, averaging $1,212 in annual donations per person. An impressive 72% of the Baby Boomer generation contributes to charitable causes, representing a significant 43% of all yearly donations. Many of these Boomers, who were once 1960s activists, continue to support causes related to social justice, world peace, and environmental issues.
Their charitable support primarily gravitates toward local social services nonprofits, animal organizations, children’s charities, human rights and international affairs, and local places of worship.
The Silent Generation: Quiet Yet Impactful Giving
The Silent Generation, born between 1927 and 1946, donates an average of $1,367 annually per person, with a remarkable 88% of them participating in charitable giving. Despite comprising only 11% of the US population, they contribute a significant 26% of all charitable donations. Their giving preferences lean toward organizations that reach out via direct mail and causes featured in the news.
Silent Generation donations predominantly support veterans’ causes, local social services, emergency and disaster relief efforts, and local places of worship.
Generational Giving Trends in 2020
In 2020, amidst the challenges posed by the pandemic, only two sub-sectors of nonprofit organizations witnessed notable growth in donations. Local human and social services organizations experienced a 12% surge in giving, while faith-based giving increased by 3%. Conversely, medical researchers and arts and culture subsectors faced declines in donations.
Medical research may have been affected due to the government’s extensive investments in COVID-19 research, potentially overshadowing other medical causes. Additionally, the dominance of COVID-19 news coverage may have diverted donors’ attention away from other health-related issues. Arts, culture, and humanities groups struggled to raise funds due to the limitations imposed by pandemic-related restrictions.
Religious and Church Charitable Giving
Religious giving holds a significant place in the philanthropic landscape, with all four major generational groups contributing to local places of worship.
Most Charitable Giving by Religion
Jewish individuals top the list, contributing an average of $2,526 annually, followed by Protestants at $1,749, Muslims at $1,178, and Catholics at $1,142. Jewish and Muslim donors often direct their contributions to social and human rights organizations, while Christian giving preferences vary by denomination. Nevertheless, 32% of all donations in the US find their way to local places of worship or faith-based nonprofits.
Average Family Contributions to Local Places of Worship
On average, Americans donate $17 weekly to their local places of worship, but surprisingly, 37% of weekly attendees do not contribute at all. Only 5% of congregants are consistent givers. The average weekly church donation per person has experienced a slight decline, dropping nearly 1% since the Great Depression. During the 1930s, Christians contributed 3.3% of their total income to churches, whereas today’s faithful allocate 2.5%.
An intriguing observation is that 75% of non-religious, non-affiliated Americans engage in charitable giving, with many directing their contributions toward faith-based organizations.
Religious Organizations’ Annual Revenue: A Closer Look
Religious organizations are a significant recipient of monetary donations, with approximately one-third of all annual donations flowing in their direction. In 2020, this amounted to a substantial $128.17 billion, as revealed by an extensive survey of IRS tax returns.
Picture: Giving USA
While religious giving has maintained its stability at around the 30% mark for several years, recent trends suggest potential shifts on the horizon. Religious affiliation and regular attendance have been on a decline, with only 36% of American adults claiming to participate in weekly worship.
Volunteer Fundraising Insights: Statistics, Facts, and Trends
We’ve already established that Baby Boomers tend to be the most active volunteers, but there are other intriguing aspects to consider when it comes to volunteering.
The Volunteer Landscape
In the United States, a remarkable 77.34 million adults, equivalent to 30% of the adult population, engaged in volunteering in 2020. These dedicated individuals collectively contributed over 1.6 billion hours of their time, reflecting the spirit of community service.
Volunteer Time Investment
On average, American volunteers devoted 3.5 hours per week to their chosen causes, resulting in an estimated total value of unpaid labor and services amounting to a staggering $255 billion, as reported by Americorps.
Shifting Volunteer Demographics
Notably, there have been discernible shifts in the demographics of volunteers. In 2020, the typical volunteer was more likely to be:
– Married
– Female
– Aged 35-44
– White
– Possessing higher or secondary education
– A parent with children under 18
However, this trend may not persist, given the influence of the pandemic. The pandemic necessitated adjustments, particularly for working mothers who switched to remote work to accommodate their children’s needs when schools closed. This cohort may have chosen to contribute their available “non-lockdown” time to fulfill community needs and simply to escape their homes. Additionally, older generations of volunteers expressed reduced willingness to volunteer due to COVID-19 health concerns.
While Baby Boomers traditionally lead in overall volunteering, in 2020, the younger Gen X and older Millennial mothers emerged as the most active volunteers.
Corporate Giving: A Look into Corporate Generosity
Now, let’s explore corporate philanthropy and what businesses contributed in the previous year.
Average Corporate Contributions
Corporate donations to nonprofit organizations amounted to $24.8 billion in 2020, reflecting a 6% decline, according to Giving USA’s report. Corporate giving closely aligns with pre-tax profits, in contrast to individual giving, which exhibits a stronger correlation with stock market performance. Last year, the stock market thrived while many corporations faced profit reductions due to the pandemic’s economic impact.
Leading Corporate Donors in America
In 2020, Pfizer emerged as the most charitable corporation in the United States, according to the Chronicle of Philanthropy. Completing the list of the top five most generous organizations are:
Pfizer
Gilead Sciences
Merck and Company
Walmart
Google
Corporate Contributions to Religious Organizations
Kroger stands out as Double the Donation Organization’s leading corporation in support of churches and other religious institutions. They generously contribute millions in both monetary funds and products to aid hunger relief, homeless support, and various programs managed by local religious entities.
School Fundraising Statistics: Impact of the Pandemic
In 2020, fundraising for K-12 schools experienced a notable 4.6% decline, as reported by Giving USA. Typically, schools generate approximately $5000 per school each year through fundraising activities. The closure of schools due to the pandemic likely contributed to this decrease in fundraising revenues.
Online Giving Trends: A Digital Perspective on Philanthropy
Online charitable giving experienced substantial growth in 2020, which can largely be attributed to the pandemic’s influence.
Online Charitable Giving Growth
In 2020, every sector witnessed a minimum of a 15% increase in charitable giving compared to previous years, with the overall charitable giving growth rate surging by 20%.
Insights into Giving Tuesday
The popularity of Giving Tuesday has continued to rise since its inception in 2012, with $380 million raised in the most recent year.
Origins of Giving Tuesday
Giving Tuesday was initiated in 2012 by the United Nations Foundation in New York City. It falls on the first Tuesday following the Thanksgiving holiday.
Online Crowdfunding Insights
Online crowdfunding has become an essential tool for nonprofits, with notable campaigns achieving substantial success.
Notable Crowdfunding Campaigns
Two nonprofit crowdfunding campaigns that achieved significant success were conducted by Save the Children and the American Red Cross, raising $20 million and $4.7 million, respectively.
Key Factors Influencing Crowdfunding Success
Success in crowdfunding campaigns largely depends on several factors, including:
– Extensive sharing on social media, with success rates increasing with the number of social media contacts. For instance, having 10 friends share increases success by 9%, while 100 friends lead to a 20% boost.
– Comprehensive campaign descriptions ranging from 300 to 500 words.
– Regular updates to engage and inform supporters; campaigns with updates every 5 days garner three times more donations.
– The inclusion of videos in campaign appeals, resulting in a 150% increase in donations compared to campaigns without video content.
Global Nonprofit Landscape
The world boasts 1.54 million nonprofits registered with the IRS, as documented by the National Center for Charitable Statistics. This expansive array of organizations offers numerous causes to support.
In Conclusion
Even in a year characterized by unprecedented uncertainty and upheaval like 2020, the spirit of giving has endured and, remarkably, flourished. Americans continued to give, and their generosity seemed to grow even amidst adversity, social unrest, and political divisions.
This enduring generosity reflects a remarkable facet of American society.
John Kelly, the former White House chief of staff under Donald Trump, has delivered a scathing critique of the ex-president in an exclusive statement to CNN. Kelly chose to set the record straight by confirming, on the record, several troubling accounts of remarks made by Trump behind closed doors, targeting U.S. service members and veterans. Kelly recounted a series of objectionable comments that he personally witnessed Trump make.
When asked to weigh in on his former boss, Kelly responded, “What can I add that has not already been said?” He proceeded to highlight Trump’s derogatory attitudes towards those who serve in the military and veterans. Kelly recalled Trump referring to them as “suckers” and insinuating that there was nothing in it for them. Trump’s reluctance to be seen with military amputees was another point of concern for Kelly. Additionally, Kelly emphasized Trump’s open contempt for Gold Star families during the 2016 campaign and his derogatory comments about fallen heroes.
Picture:CoopWB
Kelly continued to outline his grievances, noting Trump’s lack of honesty on various issues, including the protection of unborn life, women’s rights, minority rights, evangelical Christians, Jews, and the working class. Kelly expressed his belief that Trump had a fundamental misunderstanding of American values and principles. He accused Trump of showing admiration for autocrats and murderous dictators while displaying contempt for democratic institutions, the Constitution, and the rule of law.
In conclusion, Kelly remarked, “There is nothing more that can be said,” before adding, “God help us.”
Kelly’s statement serves as confirmation, on the record, of several details from a 2020 article in The Atlantic by editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg. This includes an incident where Trump, standing at Arlington National Cemetery’s Section 60 on Memorial Day 2017, questioned, “What was in it for them?” regarding the soldiers killed in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The Atlantic article also delved into Trump’s inability to comprehend the respect given to former prisoners of war and those shot down in combat. Trump’s public dismissal of Senator John McCain’s war hero status and his private labeling of McCain and former President George H. W. Bush as “losers” are among the details confirmed by Kelly.
CNN reached out to the Trump campaign for comment, revealing that a former administration official had confirmed details from The Atlantic’s 2020 story without naming Kelly. The Trump campaign responded by attacking the character and credibility of retired Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Mark Milley, who was not involved in the story. A Trump campaign spokesperson later dismissed Kelly’s statement as “debunked stories.”
Kelly’s statement also sheds light on a story from the book “The Divider: Trump in the White House, 2017-2021,” by Susan Glasser and Peter Baker. In this account, Trump expressed his desire to exclude wounded veterans from a military parade planned in his honor. Trump’s reasoning was that their presence did not “look good for me.” Kelly emphasized that wounded veterans are heroes, and their exclusion contradicted societal values.
This revelation aligns with a recent article by Jeffrey Goldberg in The Atlantic, profiling retired Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley. The article recounted Trump’s discomfort upon seeing severely wounded Army Captain Luis Avila singing “God Bless America” at an event. Trump’s reaction was, “Why do you bring people like that here? No one wants to see that, the wounded.”
Kelly’s statement also alludes to a comment made by Trump in response to the same article. This article, published in the final days of Trump’s presidency in 2020, detailed how General Milley received intelligence suggesting that the Chinese military was concerned that Trump might order a military strike against them. Acting with authorization from Trump administration officials, Milley reassured his Chinese counterparts that such an attack was not imminent.
In 2021, the revelation of this phone call was first made public in the book “Peril” by Bob Woodward and Robert Costa. However, Trump recently commented on his social media platform, characterizing the call as “an act so egregious that, in times gone by, the punishment would have been DEATH.”
When asked about the suggestion that he deserves execution, Milley declined to provide a direct response but emphasized his commitment to upholding the Constitution in an interview with Norah O’Donnell on “60 Minutes.”
Kelly’s statement to CNN follows an interview with former Trump White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson, who was promoting her new book, “Enough.” During the interview, Hutchinson issued a warning to the public, stating that “Donald Trump is the most grave threat we will face to our democracy in our lifetime, and potentially in American history.”
Interestingly, Hutchinson’s book, “Enough,” includes a scene in which she and then-White House communications director Alyssa Farah Griffin push back against Goldberg’s 2020 story. Griffin had issued a statement to The Atlantic after the story was published, denying its accuracy.
In response to inquiries over the weekend, Griffin remarked, “Despite publicly praising the military and claiming to be the most pro-military president, there’s a demonstrable record of Trump bashing the most decorated service members in our country, from Gen. Mattis to Kelly to Milley, to criticizing the wounded or deceased like John McCain. Donald Trump will fundamentally never understand service the way those who have actually served in uniform will, and it’s one of the countless reasons he’s unfit to be commander in chief.”
It is noteworthy that no other presidential candidate in history has faced such significant criticism from former members of his inner circle. Mark Esper, Trump’s former secretary of defense, conveyed his view to CNN in November 2022, stating, “I think he’s unfit for office. … He puts himself before country. His actions are all about him and not about the country. And then, of course, I believe he has integrity and character issues as well.”
Similarly, Trump’s former attorney general, Bill Barr, shared his perspective with CBS in June, characterizing Trump as “a consummate narcissist” who consistently engages in reckless behavior. Barr emphasized that Trump prioritizes his own interests and ego above all else, including the country’s interests, rendering him unfit for leadership.
In a dramatic twist of events, both the House and Senate successfully passed a measure on Saturday, ensuring that government funding remains in place until mid-November. This timely bipartisan effort materialized after months of fruitless negotiations within a divided Congress, leading many in Washington to brace themselves for an imminent government shutdown.
Had a bill not been passed by midnight, it would have marked the fourth government shutdown in the past decade. This would have dire consequences, affecting hundreds of thousands of federal workers and government contractors who would have been left without pay until a resolution was reached. However, as Saturday afternoon progressed, it became evident that both sides were diligently working towards a compromise to avert this crisis. Republican House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, despite facing resistance from the far-right faction of his party, made a surprising move by introducing a clean stopgap bill. He understood that the bill could only pass with substantial support from Democratic members of the House.
In McCarthy’s words, “It’s alright if Republicans and Democrats join together to do what is right. If somebody wants to make a motion against me, bring it. There has to be an adult in the room.” This measure extended government funding for approximately 45 days and included a $16 billion allocation for disaster relief. Notably, it lacked funding for Ukraine, which had faced opposition from many far-right Republicans. Furthermore, it did not incorporate border security provisions, which had been a priority for many House Republicans. Lawmakers pledged to address both of these issues through separate initiatives.
The swift and suspenseful developments on Capitol Hill on Saturday showcased the precarious position of the functioning federal government. Shortly after passing the House, the Senate also approved the measure with a vote of 88 to 9, forwarding the bill to President Joe Biden, who is expected to sign it before the midnight deadline.
This strategic move appeared to be McCarthy’s last-ditch effort to demonstrate that Republicans were committed to keeping the government operational after their initial attempts to pass their own stopgap bill had failed on Friday. However, it also exposed McCarthy to political risks, as he grapples with ongoing threats from the far-right wing of his party, who have vowed to remove him from the speakership if he collaborates with Democrats on funding. In essence, McCarthy decided to take a gamble on his political future in order to ensure the uninterrupted operation of federal agencies.
With House Republicans facing the challenge of governing with a slim five-seat majority, McCarthy’s leadership is most directly threatened by Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz and at least four other conservative hardliners. Gaetz remarked, “I’ve said that whether or not Kevin McCarthy faces a motion to vacate is entirely within his control because all he had to do was comply with the agreement that he made with us in January. Putting this bill on the floor and passing it with Democrats would be such an obvious, blatant, and clear violation of that. We would have to deal with it.”
Before the vote, House Republican leadership expressed a sense of inevitability, asserting that they had explored all other options. Dissident conservatives had previously derailed an earlier plan, leaving them with little choice but to pass a bill extending funding at the current annual rate of $1.6 trillion through November 17th. This closely aligned with the Senate’s approach, except for the absence of emergency funds worth $6 billion for Ukraine.
The decision to temporarily exclude Ukraine aid represents a significant setback for the White House and President Volodymyr Zelensky. Zelensky had met with President Biden just a week earlier and had urgently requested new weapons systems, including F-16 fighter jets and longer-range ATACMS missiles. The White House had requested $20.6 billion from Congress to support Ukraine in its ongoing conflict with Russia. A House Democrat revealed that Senate Democrats would initiate efforts to secure supplementary funding for Ukraine as early as the following week.
Rep. Mike Quigley of Illinois, the sole House Democrat to vote against the short-term measure, cited the absence of Ukraine funding as his reason, stating, “Putin is celebrating. We’ve got 45 days to fix it.” House Democratic leadership emphasized that Ukraine funding remained a top priority, asserting that they expected McCarthy to advance a bill supporting Ukraine for an up-or-down vote when the House reconvened.
McCarthy’s decision to advance the legislation on Saturday marked a significant departure for the Speaker, who had spent months attempting to appease a dissident faction within his party. Despite offering spending bills with substantial cuts and additional restrictions on migrants, he had failed to secure the necessary support from within his caucus. McCarthy expressed his frustration earlier on Saturday, remarking, “I have tried for eight months…I couldn’t get 218 Republicans.”
Picture: Yahoo
Rep. Steve Scalise, a Louisiana Republican and the majority leader, declared that his party would recommence the appropriations process on Monday. They would continue advocating for border security restrictions and spending cuts until the November 17th deadline. Scalise emphasized, “Believe me, this is not the end. This is the beginning of our continued fight to secure our border, to get government spending under control, and to get our economy back on track.”
The drama on Saturday extended to the Democratic side when Rep. Jamaal Bowman of New York inadvertently triggered a fire alarm in one of the Capitol office buildings. This prompted a building-wide evacuation at a critical moment when House GOP leadership was scrambling to pass the bill and Democrats were requesting more time to comprehend its contents. Bowman later clarified that it was a mistake, and he was hurrying to secure votes. However, Republican leadership has called for an ethics investigation into the incident, alleging that it was an attempt to delay the vote. Republican Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, also from New York, drafted a resolution to expel Bowman from Congress over the incident.
The passage of this legislation on Saturday concluded a nerve-wracking week in Washington, during which federal agencies prepared for a government shutdown that many believed was imminent. Essential workers, including the armed forces, air traffic controllers, and airport security personnel, faced the grim prospect of working without pay until the standoff was resolved.
While Congress successfully avoided an immediate shutdown, they have essentially deferred their problems to mid-November, when the latest legislation is set to expire. Congress has yet to make significant progress on the 12 annual appropriations bills that fund several federal agencies, raising the possibility that a shutdown could still occur, potentially during the Thanksgiving holiday period.
A resolution — titled a motion to vacate — from Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., passed Tuesday with the support of eight Republicans and all the Democrats present and voting. The vote made McCarthy the first speaker in history to be removed from office, a bitter humiliation that came after less than nine months on the job.
The California Republican told his conference shortly after that he would not run for the job again. It is a stunning outcome in the House that shocked lawmakers of both parties and left them wondering what the future will bring.
Republican Rep. Patrick McHenry, now the acting speaker, declared the House in recess until both parties can decide on a path forward. There is no obvious successor to lead the House Republican majority now that McCarthy has opted not to run for the job again.
McHenry will be unable to bring legislation to the floor or take it off. He also does not have the power to issue subpoenas or sign off on any other official House business that would require the approval of the speaker.
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?
The first order of business for McHenry would be to elect a new speaker.
As of now, it is unclear who House Republicans will nominate for the speakership. Some members left the chamber Tuesday determined to renominate McCarthy and vote for him for speaker until it passes. But now that he is out of the running, the path is clear for any Republican to jump in.
Picture : Reuters
Some members, including Gaetz, have been broaching potential consensus candidates like Majority Leader Steve Scalise or Whip Tom Emmer who they see as bringing the conference together. Other names up for discussion include Rep. Kevin Hern, chair of the Republican Study Committee, and Rep. Jim Jordan, the chair of the House Judiciary Committee and a favorite of the right flank of the party.
Once Republicans decide who to nominate for speaker, the House would have to vote as many times as it takes for a candidate to receive the majority of those present and voting for speaker. It can quickly become an arduous exercise, as it did in January when it took McCarthy an unprecedented 15 rounds to win the gavel.
ANOTHER SPEAKER?
Once a speaker candidate has won a majority of the vote, the clerk will announce the results of the election.
During a normal speaker election, which takes place at the start of each Congress, a bipartisan committee, usually consisting of members from the home state of the chosen candidate, will then escort the speaker-elect to the chair on the dais where the oath of office is administered. The oath is identical to the one new members will take once a speaker is chosen.
It is unclear if that is the same process that will be followed in this instance. It is customary for the minority leader to join the successor at the speaker’s chair, where they will pass the gavel as a nod to the potential future working relationship between one party leader and another.
Nearly all registered Asian American voters — 97 per cent — say a candidate’s policy positions are more important than their race or ethnicity when deciding whom to vote for, says a new survey.
At the same time, a 68 per cent majority of Asian registered voters say it is extremely or very important to have a national leader who can advance the concerns of the US Asian community, according to the Pew Research Center survey conducted from July 5, 2022 to January 27, 2023.
The findings assume relevance as the 2024 US presidential election approaches with two candidates of Indian ancestry, Nikki Haley and Vivek Ramaswamy, running for the Republican nomination.
The survey — conducted among 7,006 Asian adults living in the US — said Asian Americans continue to be underrepresented among elected officials in the country compared with their share of the country’s population.
As of the beginning of the 118th Congress, 16 House members and two senators claim Asian ancestry.
Asian registered voters tend to prefer the Democratic Party — 62 per cent are Democrats or lean Democratic, while 34 per cent are Republicans leaners.
Issues Asian American voters care most about
About four in 10 registered Asian American voters, or 41 per cent, say inflation is the most important issue facing their local community — by far the most common issue cited during this extended survey period, which ended in January.
Economic inequality (16 per cent) is the second-most mentioned issue, followed by violent crime (11 per cent) and racism (9 per cent).
These concerns follow reports of violence against Asian Americans during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Japanese registered voters (28 per cent) are more likely than Chinese (15 per cent) and Indian (13 per cent) voters to view economic inequality as the biggest issue facing their community.
Picture: VOX
Among Indian registered voters, 15 per cent say climate change is the most important issue facing their community. This is higher than the share saying the same among Filipino (7 per cent), Chinese (6 per cent), Japanese (6 per cent) and Vietnamese (5 per cent) voters.
Asian American voters’ views differ by political party
The survey noted that Asian Republican voters are more likely than their Democratic counterparts to view inflation as the most important issue facing the community they live in.
Even so, it is the most cited top issue for both groups.
Asian Democratic voters are more than twice as likely as Republicans to say economic inequality is the biggest issue facing their community.
Economic inequality is the second-most cited issue among Asian Democratic voters.
Among Asian Republican voters, violent crime is the second-most cited issue.
In addition, Asian registered voters born in the US are slightly more likely than immigrants to view economic inequality as the most important issue facing their community.
However, the importance of issues varies less by nativity than by party among Asian Americans. (IANS)
Anxiety grips 69% of Indian students in Canada due to diplomatic row
77 per cent of students who participated in the survey said their parents are “paranoid” or “worried” amid the Indo-Canadian diplomatic row.
Over 100+ Indian students studying across 20+ colleges and universities were surveyed for a recent report, the findings of which say 69 per cent of these students have experienced anxiety amid the ongoing Indo-Canadian diplomatic row.
The participating colleges included York University, Seneca College, Ryerson University, Centennial College, George Brown College, and Carleton University, among others. The survey was conducted by LooneyTooney, a platform assisting newcomers and potential immigrants in Canada to provide a data point to stakeholders like federal/provincial governments, colleges/universities, and locals to be able to take action to reassure the student community, as per a news release.
The survey found that 69 per cent of students experienced anxiety amid the ongoing tensions between the two countries, female students more than males. The anxiety levels were higher among students who have not spent much time in Canada than those who have been in the country longer.
The findings say 32 per cent of students are more worried about their physical safety than before while 77 per cent of students reported their parents are “paranoid” or “worried”. However, the survey also found that overall, students seem to be hoping that the ongoing situation is a temporary setback. 81 per cent of Indian students in Canada have their long-term plans of staying in Canada unchanged while only 9 per cent are considering leaving the country.
LooneyTooney founder Ashish Bhatia said, “Indian students in Canada are a vital bridge for people-to-people contact between the two countries. The students are worried about the short-term implications of the spat on their career and personal plans. Their well-being should be a paramount concern for various stakeholders who should take actions to mitigate the negative impact of current tensions.”
Indian students from the University of Toronto (UofT) participated in the survey as well. Recently, stated that it is fully committed to making the Indian community on its campus feel safe.
“U of T is proud to be home to more than 2,400 international students from India who enrich our classrooms and campus life, and many more students, faculty, staff, librarians, and alumni with ties to that country. We want to assure all impacted members of our community – and in particular international students – that you are welcome here and we are deeply committed to supporting your wellbeing,” read a part of the statement from Joseph Wong, vice-president, International.
The U.S. Congress passed a stopgap funding bill late on Saturday, September 30, 2023 with overwhelming Democratic support after Republican House Speaker Kevin McCarthy backed down from an earlier demand by his party’s hardliners for a partisan bill.
House Speaker Kevin McCarthy announced the stopgap proposal Saturday morning, a move that came after weeks of infighting among House Republicans and a failed effort to pass a GOP stopgap bill in the chamber. The bill passed the House with an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote, and it then was sent to the Senate. The final vote was 88 to 9. The House voted 335-91 to fund the government through Nov. 17, with more Democrats than Republicans supporting it.
The bill will keep the government open through November 17 and includes natural disaster aid but not additional funding for Ukraine or border security. The Bill will help avoid the federal government’s fourth partial shutdown in a decade, sending the bill to President Joe Biden, who signed it into law before the 12:01 a.m on Octpber 1st, 2023.
McCarthy abandoned party hardliners’ insistence that any bill pass the House with only Republican votes, a change that could cause one of his far-right members to try to oust him from his leadership role.
That move marked a profound shift from earlier in the week, when a shutdown looked all but inevitable. A shutdown would mean that most of the government’s 4 million employees would not get paid – whether they were working or not – and also would shutter a range of federal services, from National Parks to financial regulators.
The decision by McCarthy to put a bill on the floor that would win support from Democrats could put his speakership at risk as hardline conservatives continue to threaten a vote to oust him from the top House leadership post.
McCarthy was defiant after the vote, daring his detractors to try to push him out as he argued he did what was needed to govern effectively.
“If somebody wants to make a motion against me, bring it,” McCarthy told CNN’s Manu Raju at a news conference. “There has to be an adult in the room. I am going to govern with what’s best for this country.”
Federal agencies had already drawn up detailed plans that spell out what services would continue, such as airport screening and border patrols, and what must shut down, including scientific research and nutrition aid to 7 million poor mothers.
“The American people can breathe a sigh of relief: there will be no government shutdown tonight,” Democratic Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said after the vote. “Democrats have said from the start that the only solution for avoiding a shutdown is bipartisanship, and we are glad Speaker McCarthy has finally heeded our message.”
DEMOCRATS CALL IT A WIN
Some 209 Democrats supported the bill, far more than the 126 Republicans who did so, and Democrats described the result as a win.
“Extreme MAGA Republicans have lost, the American people have won,” top House Democrat Hakeem Jeffries told reporters ahead of the vote, referring to the “Make America Great Again” slogan used by former President Donald Trump and many hardline Republicans.
Democratic Representative Don Beyer said: “I am relieved that Speaker McCarthy folded and finally allowed a bipartisan vote at the 11th hour on legislation to stop Republicans’ rush to a disastrous shutdown.”
McCarthy’s shift won the support of top Senate Republican Mitch McConnell, who had backed a similar measure that was moving through the Senate with broad bipartisan support, even though the House version dropped aid for Ukraine.
Democratic Senator Michael Bennett held the bill up for several hours trying to negotiate a deal for further Ukraine aid.
“While I would have preferred to pass a bill now with additional assistance for Ukraine, which has bipartisan support in both the House and Senate, it is easier to help Ukraine with the government open than if it were closed,” Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen said in a statement.
McCarthy dismissed concerns that hardline Republicans could try to oust him as leader.
“I want to be the adult in the room, go ahead and try,” McCarthy told reporters. “And you know what? If I have to risk my job for standing up for the American public, I will do that.”
He said that House Republicans would push ahead with plans to pass more funding bills that would cut spending and include other conservative priorities, such as tighter border controls.
CREDIT CONCERNS
The standoff comes just months after Congress brought the federal government to the brink of defaulting on its $31.4 trillion debt. The drama has raised worries on Wall Street, where the Moody’s ratings agency has warned it could damage U.S. creditworthiness.
Congress typically passes stopgap spending bills to buy more time to negotiate the detailed legislation that sets funding for federal programs.
This year, a group of Republicans has blocked action in the House as they have pressed to tighten immigration and cut spending below levels agreed to in the debt-ceiling standoff in the spring.
The McCarthy-Biden deal that avoided default set a limit of $1.59 trillion in discretionary spending in fiscal 2024. House Republicans are demanding a further $120 billion in cuts.
The funding fight focuses on a relatively small slice of the $6.4 trillion U.S. budget for this fiscal year. Lawmakers are not considering cuts to popular benefit programs such as Social Security and Medicare.
“We should never have been in this position in the first place. Just a few months ago, Speaker McCarthy and I reached a budget agreement to avoid precisely this type of manufactured crisis,” Biden said in a statement after the vote. “House Republicans tried to walk away from that deal by demanding drastic cuts that would have been devastating for millions of Americans. They failed.” (Reuters)
The United States Senate has mourned the loss of one of its most prominent figures, as Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) passed away at her residence in Washington, D.C. at the age of 90. Her death marks the conclusion of a lengthy and illustrious political career that played a crucial role in paving the way for women to attain higher echelons of political authority in the United States.
Senator Feinstein passed away on Thursday night, September 28, 2023 at the age of 90, shortly after casting her final vote, a moment that senators commemorated with heartfelt speeches. Emotions ran high as several senators, standing just a few feet from Feinstein’s Senate desk, which was draped in black and adorned with a crystal vase filled with white flowers, spoke about their esteemed colleague.
Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) paid tribute to her, saying, “She was smart, she was strong, she was brave, she was compassionate,” his voice occasionally quivering with emotion. He emphasized her “integrity” as the standout quality, describing it as a “diamond” that shone brightly not only in the Senate but also across the nation.
Throughout her career, Senator Feinstein shattered glass ceilings. She was the first woman to represent California in the Senate, the first woman to chair the Senate Judiciary, Rules, and Intelligence Committees, and the first woman to serve as mayor of San Francisco. She was part of the historic 1992 class of women elected to the Senate, often referred to as the “Year of the Woman,” alongside Senators Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), and Carol Moseley-Braun (D-Ill.), which increased the number of women in the Senate from two to six. This number later surged to 25 by the start of the 118th Congress, with Feinstein cited as a significant influence.
Picture: The Hill
Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) praised Feinstein as a role model and highlighted her ability to foster bipartisan relationships, especially among female senators, both on and off Capitol Hill.
Feinstein also achieved the distinction of being the longest-serving woman in Senate history at the time of her passing, being likened to titanic figures of the Senate such as Senators Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.).
One of her most notable legislative accomplishments was the passage of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, signed into law by then-President Bill Clinton. This legislation prohibited the sale and manufacture of assault-style weapons for a decade, despite fierce opposition from the National Rifle Association (NRA). Schumer recalled the NRA’s relentless opposition but praised Feinstein for her unwavering stance against them.
While the ban expired in 2004, a 2020 academic study suggested that the number of mass shootings increased after its lapse. However, the effectiveness of the assault weapons ban remains a subject of contentious debate, and subsequent attempts to pass similar legislation failed, even in the wake of high-profile shootings involving AR-15-style weapons.
Senator Feinstein also played a pivotal role in opposing the U.S. government’s use of torture during the global war on terror that followed the September 11, 2001, attacks. In 2014, she released the Intelligence Committee’s report, which documented the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” against detainees, including waterboarding and sleep deprivation. This report raised doubts about the effectiveness of such tactics in gathering intelligence.
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) recounted the intense struggle to complete the report, as it faced opposition from the Central Intelligence Agency. Feinstein’s stand against torture techniques earned her praise, with Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) commending her for her courage.
Feinstein wasn’t afraid to deviate from her party’s leaders on occasion. In 2009, she broke with party leaders who hesitated to seat Roland Burris (D-Ill.) as Senator Barack Obama’s replacement due to ethical concerns surrounding then-Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich’s handling of the appointment. Feinstein argued that refusing to seat Burris would undermine gubernatorial power, a position that may have played a role in preserving California Governor Gavin Newsom’s authority to appoint her successor.
Throughout her career, Feinstein’s tenacity in pursuing policy goals and her ability to withstand political challenges earned her the nickname “Ali and Frazier” alongside Senator Barbara Boxer. Her personal touch and ability to foster camaraderie were also celebrated, with colleagues recalling warm interactions and gestures of kindness, such as ordering a purse for a fellow senator.
Senator Feinstein’s passing marks the end of an era in the Senate, leaving behind a legacy of trailblazing accomplishments and a commitment to integrity and principled leadership that will be remembered for generations to come.
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mark Milley, retired on Friday with a passionate address that indirectly criticized former President Trump, asserting that the U.S. military’s allegiance isn’t pledged to a “wannabe dictator.”
In the previous week, Trump had accused Milley of “treason” for allegedly conducting back-channel reassurances with his Chinese counterpart towards the end of his tenure, even suggesting the Army general should face execution.
Milley delivered his remarks at a ceremony in Virginia, stating, “We are unique among the world’s militaries. We don’t take an oath to a country. We don’t take an oath to a tribe. We don’t take an oath to a religion. We don’t take an oath to a king, or a queen, or to a tyrant or a dictator.”
He continued, “And we don’t take an oath to a wannabe dictator. We don’t take an oath to an individual. We take an oath to the Constitution, and we take an oath to the idea that is America — and we’re willing to die to protect it.”
Picture: VOA
Appointed by Trump in 2018, Milley frequently found himself at odds with the former president, notably in the incident involving St. John’s Church in Washington, D.C., during the racial injustice protests ignited by George Floyd’s murder in June 2020.
Milley briefly appeared alongside Trump, wearing combat fatigues, as Trump walked to St. John’s for a photo opportunity. Later, the four-star general publicly apologized for creating the perception that the military was involved in domestic politics, expressing regret for his presence — a move that didn’t sit well with Trump.
During that same summer, Milley supported the initiative to rename Army bases bearing the names of Confederate generals, a position that clashed with Trump’s views.
In the run-up to the 2020 presidential election, Milley sought to ensure a peaceful transition of power when he assured his Chinese counterpart that the American government had no intentions of initiating hostilities, as documented in the book “Peril” by Bob Woodward and Robert Costa.
Following the election, with concerns of a potential coup by Trump, Milley instructed his subordinates not to follow orders from anyone unless he was involved, as reported in “Peril.”
While Trump was not directly mentioned during Friday’s ceremony at Joint Base-Myer Henderson Hall, the speakers lavished praise on Milley for his over four decades of service to the country in the military.
President Biden commended Milley’s invaluable partnership, describing him as “unwavering in the face of danger.” Biden recounted an incident where Milley had run across a bridge laden with mines to prevent two battle tanks from crossing with wounded troops.
Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin referred to Milley as both a scholar and a warrior, emphasizing his dedication to leading the joint military forces.
The ceremony also featured the swearing-in of the incoming Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr., formerly the Air Force chief of staff.
In the aftermath of the second Republican debate, Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida shared his candid assessment of the event while sitting in the spin room with Fox News host Sean Hannity. He remarked, “If I was at home watching that, I would have changed the channel.” The debate unfolded as a meandering and often bewildering spectacle, seemingly validating former President Donald J. Trump’s decision to skip it. Apart from sporadic exceptions, the Republican contenders appeared content to engage in petty disputes among themselves. They largely refrained from delivering significant blows to the dominant front-runner, failing to disrupt the political reality that Mr. Trump continues to overshadow his rivals in national polls.
Here are five key takeaways from the two-hour debate characterized by overlapping conversations, unanswered questions, rehearsed comebacks, and a conspicuous absence of any mention of the legal issues surrounding the favored candidate:
Governor DeSantis of Florida initiated the debate by confronting Mr. Trump on a national stage, asserting, “Donald Trump is missing in action… He should be on this stage tonight. He owes it to you to defend his record where they added $7.8 trillion to the debt. That set the stage for the inflation that we have now.” This direct challenge had been long awaited by some allies and donors. However, as the debate progressed, this statement faded into the background, with candidates mostly choosing to ignore Mr. Trump’s commanding lead.
A pro-Mike Pence super PAC had issued a blunt message to donors before the debate, emphasizing the need to shake up the race. Nevertheless, the debate failed to produce any substantial disruptions, leaving the dynamics of the race largely unaltered. The 91 criminal charges against Mr. Trump went unmentioned, both by the moderators and the candidates ostensibly running against him. While the former president faced more criticism compared to the first debate, the seven candidates onstage spent most of the night engaging in disputes with one another, seemingly vying for the second-place position.
During the debate, Tim Scott directed criticism at Nikki Haley concerning curtains and a gas tax, and Ms. Haley reciprocated by challenging Governor DeSantis on fracking. Vivek Ramaswamy faced scrutiny over his past business dealings with China and was accused by Scott of lacking knowledge about the Constitution. Chris Christie attempted to steer the conversation back towards Mr. Trump, even suggesting at one point that he should be “voted off the island.” However, the overall result was a chaotic and unclear exchange.
Governor DeSantis’s performance aligned with what his supporters had been anticipating. Despite initial criticism from the media about his lack of assertiveness in the first debate, his allies believed it was effective. In this debate, he utilized the sole abortion question of the night to criticize Mr. Trump for his stance on Florida’s restrictive abortion ban. He skillfully sidestepped a question about his previous comments regarding slavery in the state’s curriculum. At the outset, Governor DeSantis appeared confident and in control, mostly avoiding heated arguments. Although he struggled initially to find speaking opportunities, he eventually spoke more than any other candidate. Towards the end, he pushed back against the moderators when they asked candidates to indicate which candidate they would vote “off the island,” deeming the question “disrespectful.”
Despite Governor DeSantis’s assertiveness, his sporadic references to Mr. Trump did little to suggest that he could close the substantial gap between himself and the former president. Shortly after the debate concluded, a senior Trump adviser, Chris LaCivita, called for the cancellation of further debates, indicating that Mr. Trump felt no immediate pressure to enter the debate arena.
Nikki Haley solidified her position at the center stage during the debate. Following her strong performance in the first debate, which had sparked renewed interest from major donors, Ms. Haley appeared comfortable in the spotlight. She took aim at Governor DeSantis and defended herself against attacks from Tim Scott, whom she had appointed to the Senate. She even delivered one of the more memorable lines of the evening, telling Vivek Ramaswamy, “every time I hear you, I feel a little bit dumber.” Ms. Haley, like Governor DeSantis, took aim at Mr. Trump, suggesting that he had focused on the wrong issues in dealing with China’s growing influence and highlighting areas where he had left America vulnerable. Her rising stature was further confirmed as rivals began to scrutinize elements of her record as governor and United Nations ambassador.
Tim Scott reasserted himself in this debate after fading into the background during the first one. He had experienced a decline in the polls following the initial debate but made a strong comeback. From the beginning of the contest, he actively sought speaking time and integrated his trademark optimism with pointed criticisms directed at both Vivek Ramaswamy and Nikki Haley. Notably, he refrained from targeting Mr. Trump. His standout moment came during an exchange with Governor DeSantis on Florida’s curriculum regarding slavery, where he chose to emphasize his life story and emphasize his belief that America is not a racist country.
Vivek Ramaswamy adopted a different approach in this debate compared to the first one. In the prior debate, he gained attention by launching personal attacks on his opponents and accusing them of corruption. However, polling data following the debate did not support the narrative of his victory. Republican voters developed a more negative perception of him, and he struggled in early-state polls compared to his performance in national online polls. Consequently, Ramaswamy adopted a conciliatory tone in this debate, chastising his competitors for attacking each other and repeatedly expressing his respect for them. However, this reinvented persona failed to resonate, as the other candidates at times appeared to bond over their shared disapproval of him. Ms. Haley even elicited laughter from the audience when she remarked that she felt “dumber every time he talked,” while Tim Scott criticized his business ties to China. Overall, aside from the critiques directed at President Biden, the harshest criticisms of the night were aimed at Mr. Ramaswamy.
Ramaswamy has a better chance of winning the primary against Trump as compared to Haley but the results were reversed if the Indian Americans were to contest Biden
The latest Harvard/CAPS Harris Poll, a monthly collaboration between the Center for American Political Studies at Harvard (CAPS) and the Harris Poll and HarrisX, revealed that if it came down to a one-on-one between Nikki Haley and Vivek Ramaswamy against former President Donald Trump, Ramaswamy had a better chance at winning.
Picture : ABC News
If the Republican party primary is down to two choices, Nikki Haley and Donald Trump, 38 per cent of the respondents said they would vote for the former while 62 per cent chose Trump. For the same question but with Ramaswamy and Trump as choices, the results were 40 and 60 per cent respectively.
For the same question, Trump held the maximum amount of votes, i.e. 30 per cent, with DeSantis in position two with 7 per cent of the votes, followed by the two Indian American candidates.
The results of Haley and Ramaswamy’s favorability among voters was flipped if they were to compete against President Joe Biden. In head-to-head presidential matchups, Biden would lose the election to Haley by 4 per cent, and Ramaswamy trails behind Biden by 2 per cent, as per poll results.
Vivek Ramaswamy has a better chance of winning the primary against Trump as compared to Haley but the results were reversed if the Indian Americans were to contest Biden
The latest Harvard/CAPS Harris Poll, a monthly collaboration between the Center for American Political Studies at Harvard (CAPS) and the Harris Poll and HarrisX, revealed that if it came down to a one-on-one between Nikki Haley and Vivek Ramaswamy against former President Donald Trump, Ramaswamy had a better chance at winning.
If the Republican party primary is down to two choices, Nikki Haley and Donald Trump, 38 per cent of the respondents said they would vote for the former while 62 per cent chose Trump. For the same question but with Ramaswamy and Trump as choices, the results were 40 and 60 per cent respectively.
Nikki Haley and Vivek Ramaswamy.
For the same question, Trump held the maximum number of votes, i.e. 30 per cent, with DeSantis in position two with 7 per cent of the votes, followed by the two Indian American candidates.
The results of Haley and Ramaswamy’s favorability among voters was flipped if they were to compete against President Joe Biden. In head-to-head presidential matchups, Biden would lose the election to Haley by 4 per cent, and Ramaswamy trails behind Biden by 2 per cent, as per poll results.
A recent CNN poll has brought concerning news for the White House and President Biden, with his approval rating at just 39 percent, a little over a year before the next election. In contrast, 61 percent of respondents expressed disapproval of Biden’s job performance, marking a significant drop from his 45 percent approval rating earlier in the year.
One of the standout findings of the poll is that former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley is the only GOP presidential candidate leading in a hypothetical matchup against Biden. The poll, conducted by SSRS, shows Haley ahead of Biden with 49 percent to 43 percent. Notably, all other major Republican candidates are locked in tight races with the incumbent president.
These results are particularly promising for Nikki Haley, who previously served as the United Nations ambassador under President Trump. She aims to capitalize on her strong showing in the recent GOP presidential debate, hoping to challenge her former boss for the Republican nomination. However, it’s important to note that Haley trails significantly behind Trump in polls of Republican primary voters, highlighting the considerable challenge she faces.
Nonetheless, the CNN poll suggests that she could be a more competitive GOP nominee against Biden in the general election compared to her Republican rivals. This potential advantage may become a key talking point as she campaigns in early primary and caucus states like Iowa and New Hampshire.
Other notable GOP candidates also outperformed Biden in the head-to-head polling. Former Vice President Mike Pence and Senator Tim Scott both garnered 46 percent support, while Biden received 44 percent. Former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie secured 44 percent to Biden’s 42 percent, and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis tied with Biden, each at 47 percent. Entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy trailed Biden in a head-to-head matchup, with 45 percent to Biden’s 46 percent. Trump held a slim 1-point lead over Biden, with 47 percent to 46 percent.
When respondents were asked about a potential rematch between Trump and Biden, 47 percent indicated they would choose the former president, while 46 percent favored the current president. A small percentage (5 percent) preferred a different candidate, and 2 percent stated they did not plan to vote. These numbers do not bode well for Biden, as he trails five of the seven GOP candidates in the polling.
One significant concern for voters regarding Biden is his age; he is currently 80 years old and will turn 81 in November. The CNN poll reveals that more than half of Democratic voters surveyed are “seriously concerned” about his age. Approximately 60 percent of Democrats expressed apprehension about Biden’s ability to win the 2024 election if he secures the Democratic nomination. Additionally, 62 percent of Democrats and 76 percent of all respondents expressed serious concerns about Biden completing a second term.
While Biden is virtually certain to secure the Democratic nomination, his weaknesses in this poll are likely to heighten anxieties within the Democratic party regarding his strength as a candidate in the upcoming election. According to the poll, 46 percent of voters believe any Republican presidential nominee would be a better choice than Biden in 2024, while 32 percent believe the sitting president is a better option than any of the GOP hopefuls. In contrast, 44 percent of respondents think any Democratic nominee would be better than Trump, and 38 percent consider the former president superior to any Democratic nominee.
Among Democrats, the poll found that 67 percent would prefer the party to nominate someone other than Biden, a significant increase from the 54 percent who expressed the same sentiment in March. Of those who desire a different candidate, 82 percent did not have a specific individual in mind. Only 1 percent stated they would vote for either of Biden’s 2024 Democratic challengers, Marianne Williamson or Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
The CNN poll was conducted by SSRS from August 25 to August 31 among 1,259 registered voters and has a margin of error of 3.5 percentage points.
Despite the challenges Biden faces in this poll, he is currently preparing to attend the G20 summit in India and will return to Washington at the beginning of the following week. While the poll results may boost Republican confidence in defeating Biden, they also raise questions among GOP voters about Trump’s viability as a general election candidate in 2024, considering his ongoing legal issues, including federal indictments and state charges.
US President Joe Biden has said that he held “substantial discussions” with Prime Minister Narendra Modi on ways to strengthen the Indo-US partnership and thanked him for his leadership and hosting the G20 Summit in New Delhi. Biden told reporters here in the Vietnamese capital that he also raised the importance of respecting human rights with Prime Minister Modi.
Biden, who arrived in New Delhi on his first visit to India as the US President, held wide-ranging talks with Modi and they vowed to “deepen and diversify” the bilateral major defence partnership while welcoming forward movement in India’s procurement of 31 drones and joint development of jet engines.
“I want to once again thank Prime Minister Modi for his leadership and his hospitality and hosting the G20. He and I have had substantial discussions about how we’re going to continue to strengthen the partnership between India and the US building on the Prime Minister’s visit to the White House last June,” Biden said during a press conference here.
“As I always do, I raised the importance of respecting human rights and the vital role the civil society and a free press have in building a strong and prosperous country with Modi,” he said.
Picture : ParadePhash
According to the joint statement issued on Friday after Modi and Biden held bilateral talks, “The leaders re-emphasised that the shared values of freedom, democracy, human rights, inclusion, pluralism, and equal opportunities for all citizens are critical to the success our countries enjoy and that these values strengthen our relationship.” Biden also talked about the “significant business” he had done in India during the G20 Summit.
“This was an important moment for the United States to demonstrate our global leadership and our commitment to solving the challenges that matter most to people around the world. Investing in inclusive growth and sustainable development, addressing the climate crisis, strengthening food security and education, advancing global health and health security,” he said. “We showed the world the United States is a partner with a positive vision for our shared future,” he added.
On the corridor connecting India to Europe with the Middle East and Israel, he said that are going to open up untold opportunities for transformative economic investment.
He said the “illegal war in Ukraine” was also discussed at the summit and there was sufficient agreement on the need for just and lasting peace.
Responding to questions, President Biden said his goal is to provide stability around the world by building America’s ties with Vietnam and other Asian countries as he insisted that he is not trying to start a “cold war” with China.
“It’s not about containing China. It’s about having a stable base,” said Biden, who is here as Vietnam was elevating the United States to comprehensive strategic partner.
Biden also said that he met with Chinese Premier Li Qiang on the sidelines of the G20 in New Delhi and ”talked about stability.” “It wasn’t confrontational at all,” he added.
US President Joe Biden will travel to India on Thursday to attend the G20 summit. He will also have a meeting with Prime Minister Narendra Modi, on the sidelines of the summit, the White House has announced.
India, President of G20, will host global leaders at the summit, which will take place on September 9 and 10 in New Delhi. On Thursday (September 7), the US President will travel to New Delhi to attend the G20 Leaders’ Summit, the White House said in a statement.
On September 8, he will participate in a bilateral meeting with Prime Minister Modi. On Saturday and Sunday, Biden will participate in the G20 summit, where the US President and G20 partners will discuss a range of joint efforts to tackle global issues, including clean energy transition and combating climate change.
Picture : The Guardian
They will also discuss ways to mitigate the economic and social impact of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s war in Ukraine and increase the capacity of multilateral development banks, including World Bank, to better fight poverty and address global challenges.
The President will participate in the G20 Summit on Saturday and Sunday where he and G20 partners will discuss a range of joint efforts to tackle global issues which include clean energy transition and combating climate change.
They will also mitigate the economic and social impacts of Russia’s war in Ukraine and boost the capacity of multilateral development banks, including the World Bank, to better fight poverty, including by addressing global challenges, the White House said.
“While in New Delhi, the President will also commend Prime Minister Modi’s leadership of the G20 and reaffirm the US commitment to the G20 as the premier forum of economic cooperation, including by hosting it in 2026,” it added.
Earlier, amid the reports of Chinese President Xi Jinping skipping the G20 Summit in New Delhi, Biden had said that he hoped that Xi would attend the meeting in India.
While in New Delhi, the US President will reaffirm the United States’ commitment to the G20 as the premier forum of economic cooperation. The G20 or Group of 20 is an intergovernmental forum of the world’s major developed and developing economies.
Vivek Ramaswamy’s unexpected emergence as a prominent figure within the Republican Party has sent shockwaves through the political landscape. The 38-year-old pharmaceutical executive’s sudden prominence in the GOP presidential primary race has raised eyebrows, especially after his standout performance in a recent debate.
Previously an unexpected contender, Ramaswamy’s surge in popularity has been evident in the polls, where he has begun to surpass the popularity of current Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. While DeSantis was once comfortably polling above 35% among voters, his favorability has dwindled in recent times, with numerous polls showing his numbers dipping below 15%. In contrast, Ramaswamy, who announced his presidential candidacy in late February, had started with a modest polling range between 1% and 5%. However, recent polls conducted by Rasmussen Reports and McLaughlin & Associates indicate that his support has soared, with figures reaching as high as 24%, and in some cases, even surpassing DeSantis.
Amidst the Battle for Second Place
As DeSantis and Ramaswamy vie for second place in the primary race, the prevailing sentiment is that former President Donald Trump maintains a commanding lead, consistently polling at over 50%. Trump’s resurgence and increasing popularity have been attributed, in part, to his recent legal challenges across four states, which appear to have rallied his base. Furthermore, Trump’s strategic return to social media, now under the name “X” after the rebranding of Twitter, is anticipated to further bolster his polling numbers.
Ramaswamy’s Policy Stances and Their Potential Market Effects
Vivek Ramaswamy’s policy platform is marked by a commitment to reducing government expenditure and regulations. While these policies might not directly impact individual stocks, the broader market indices such as the S&P 500 and the Nasdaq Stock Exchange tend to respond positively to initiatives aimed at deregulation in specific sectors.
Energy Sectors and Economic Implications
Ramaswamy aligns himself with many GOP candidates in supporting energy solutions rooted in natural resources like oil, coal, nuclear power, and natural gas. This alignment suggests that stocks in these sectors could experience substantial growth under a Ramaswamy presidency. Notable companies poised to benefit include ExxonMobil Corp., Chevron Corp., ConocoPhillips, Constellation Energy Corp., and NuScale Power Corp.
Cryptocurrency Standpoint and Financial Markets
While Ramaswamy takes a stance against central bank digital currencies (CBDCs), he has emerged as a proponent of Bitcoin. His campaign’s acceptance of donations in Bitcoin, Dogecoin, Shiba Inu, and other cryptocurrencies reflects his support for the crypto landscape. However, it remains unclear whether he would actively promote policies favoring cryptocurrencies. Ramaswamy’s priority appears to be strengthening the U.S. dollar over Bitcoin, thereby shaping his stance on digital currencies.
Tech Innovation and Startup Ecosystem
Ramaswamy’s focus on innovation, evident in his “America First 2.0” agenda and his background in technology, bodes well for traditional technology stocks. Although companies like Alphabet Inc. and Apple Inc. have exhibited resilience regardless of the party in power, potential tax incentives for companies moving their operations to the U.S. could enhance their profitability in the long term.
Picture : CNBC
Stimulating innovation and small business growth is anticipated to yield positive outcomes. The venture capital market, which encountered declines exceeding 50% in the U.S. during the first half of 2023, is showing signs of a rebound. Platforms facilitating retail startup investments, like StartEngine and Wefunder, are gradually recovering. The projected positive direction of these sectors is attributed to the potential for deregulation and policies promoting innovation, small businesses, and vocational trades.
Vivek Ramaswamy’s unforeseen prominence in the Republican Party’s presidential primary race has captivated attention. As he competes with Governor Ron DeSantis for second place, both candidates trail behind the frontrunner, former President Donald Trump. Ramaswamy’s policy positions, spanning from deregulation to energy preferences and cryptocurrency viewpoints, hold potential implications for various sectors in the economy and financial markets. His commitment to fostering innovation and supporting small businesses has the potential to reshape multiple facets of the American economic landscape.
US Ambassador to India Eric Garcetti highlighted India’s remarkable progress, promoting a cohesive identity within concentric circles and emphasizing the diaspora’s role in fortifying the US-India connection. While participating in the Indiaspora deliberations at the three-day event from August 22-24, 2023, at the Taj Mahal Hotel in New Delhi on the sidelines of the G20 Summit, the ambassador advocated addressing the overconcentration of power, fostering a serious approach to bilateral engagement, and acquiring skills, especially in complex domains like semiconductors.
The G20 Forum by Indiaspora convened influential voices from around the world to deliberate on critical issues encompassing foreign policy, financial inclusion, climate change, gender equality, healthcare, philanthropy, entrepreneurship, sports, and trade and investments, and beyond. See below for a day-by-day summary of the event.
M R Rangaswami, Founder of Indiaspora, highlighted the far-reaching impact of Indian doctors and academics worldwide, emphasizing the organization’s effort to document the diaspora’s contributions. A pivotal topic was the role of the diaspora during India’s G20 presidency, with Harsh Vardhan Shringla, Chief Coordinator of G20 India, discussing its significance within India’s ‘Amrit Kaal’.
The discussions extended to philanthropy and its global impact. Atul Keshap, President of USIBC, highlighted the Indian-American community’s growth and influence, while Faizal Kottikollon, founder and chairman of KEF Holdings, shed light on his school’s transformative approach to public education in India and Africa
The event highlighted collaborations between the Indian diaspora and various countries, with representatives from Israel, Canada, Australia, and the UK underscoring the strength of their partnerships. Galvanizing Impact Philanthropy to India was the topic of a fireside chat featuring strategic philanthropists Deepak Raj and Ashish Dawan. The crucial theme of ethical and responsible giving emerged in discussions, where experts like Aditya Jha, President & CEO, dgMarket International, Shanthini Naidoo, CEO, St. Vincent’s Curran Foundation, and Mittal Gohil, Executive Director of The Desai Foundation, stressed the importance of purpose-driven philanthropy. Sessions also explored AI’s implications on economic progress and societal needs. Experts like Rohit Jain, CIO, Harvard Business School Alumni Association NC, Jaya Vaidhyanathan, CEO, BCT Digital, and Preetish Nijhawan, General Partner, Cervin Ventures, dissected the nuances of AI’s development, focusing on rational and existential fears, data biases, and the need for inclusive models. The event also celebrated arts and culture with a talk by esteemed Indian music producer, A. R. Rahman, who emphasized the need for infrastructure and spaces to preserve and promote artistic expressions globally. The day offered insightful discussions on diverse topics, showcasing the potential of the Indian diaspora’s engagement for a more interconnected world.
The Indiaspora G20 Forum concluded its third day with insightful discussions on various crucial topics. In the panel discussion “From Homelands to Global Markets: Cross-Border Trade & Investment,” experts emphasized the transformative nature of global value chains driven by geopolitical dynamics. The emergence of ASEAN countries and the strategic cooperation between the US, India, Australia, and Japan (the Quad) were highlighted as significant developments. A key focus was on the pivotal role of exports in economic growth and development, as expressed by Indiaspora member and Managing Partner at Celesta Capital, Mr. Arun Kumar, and CEO of the Centre of Australia India Relations, Mr. Tim Thomas. The event’s subsequent sessions delved into diverse themes. Chairman of the Quad Investors Network at America’s Frontier Fund, Karl Mehta‘s talk emphasized the importance of innovation and investment in critical technologies for the Quad alliance, envisioning it as a hub for cutting-edge advancements. Discussions also centered around digital transformation, with Mr. Vikas Choudhury, President, Reliance Jio and Partner at Pivot Ventures, spotlighting the role of technology in India’s journey toward 2047. Another session, led by Chairman of Panera Brands, Mr. Niren Chaudhary, stressed leadership through resilience and the importance of values and character in shaping individuals’ impact. The breakout sessions further enriched the dialogue. Unleashing soft power, diplomacy, and cultural capital were highlighted, with insights from Mr. Muktesh Pardeshi, Special Secretary and heads the operations and logistics of India’s G20 Presidency Secretariat, Ms. Anat Bernstein-Reich, CEO at BDO Consulting Israel-India Investment Banking and Business Development and others. The significance of the Indian diaspora in contributing to global goodwill and relationships was underscored. Moreover, discussions on driving knowledge sharing for India’s growth led by Dr. Sudhir Jain, Vice-Chancellor at Banaras Hindu University, and Sunder Ramaswamy, Distinguished International Economist and professor at Middlebury College, emphasized the role of education and collaboration in propelling the nation forward. The final day included panels on venture capital’s role in inclusive development, with experts like Mr. Kris Gopalakrishnan, Chairman Axilor Ventures and Co-founder Infosys, and Mr. Prashant Pathak, CEO at Ekagrata Inc., discussing the impact of investments on technology development. Another panel addressed innovation, entrepreneurship, and social responsibility, highlighting the potential of these sectors in driving change. Mr. Peyush Bansal, Co-Founder, Chief Executive & People Office, shared his journey with Lenskart and the impact on eye care and awareness. And India’s Finance Secretary Dr. TV Somanathan spoke of the ways in which the diaspora can help India’s surge towards a $10 trillion economy. Overall, the Indiaspora G20 Forum Day 3 showcased vibrant discussions on trade, innovation, soft power, and societal impact. The forum illuminated the Indian diaspora’s pivotal role in fostering global connections, leveraging technology, and shaping the nation’s growth trajectory. With the spotlight on inclusive development, technology-driven solutions, and sustainable progress, the event underscored the diaspora’s immense potential in shaping India’s future.
The world’s seen hundreds of thousands of pictures of Donald Trump. But this one’s different.
In Donald Trump’s mug shot taken at the Fulton County Jail on Thursday, he’s looking straight into the camera. His platinum blonde cotton candy wisp of hair shimmers in the harsh jailhouse lighting. His eyes are locked in a hard stare. His mouth is flattened in a grimace. Instead of smiling like some of his co-defendants, he appears to be scowling.
The mug shot was released by the Fulton County Sheriff’s Office roughly an hour after the former President was booked as inmate P01135809 over charges that he illegally schemed to overturn his 2020 election loss in Georgia.
Trump’s booking in Atlanta is the fourth time he’s faced criminal charges in six months, but the first time his face has been captured for the iconic symbol of a run-in with the law. In previous cases, the courts agreed Trump didn’t need to have a mug shot taken, prompting his campaign to design a fake mug shot, print it on T-shirts and offer them for sale at $36 each in an effort to galvanize his base.
Mug shots have been taken since the 1800s to help authorities identify people accused of a crime if they escape or don’t show up for court, or later, after being convicted and released, to help authorities recapture them if they’re accused of other crimes. Trump’s face is so well known, taking another image of him is hardly necessary, and authorities during his previous appearances agreed to waive the requirement. But not Fulton County, Georgia.
Speaking to reporters at the Atlanta airport after being booked, Trump said that he did “nothing wrong” and called the case a “travesty of justice.” He added: “We have every right to challenge an election we think is dishonest.”
Trump is the first President to ever pose for a mug shot. The closest history has to offer was the 1872 arrest of President Ulysses S. Grant, who was taken to a local police station in Washington, D.C. for speeding in his horse-drawn carriage. No mug shot was taken in the incident.
For the first time in the history of the US, two Indian-American presidential candidates locked horns over the country’s foreign policy in the Republican party’s first presidential debate.
On Wednesday, Nikki Haley, 51, accused Vivek Ramaswamy, 38, of supporting America’s foreign adversaries and abandoning its friends, and said that her GOP rival lacked foreign policy experience.
Asserting that a win for Russia is a win for China, Haley said that Ukraine is the first line of defence for the US, which Ramaswamy doesn’t understand and wants to handover Kiev to Moscow.
“The problem that Vivek Ramaswamy doesn’t understand is he wants to hand Ukraine to Russia, he wants to let China eat Taiwan, he wants to go and stop funding Israel,” Haley said.
“You don’t do that to friends. What you do instead is you have the backs of your friends,” Hely said even as Ramaswamy interrupted her on and off, calling her accusations false.
Ramaswamy, who was the only presidential candidate to raise hand when Fox News moderators asked who would not keep supporting Ukraine, argued the US should focus on protecting its own border first.
Stating that Haley was “pushing this lie” about him, Ramaswamy accused her of backing Ukraine at the behest of defence contractors. “I wish you well in your future career on the boards of Lockheed (Martin) and Raytheon,” Ramaswamy told Haley.
The youngest presidential-hopeful had recently unveiled his foreign policy vision at the Nixon Presidential Library, which called for less involvement in foreign affairs that do not directly concern the US.
“I do not want to get to the point where we are sending our military resources abroad, when we could be better using them here at home to protect our borders, protect my homeland,” Ramaswamy said at the debate.
Haley said Ramaswamy is choosing Russian President Vladimir Putin who has said that once they take over Ukraine Baltic states are the next.
“That’s a World War we are trying to prevent… You are choosing a murderer over a pro-American country,” Haley blasted Ramaswamy in a heated exchange of words, warning that Ramaswamy’s moves could cost America’s security.
Earlier, another GOP rival Chris Christie tore into Ramaswamy during the debate, calling him an “amateur” Obama, and sounding like a ChatGPT. (IANS)
The initial Republican presidential debate proved to be a lively event, as eight contenders engaged in heated discussions and exchanges. Despite concerns that the absence of the charismatic showman, Donald Trump, might render the debate dull, it was anything but lackluster.
The group of rivals, assembled in Wisconsin, demonstrated their capacity to generate excitement without relying on Trump’s presence. Within this competitive atmosphere, certain candidates emerged as strong contenders, while others seemed to fade into the background. Here’s an overview of the winners and losers from the debate.
FOX
Vivek Ramaswamy: In a surprising turn of events, a political novice with no prior experience in public office, and who had abstained from voting for presidents from 2004 to 2020, took center stage during the Republican debate. Sporting a wide grin and a sharp wit, Ramaswamy appeared to be the sole candidate genuinely enjoying the proceedings. His lack of political baggage allowed him to deflect criticism from fellow contenders, insinuating that Christie was auditioning for a left-leaning news channel, and Haley’s positions on Ukraine were aimed at securing positions on defense contractor boards.
“I’m the only person on the stage who isn’t bought and paid for,” Ramaswamy boldly asserted during a discussion on climate change, which sparked outrage among his opponents. Ramaswamy consistently positioned himself as an outsider amidst a sea of establishment insiders, championing unconventional views such as advocating Ukraine to cede territory to Russia, deploying military force to secure the US-Mexico border, and prohibiting US firms from engaging with China.
While his stances may diverge significantly from the Republican Party’s mainstream, Ramaswamy proved that even audacious and seemingly impractical policy proposals can garner attention, as demonstrated by Trump in 2016. Despite potential limitations in challenging Trump’s nomination, Ramaswamy’s performance guaranteed his influence in the upcoming months.
Mike Pence: A seasoned politician with a history as a congressman, governor, and vice-president, Pence showcased his remaining political vigor during the debate. Although his presidential campaign has encountered challenges, being disliked by both Trump supporters and critics, his experience on the debate stage served him well. Pence immediately went on the offensive, criticizing Ramaswamy’s inexperience and asserting that “now is not the time for on-the-job training.” He fervently advocated for nationwide abortion restrictions, a stance likely to resonate with evangelical Republicans, who wield significant influence in pivotal states like Iowa and South Carolina.
When the topic shifted to Trump, Pence had the final say, highlighting his prioritization of the Constitution on January 6, 2021, by refusing to overturn the election results as per Trump’s wishes. This stance garnered support from some of his rivals. While Pence’s campaign still faces challenges, his debate performance illustrated why he was once considered a promising presidential candidate among conservative Republicans.
Nikki Haley: The former US ambassador to the UN consistently defies expectations. Never defeated in any race for office, even when facing established Republican contenders for the South Carolina governorship, Haley continued her streak during the debate. She stood out by delivering early and pointed criticisms of both Trump and the Republican Party as a whole.
“Republicans did this to you too,” Haley remarked while discussing the substantial US budget deficit. She emphasized the need to curtail spending and borrowing. \
Turning her attention to the former president, Haley labeled Trump as the “most disliked politician in America,” cautioning that the Republican Party’s fortunes would suffer as a consequence. Haley exhibited her readiness for a fight, engaging in debates with Ramaswamy over continuing US aid to Ukraine and challenging Pence’s calls for a national abortion ban as unrealistic and politically damaging.
Even if she fails to surge ahead in the current race, Haley’s debate performance could position her for future presidential bids in election years not dominated by a former president.
Middle of the Pack
Tim Scott and Chris Christie: Christie adhered to expectations by adopting a confrontational tone, taking jabs at Trump and Ramaswamy while displaying a spirited and combative attitude. Yet, his criticisms of Ramaswamy and his comments about the political neophyte resembling “ChatGPT” failed to resonate with the audience.
Tim Scott’s conciliatory demeanor positioned him above the fray during the most heated exchanges. While this approach may not attract a substantial voter base, it could enhance his prospects as a potential vice-presidential candidate for Trump.
Losers
Ron DeSantis: Initially projected to be a strong contender alongside Trump, the Florida governor’s poll numbers have dwindled since the beginning of the year. DeSantis failed to revitalize his campaign during the debate, remaining largely absent during pivotal moments. While his performance wasn’t disastrous, Ramaswamy overshadowed him, and rivals like Pence and Haley dominated discussions on abortion and US aid to Ukraine. His uncertain footing during discussions about Trump and recent indictments further highlighted his struggles. DeSantis’ inability to close the gap with Trump demonstrated that he has become a marginal player despite past expectations of his prominence within the Republican Party.
Asa Hutchinson and Doug Burgum: Hutchinson barely qualified for the Milwaukee debate, and Burgum secured his position through an unconventional campaign gimmick. Both candidates needed to prove their worth but failed to stand out. Hutchinson’s criticisms of Trump paled in comparison to Christie’s sharper attacks, and Burgum’s modest, small-state conservatism didn’t capture attention. With stricter qualification standards for the next debate, neither candidate demonstrated the necessary support to secure another appearance on the stage.
The Republican presidential debate showcased a dynamic atmosphere with candidates engaging in fervent exchanges. Ramaswamy’s unexpected prominence as a political newcomer, Pence’s revival of vigor, and Haley’s resilience against expectations were notable highlights. Candidates like Christie and Scott occupied the middle ground, while DeSantis, Hutchinson, and Burgum faltered. This debate marked an early juncture in the campaign, offering a glimpse of the evolving landscape of the Republican nomination race.
US President Joe Biden is set to make his way to India from September 7 to 10 to participate in the G-20 Leaders’ Summit, an event aimed at tackling a variety of pressing worldwide issues. During this summit, President Biden will engage with fellow leaders in discussions encompassing critical topics, including the ongoing Ukraine conflict, as revealed by the White House on Tuesday.
The White House disclosed that President Biden plans to commend the leadership of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi within the G20 framework. This accolade underscores the significance of India’s role as the host country for the upcoming G20 world leaders’ summit scheduled for September 9 and 10 in New Delhi.
AP
This event is anticipated to bring together a notable assembly of global leaders, marking one of India’s most prominent diplomatic efforts. Having assumed the G20 Presidency on December 1, 2022, India took over this mantle from Indonesia.
At the forthcoming summit, President Biden will be actively engaging with his G20 counterparts in a dialogue aimed at addressing a diverse range of shared challenges. Among these issues, the focus will encompass collaborative efforts towards the clean energy transition, a critical element in the fight against climate change. The G20 partners will also be dedicating discussions to devise strategies for managing the socio-economic repercussions of the ongoing Ukraine conflict.
Highlighting the importance of global financial institutions, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre emphasized the intent to bolster the capacity of multilateral development banks, including the renowned World Bank.
The goal is to enhance their effectiveness in eradicating poverty while simultaneously addressing the overarching global issues at hand. The discussions are expected to delve into innovative approaches to harnessing these institutions for tackling the intertwined challenges of poverty and global crisis.
As President Biden makes his presence felt in New Delhi, he will extend appreciation towards Prime Minister Modi for his stewardship of the G20. Furthermore, this visit will serve to reaffirm the United States’ unwavering commitment to the G20 as the primary platform for international economic cooperation. An additional testament to this commitment comes in the form of the United States’ decision to host the G20 summit in the year 2026.
In consonance with these developments, Jake Sullivan, the national security adviser at the White House, indicated that President Biden’s conversations with his counterparts during the summit sidelines will revolve around several core themes. High on the agenda will be the issue of climate change, reflecting the urgency of global efforts to combat this existential challenge.
Equally pressing is the topic of Russia’s military involvement in Ukraine, a situation that continues to elicit significant international concern. These engagements reaffirm the collective resolve of the G20 nations to collaborate in finding solutions to the world’s most formidable challenges.
President Joe Biden’s upcoming visit to India for the G-20 Leaders’ Summit signifies a critical juncture for global diplomacy. The summit’s agenda underscores the importance of united efforts in addressing complex issues such as climate change and the ongoing Ukraine conflict. President Biden’s participation further reinforces the United States’ commitment to the G20 framework as a cornerstone of international cooperation, both through his commendation of Prime Minister Modi’s leadership and the nation’s future role in hosting the summit. The summit serves as a reminder that in a world characterized by interconnected challenges, collaborative endeavors among global leaders remain paramount.
US Ambassador to India, Eric Garcetti underscored the Indian diaspora’s unifying strength, urging collective vision and seamless border navigation, described the Indian Diaspora as “A Bridge between the United States and India.”
Garcetti emphasized the deep linkages between India and the United States, highlighting President Biden’s emphasis on India’s importance in the world and expressing his aspiration to live in Bodh Gaya for Buddhist studies, while speaking at the Indiaspora G20 Forum in India’s capital. Garcetti’s remarks further encapsulated the breadth of collaboration between the nations, spanning technology, trade, environment, and space, and the pivotal role of reciprocal investments in driving job creation and mutual development.
“He (President Biden) told me, when he asked me to come here to serve, he said, this is the most important country in the world for me, I think something that no American president has ever uttered in the history of our two countries,” he added.
SA Times
Referencing his early career and his willingness to work closely with India, Garcetti stated “But politics got in the way. I got elected to the student council and I promised I would serve, so my India dream kind of died, or so I thought. But the universe has a curious way of connecting people and dreams. Now suddenly I’m living that dream here when President Biden asked me to consider serving here.”
The US Ambassador said: “From technology to trade, from the environment to women’s empowerment, from small businesses to space, we used to say the sky is the limit, but now that we’re working together in space, not even the sky is the limit. From the seabed to the heavens, the US and India are a force for good and a powerful force to move this world forward.”
Garcetti also pointed at the large population and cited how significant that is. Garcetti said 4 million people represent 1 per cent of the population of America but 6 per cent of the tax base.“ They are 10% of Fortune 500 CEOs.”
In a landscape where some individuals on the right portray the accountability for the January 6 Capitol riot as merely a partisan dispute, two well-known conservative legal scholars have put forth the argument that the Constitution actually bars former President Trump from holding public office.
Recently, William Baude, a law professor at the University of Chicago, and Michael Stokes Paulsen, a law professor at the University of St. Thomas and both members of the conservative Federalist Society, presented their viewpoint through a law review article. They contend that Trump’s eligibility to hold public office is constitutionally prohibited due to Section Three of the 14th Amendment.
Picture: The UNN
Section Three, also referred to as the Disqualification Clause, stipulates that any government official who swears an oath to protect the Constitution and then participates in or assists an insurrection against the United States is ineligible for office. Only a two-thirds majority from both the House of Representatives and the Senate can take action to remove such a disability.
The argument isn’t surprising given Trump’s actions align with this criterion. All three branches of the government have characterized the attack on the Capitol as an insurrection. Multiple federal judges, bipartisan majorities in both chambers of Congress, as well as the Jan. 6 House select committee, which comprises members from both parties, have attributed the central cause of the insurrection to Trump.
Baude and Paulsen highlight that “Section Three does not necessitate a prior conviction under criminal law, whether for treason or any other specific offense, as a precondition for its application.” Trump’s indictment on charges related to election activities by special counsel Jack Smith only serves to further strengthen the argument for his constitutional disqualification.
The federal charges leveled against him encompass conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstructing and attempting to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiring against rights by seeking to “oppress, threaten or intimidate” individuals in their exercise of the right to vote.
Although Trump’s role in inciting the attack on the Capitol is well-documented, Baude and Paulsen assert that the “full legal implications” of Section Three “have not been fully recognized or enforced.” They underline that the Disqualification Clause is a “binding element of the Constitution, not confined to the Civil War era, and not effectively annulled by amnesty legislation from the 19th century.”
Moreover, the clause is “self-executing, without the necessity of supplementary action by Congress.” According to the professors, Section Three “can and should be upheld by every official, whether at the state or federal level, who assesses qualifications.”
In a notable precedent, last September, three residents of New Mexico, represented by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, achieved the first instance in over a century and a half where an elected official was removed from office on the basis of involvement in an insurrection. The court determined that then-New Mexico County Commissioner Couy Griffin had violated Section Three of the 14th Amendment by enlisting individuals for combat in support of Trump’s endeavor to overturn the election on January 6. Griffin’s actions, which included breaching police barricades, contributing to the violent mob’s attack, and facilitating the overwhelming of law enforcement to storm the Capitol, were deemed insurrectionist. This case marked the initial instance at either the federal or state level where the events of January 6 were legally classified as an insurrection.
The court’s decision in Griffin’s case refutes the notion that disqualifying officials under Section Three of the 14th Amendment infringes upon the First Amendment right to protest. Furthermore, the court rejected attempts by Griffin to equate the events of January 6 with the Black Lives Matter protests.
In their article, Baude and Paulsen elucidate that “to the extent of any conflict with prior constitutional rules, Section Three repeals, supersedes, or simply satisfies them,” including “the free speech principles of the First Amendment.”
Most critically, the authors conclude that Section Three encompasses a “wide spectrum of actions against the authority of the constitutional order” and “a broad array of previous offices, including the presidency.” They unequivocally state that Section Three “disqualifies former President Donald Trump, and potentially many others, because of their involvement in the attempted overthrow of the 2020 presidential election.”
Irrespective of political affiliation, every president takes an oath to uphold and safeguard the United States Constitution. Applying the Disqualification Clause to an official who violates this oath is an act of devotion to the nation, devoid of partisan motivation. As Baude and Paulsen aptly put it, “Officials must uphold the Constitution because it is the law … Section Three already carries legal weight.”
The Disqualification Clause has already demonstrated its effectiveness in holding individuals accountable for their participation in the insurrection. In the approaching months, it is anticipated that this clause will be employed again to prevent Trump and others from assuming public office.
Vivek Ramaswamy is currently navigating through the bustling streets of New Hampshire in a crowded Ford Explorer. The Republican contender for the presidential race is managing a whirlwind of campaign stops, engaging in discussions with three journalists while simultaneously conferring with a campaign assistant. During this drive, there’s a brief jolt as the SUV veers onto the highway’s rumble strip, causing Ramaswamy to momentarily startle before promptly resuming his conversation.
In the world of presidential campaigns, the ability to multitask is a necessity – be it handling various tasks while on the move, interacting with constituents, or delivering speeches. However, among the Republican candidates, few exhibit the multitasking prowess of the affluent 38-year-old Ramaswamy. His day has been brimming with activity, starting from his visit to the courthouse in Washington where Donald Trump was to be arraigned, all the way to New Hampshire. Here, he engaged in a lunchtime meet-and-greet and later attended a backyard gathering, addressing attendees and distributing pamphlets outlining his 10 core “truths.” These include statements such as “there are two genders,” “human prosperity depends on fossil fuels,” and “the nuclear family represents the supreme form of governance known to humanity.” During these events, Ramaswamy also shared his plans to dismantle the Department of Education, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Internal Revenue Service. Additionally, he articulated his intent to take the “America First” approach even further than Trump by reducing support for Ukraine and deploying troops to secure the southern border.
Ramaswamy’s strategy of being present everywhere at once, combined with his knack for conveying provocative anti-establishment views in an amiable manner, has propelled him to a prominent position in the GOP primary. Since officially launching his candidacy in February, Ramaswamy’s pace has been relentless. From shaking hands in New Hampshire to rapping Eminem lyrics in Iowa, from featuring on over 70 podcasts to appearing on a plethora of news programs, and generating a consistent stream of online content, he has outperformed many governors and even a former vice president in the early primary states. This dynamism has led Ramaswamy to secure second or third place in various national polls, garnering attention as a major contender.
Sarah Longwell, a Republican pollster who conducts focus groups with GOP-leaning voters, noted a shift in perception. While previously, Ramaswamy was scarcely mentioned in discussions while Florida Governor Ron DeSantis was frequently brought up, the tables have now turned. Longwell views Ramaswamy’s campaign approach as one DeSantis could have adopted. “I think that he has been running the kind of campaign that Ron DeSantis should have run,” Longwell commented on Ramaswamy’s strategy.
However, Ramaswamy’s journey ahead won’t be without challenges. The influence of Trump remains dominant in the race, commanding the support of a majority of primary voters as indicated by recent national polls. Furthermore, Ramaswamy hasn’t yet become a target for his fellow contenders, partly due to not being perceived as a significant threat. While Ramaswamy has made strides in winning over the GOP base, Longwell doesn’t consider him a genuine contender for the GOP nomination. She explains, “He’s not really running as a challenger to Trump. He’s running as somebody who’s trying to elevate his brand, elevate his name ID, and simply become a player in politics.”
In contrast, Ramaswamy asserts his intention to secure victory and categorically rejects the idea of joining a potential second Trump administration. The entrepreneur, who asserts billionaire status, has already injected $15 million of his personal funds into his campaign and is willing to contribute an “unlimited” amount. As the debate stage in Milwaukee awaits him on August 23rd, Ramaswamy and his team anticipate capitalizing on the momentum generated through six months of relentless campaigning. Beyond that point, he envisions transitioning to a more traditional campaign approach involving television advertisements and conventional voter engagement methods. By the time the Iowa caucuses arrive in January, Ramaswamy is confident he will have demonstrated to the Republican electorate what a plausible successor to Trump looks like.
Currently, Vivek Ramaswamy finds himself amid the flurry of activities that have become his signature approach. As we share the car ride through New Hampshire, he reserves the final 10 minutes to collect his thoughts and review his phone. While scrolling through his social media feed, he stumbles upon something intriguing – a post on social media that captures his attention. Specifically, it’s a MSNBC clip featuring Al Sharpton’s commentary on Donald Trump’s legal issues. In the clip, Sharpton raises a rhetorical question, “Can you imagine our reading that James Madison or Thomas Jefferson tried to overthrow the government so they can stay in power?”
Ramaswamy responds to this snippet with a chuckle, his eyes twinkling with an understanding that he can leverage this. He starts by recalling an incident from his college days when he posed a question to Sharpton during a news program. Although he doesn’t recall the specifics of that interaction, he capitalizes on the current moment. As our car nears the upcoming campaign stop in Concord, Ramaswamy plays off Sharpton’s comment and tweets a rejoinder: “It was called the American Revolution. We were successful. We won.” This tweet quickly garners over 2 million views.
Earlier in the day, the scene shifts to Milford, where Ramaswamy addresses a gathering of several dozen people in a local grill. Despite the awkwardness of some attendees eating their lunches while standing, there’s palpable interest in this candidate within the crowded field. Amidst the older, casually dressed voters, Ramaswamy stands out in his suit. He dedicates thirteen minutes to delivering his campaign speech and then devotes almost an hour to answering a diverse range of questions, spanning topics from his plans for national unity to his views on modern monetary theory and strategies to address pedophilia. Following this extensive exchange, he engages with those who have lined up for a photo opportunity.
Ramaswamy’s drive and charisma have deep roots. Born in Cincinnati to Indian immigrant parents who pursued the American Dream, his upbringing significantly influenced his worldview. Despite his parents arriving in the U.S. with limited financial resources, his father found work as an engineer and his mother as a psychiatrist. The values he imbibed were more rooted in culture than politics, he tells me during our time in the SUV. He elaborates, “That was sort of what we cared more about—moral foundations.”
During his teenage years, Ramaswamy began absorbing political insights from various sources. One influence was his conservative Christian piano teacher who admired Ronald Reagan. “She probably influenced me with modes of conservative thought that I probably wouldn’t have thought about in the past,” Ramaswamy reflects. He cites the emphasis on family stability and grounding as perspectives he gained from this exposure.
Despite his polished political demeanor, at the time Vivek Ramaswamy was primarily focused on the business realm. His Harvard years saw the co-founding of Campus Venture Network, an initiative supporting student entrepreneurs, and the launch of a college consulting firm. Graduating in 2007, he joined QVT Financial LP, a hedge fund where he achieved partner status by age 28. Concurrently, he pursued legal education at Yale Law School.
Around this juncture, Ramaswamy acknowledges entertaining fleeting thoughts of entering politics. He recalls, “I considered it briefly, the idea of possibly doing it at some point, when I was in law school.” While some in his circle maintain that he wasn’t deeply inclined toward electoral politics at that time, at least one acquaintance from that era shares that Ramaswamy had contemplated dedicating a decade to building a robust business career before embarking on a political journey. This strategy aimed to achieve success that would allow him to uphold his convictions without being influenced by the donor class.
Notably, Ramaswamy claims to have achieved multi-millionaire status by the time he obtained his J.D. in 2013. In the subsequent year, he founded Roivant Sciences, a drug development company aiming to advance stalled medical treatments. Through one of Roivant’s subsidiaries in 2015, he orchestrated the largest initial public offering in the U.S. biotech industry up to that point. While the Alzheimer’s drug central to this IPO faced setbacks, the company achieved success with other treatments, securing FDA approval for therapies addressing prostate cancer and overactive bladder. In 2016, he earned a place on Forbes’ list of richest entrepreneurs under 40, and his wealth soared.
The year 2020 marked a turning point. Ramaswamy’s discomfort grew as he observed corporate advocacy for ESG (environmental, social, and governance) investing. He expressed his concerns in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, asserting that business leaders should refrain from influencing America’s societal and cultural values. The pandemic and the racial justice protests of that year further solidified his stance. An associate, Anson Frericks, recalls Ramaswamy’s frustration, noting instances where his board requested him to take positions on contentious issues related to COVID policies and matters stemming from George Floyd’s death.
In 2021, Ramaswamy relinquished his role as CEO of Roivant and published “Woke, Inc.,” a New York Times bestseller. Subsequently, he gained a regular presence on Fox News. He and Frericks established Strive, an asset management firm emphasizing shareholder value over political agendas. Ramaswamy swiftly penned another book, critiquing victimhood mindsets and identity politics. Amidst numerous appearances on cable news, he considered running for Senate in Ohio.
Picture: Vanity Fair
Surprisingly, Ramaswamy announced his candidacy for the presidential race on February 21. His YouTube video launch depicts familiar political-ad visuals, showcasing scenes from a small-town church, workers, families, and children at play. The video transitions into a more critical tone, featuring Dr. Anthony Fauci, climate activist Greta Thunberg, and transgender swimmer Lia Thomas. Ramaswamy’s voiceover voice warns against “COVIDism, climatism, and gender ideology.” The voiceover contends, “We hunger to be part of something bigger than ourselves yet we cannot even answer the question of what it means to be an American.”
The same day the video was released, Ramaswamy outlined his campaign themes on Tucker Carlson’s show. He expounded on core American values like meritocracy, self-governance, and free speech while highlighting how division, spurred by the left, has shifted focus to differences. Carlson commended him, stating, “I hope you’ll come back often, ‘cause you are one of the great talkers we’ve ever had.”
In the ensuing weeks, Ramaswamy embraced an inclusive approach to campaigning, engaging with anyone willing to converse, irrespective of potential detractors. Peter Christopher, a New Hampshire business owner attending Ramaswamy’s lunchtime event, expressed admiration: “He has an understanding of our culture today that he’s not afraid to share. And yet, the way he shares it is not in a way that other people have to be wrong.”
Apoorva Ramaswamy, the candidate’s spouse, emphasizes his enthusiasm for engaging with people, especially those holding opposing views. She notes his passion for being challenged and honing his arguments. Their initial meeting occurred in 2011 when he was attending Yale Law School. Apoorva remarks, “He loves being challenged, being forced to hone his arguments and his thought processes. That’s like his favorite hobby.”
Months of traversing the nation to engage with voters have passed, primarily through town hall meetings in early primary states. Ramaswamy ventures into unusual Republican campaign destinations, such as a Black barbershop in Chicago. These unique interactions generate social media buzz and distinguish him within the crowded Republican field. Paul Davis, a college friend maintaining contact throughout the campaign, reflects, “A lot of these candidates are very afraid of talking to the press… and they’re really worried about, ‘Oh, this outlet is biased, and they’re going to spin it this way, or that way, whatever.”
His educational journey brought him to a predominantly Black middle school in Milford, where he found himself among a diverse student body. He has shared an incident from his eighth-grade year when he was pushed down the stairs by another student, leading to surgery. This event marked a turning point as he transitioned to a Jesuit school, St. Xavier High School, where he became one of the few Indian students in a predominantly white class. In his valedictorian speech, he recollected feeling uncertain during freshman year mass, struggling with the lyrics and when to stand or sit. A sophomore religion class broadened his horizons, helping him explore various viewpoints and shape his own perspective. He expressed, “I’ll definitely remember emerging from St. X with a personal faith that was neither Catholic nor strictly Hindu, but was finally something that I could call my own,” addressing his fellow graduates.
Even during his teenage years, Ramaswamy’s warmth and sociability stood out, allowing him to discuss topics like local sports with ease. However, his unique background set him apart. Only recently did his former business partner, Anson Frericks, a friend from St. Xavier, realize he had been mispronouncing Ramaswamy’s first name for two decades. (The correct pronunciation rhymes with “cake.”) When confronted, Ramaswamy explained that as the only Indian student in an all-male Catholic high school, he grew accustomed to responding to whatever name people used. Frericks shared his perspective, saying, “He’s like, ‘Hey, you know, when you’re the only Indian kid at an all-male Catholic high school, you just take whatever you’re called.”
While pursuing a biology degree at Harvard, Ramaswamy engaged in a plethora of extracurricular activities, from playing club tennis to participating in the South Asian Association. He was deeply involved in leadership roles across various organizations and also explored his artistic side under the alias “Da Vek,” dabbling in rap. He held leadership positions in groups like the Harvard Political Union and the Institute for Politics, and he joined the Harvard Republican Club. He recalls, “I mostly, through college, considered myself a libertarian, a pretty staunch libertarian.”
Ramaswamy was unafraid to voice his opinions against prevailing campus liberalism or engage in debates with his right-leaning peers on issues such as Guantanamo prisoners’ treatment. A notable incident took place in 2007 when then-FBI Director Robert Mueller visited campus. Ramaswamy confronted Mueller with questions about external checks on the FBI with regard to civil liberties. Paul Davis, a friend from the same dorm, remarked, “He just kind of said what he thought about different topics, even if it pissed people off.”
During a trip to Las Vegas, Davis recounted an incident at a blackjack table that highlighted Ramaswamy’s pride in his American identity. When asked about his nationality, Ramaswamy responded, “I’m a citizen of the greatest nation on Earth, the United States of America.” This confident response resonated with the others at the table.
Davis likens his friend’s campaign strategy to that of Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg during his 2020 presidential campaign as the relatively unknown mayor of South Bend, Indiana. He notes that Ramaswamy’s approach is about confidently sharing his story across various platforms, despite the potential for unfavorable coverage. Davis acknowledges that while there may be risks involved, they are worth taking.
Starting in April, Ramaswamy has managed to produce over 50 episodes of a podcast called “The Vivek Show.” He engages in in-depth conversations with individuals from diverse political backgrounds, ranging from right-wing commentators like Glenn Beck to Democrat Tom Wolf, the former Governor of Pennsylvania. During these tapings, he turns off his phone—a rare moment of respite in his busy schedule. A second season of the podcast is set to launch in early fall, featuring interviews with figures like Papa John’s founder John Schnatter and Chaya Raichik, the operator of Libs of TikTok.
Ramaswamy’s political stance often leans hard-right: he advocates for cutting federal regulators, ending affirmative action, and argues that transgender children frequently grapple with unrelated mental health issues. However, he also deviates from the typical Republican mold. Although he personally identifies as “pro-life,” he stands out by not supporting a federal abortion ban. His proposals include banning social media for individuals under 16 and eliminating automatic voting rights for those under 25.
The forthcoming GOP presidential debate will offer a platform to present his views to a broader audience. Tricia McLaughlin, a senior advisor to Ramaswamy, notes that the campaign decided to skip traditional debate preparation in favor of maintaining their hectic travel schedule, which has been instrumental in connecting with voters. McLaughlin emphasizes that the campaign’s philosophy revolves around letting Ramaswamy be authentic.
The question of whether Trump participates in the debate introduces an unpredictable element. Ramaswamy has fervently pledged to pardon the former President, who has reciprocated with effusive praise. However, Trump has indicated that his support may shift if Ramaswamy’s poll numbers approach his own.
Ramaswamy remains optimistic about the future. He envisions a more directed campaign path after the first debate, focusing on the early primary states while incorporating more traditional approaches. As the SUV arrives at his next town-hall venue, Ramaswamy reflects on his connection with ordinary people. He reveals that he doesn’t indulge in lavish vacation homes but instead invests in private jets to save time.
After parting ways, the journalist searches for the mentioned interaction between Ramaswamy and Sharpton. A video from 2003 shows an 18-year-old Ramaswamy wearing a light-blue button-down shirt and a shiny watch, asking the first audience question on “Hardball with Chris Matthews.” He inquires why voters should choose the Democratic candidate with the least political experience. Sharpton responds with confidence, noting his extensive political engagement and social policy work over the past three decades.Ramaswamy listens with a grin, nodding in agreement as Sharpton speaks.
A Bipartisan US Congressional delegation in India for the nation’s 77th Independence Day met with India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Wednesday, August 16, 2023 in New Delhi. During the meeting, Modi praised the bipartisan support as key to strengthening the bilateral strategic relationship between the two democracies.
The delegation included US Representative Ro Khanna of California, Democratic co-chair of the India Caucus, Rep. Michael Waltz of Florida, Republican co-chair of the India Caucus, as well as Representatives Ed Case, D-Hawaii, Kat Cammack, R-Florida, Deborah Ross, D-North Carolina, Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, Rich McCormick, R-Georgia, and Shri Thanedar, D-Michigan.
Taking to X, formerly known as Twitter, PM Modi said, “Glad to receive a Congressional delegation from US, including co-chairs of India Caucus in the House of Representatives, Rep. @RoKhanna and Rep. @michaelgwaltz. Strong bipartisan support from the US Congress is instrumental in further elevating India-US Comprehensive Global Strategic Partnership.”
Picture : New India Abroad
Welcoming the delegation to India, PM Modi conveyed his appreciation for the “consistent and bipartisan support” of the US Congress and highlighted his recent visit. “Prime Minister fondly recalled his historic State Visit to the US in June at the invitation of President Biden during which he had an opportunity to address a Joint Session of the US Congress for a second time,” the Prime Minister’s office said in a press release on Wednesday.
“Prime Minister and the US delegation highlighted that the India-US Comprehensive Global Strategic Partnership is based on shared democratic values, respect for rule of law and strong people-to-people ties,” the PMO said.
During his June visit to US, PM Modi also attended various events, apart from the address to Congress. He was hosted by Biden as well as First Lady Jill Biden for a state dinner at the White House as well as a State Luncheon by the US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and US Vice President Kamala Harris.
External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar also met US Congressional delegation on August 16, and discussed the transformation underway in India. The two sides exchanged views on advancing the bilateral partnership between India and US. They discussed the global situation and collaboration between India and US on multilateral, regional and global issues.
“A good interaction with US Congressional delegation today. Glad they could join as we celebrated #IndependenceDay. Discussed the transformation underway in India, especially its outcomes of better governance. Shared our aspirations and expectations for Amritkaal. Also exchanged views on our advancing bilateral partnership. Shared perspectives on the global situation and our collaboration on multilateral, regional and global issues,” Minister Jaishankar tweeted after the meeting.
“Representatives Khanna, Thanedar, Waltz and others are doing a great service to the bilateral relationship in undertaking this visit. The Indian Embassy in Washington, DC and several other stakeholders have been working closely with them to create an impactful itinerary,” says Sanjeev Joshipura, the Washington DC based executive director of Indiaspora.
This historic visit holds symbolic significance, marking the first time Indian American lawmakers are part of a US House delegation to India, highlighting the growing influence of Indian Americans in US politics and their commitment to enhancing bilateral relations.
For Rep. Khanna, this is history coming full circle. His grandfather Amarnath Vidyalankar was an Indian freedom fighter who spent four years in jail alongside Gandhi and later was part of India’s first parliament.
“As co-chairs of the Congressional Caucus on India and Indian Americans, we are proud to lead a bipartisan delegation to India. We will be there to discuss how to strengthen economic and defense ties between our two counties, the oldest and largest democracies,” Khanna said prior ro his visit to India.
“Both of us believe that the U.S. India relationship will be a defining one of the 21st century. India is a key partner in ensuring multipolarity in Asia and the denial of China as a hegemon. We must continue to strive to make progress and build our partnership based on our shared founding values of democracy, freedom of the press and assembly, and human rights. This delegation is a historic opportunity to drive further collaboration and advance shared aims,” Khanna said
Earlier this year, Khanna and Waltz hosted a historic US-India Summit on the Hill featuring panels and remarks from government leaders, experts, and Indian American leaders from across the country.
“His grandfather Amarnath Vidyalankar was an Indian freedom fighter who spent four years in jail alongside Gandhi and later was part of India’s first parliament,” the US government said in its press release referring to the history Ro Khanna and his family share with respect to the Indian Freedom struggle.
On his visit to India, Khanna said, “As co-chairs of the Congressional Caucus on India and Indian Americans, we are proud to lead a bipartisan delegation to India. We will be there to discuss how to strengthen economic and defense ties between our two counties, the oldest and largest democracies.”
Indian American entrepreneur turned politician Vivek Ramaswamy is tied with Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) for second place in the Republican presidential field in a new poll. An Emerson College poll showed DeSantis and Ramaswamy tied at 10 percent each, trailing former President Trump, who leads with 56 percent. DeSantis kept his position in second place from previous polls, but he registered a big drop from the 21 percent he had in June. Ramaswamy rose from just 2 percent then.
According to reports, the poll’s release comes as a leaked memo from the super PAC supporting DeSantis’ candidacy, Never Back Down, urged DeSantis to “take a sledgehammer” to Ramaswamy. Some polling has shown Ramaswamy closing in on DeSantis for second place, and the memo appears to acknowledge a few other candidates also gaining momentum behind the Florida governor.
“Another boring, establishment attack from Super PAC-creation ‘Robot Ron’ who is literally taking lame, pre-programmed attack lines against me for next week’s debate. ‘Hammer Ramaswamy,’” Ramaswamy responded to the memo on X, formerly known as Twitter.
Emerson College Polling Executive Director Spencer Kimball said in a release that Ramaswamy has made improvements in voters with postgraduate degrees, taking 17 percent of that group, and with younger voters, winning 16 percent of those younger than 35.
The release states that DeSantis’s drop is similar to that of Emerson’s New Hampshire poll that showed former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) surpassing DeSantis by 1 point for second place in the state, a statistical tie.
Pollsters also found somewhat more shaky support among DeSantis supporters than among those for Ramaswamy. Almost half of Ramaswamy backers said they will definitely vote for him, while only a third of DeSantis supporters said the same. Meanwhile, more than 80 percent of Trump supporters said they will definitely vote for the former president.
DeSantis, Ramaswamy and several other GOP presidential candidates will have their clearest opportunity yet to stand out on a national stage at the first Republican primary debate next week, especially with Trump seemingly planning to skip it.
More than 80 percent of Republican primary voters said they plan to watch the debate. The poll was conducted from Aug. 16 to 17 among 1,000 registered voters, including 465 who said they plan to vote in their state’s Republican primary or caucus. The credibility interval was 3 points.
On the ground, Ramaswamy has styled his politics on the agendas of the two men he hopes to usurp, making his stand against the “woke” ideology of the American left his signature policy issue. “We are in the middle of a national identity crisis,” he says darkly, accusing the country’s elites of metastasizing a “cultural cancer” — particularly when it comes to LGBTQ issues. His message has found an appreciative audience, and his book, “Woke, Inc.,” in which he develops this thesis, is currently near the top of the New York Times list of bestselling nonfiction.
While some candidates are beginning to aim their fire at former president Donald Trump, the 38-year-old Ramaswamy has moved toward the front of the chasing pack by placing himself firmly in the frontrunner’s slipstream. “I think I’m best positioned to advance our America First agenda, take it even further than Trump did, but also unite the country in the process,” the multimillionaire biotech entrepreneur recently told public broadcaster PBS.
Ramaswamy trails Trump by a seemingly unbridgeable gap, but he has spent millions of his own money in his bid to be best placed should the presumptive nominee fall by the wayside amid his growing tangle of legal problems. And the first-time candidate, a father of two young children, has been rewarded with higher poll numbers than most of his more experienced rivals.
A political novice by any measure, Ramaswamy started his campaign with no national profile but has shocked primary watchers by rising to second in the Republican primary field, five months ahead of the first vote in Iowa.
US lawmakers are celebrating India’s Independence Day in a big way with a House resolution declaring it a National Day of Celebration and a bipartisan group traveling to New Delhi to attend the festivities at historic Red Fort.
The House resolution introduced by a group of lawmakers led by Indian-American Congressman Shri Thanedar declares India’s Aug 15 Independence Day as the “National Day of Celebration of the World’s Two Largest Democracies.”
Thanedar will also join a bi-partisan Congressional delegation led by Indian American Congressman Ro Khanna and Congressman Michael Waltz going to India to participate in the festivities including Prime Minister Narendra Modi address to the nation from the ramparts of Red Fort on Aug 15.
The House resolution expresses the belief that the strong partnership between the United States and India, rooted in shared democratic values, will continue to advance global democracy and foster peace, stability, and prosperity for all nations.
Picture : TheUNN
Co-sponsored by Buddy Carter and Brad Sharman, the resolution says Modi’s official state visit on June 22, “anchored the two nations in a new level of trust and mutual understanding based on common interests and shared commitments to freedom, democracy, pluralism, the rule of law, and respect for human rights.”
“Americans with Indian heritage enhance public life in the United States as government officials, military personnel, and law enforcement officers who diligently uphold the principles of the US Constitution and contribute to the enriching diversity of the nation,” it says.
“It is proper and desirable to celebrate with the Indian people, and to reaffirm the democratic principles on which the two nations were born,” the resolution adds.
Meanwhile, the US Congressional delegation led by Khanna and Waltz, co-chairs of the bipartisan Congressional Caucus on India and Indian Americans, will also visit Raj Ghat, a historic memorial dedicated to Mahatma Gandhi, according to a media release.
They will meet with business, tech, government, and Bollywood leaders in Mumbai, Hyderabad, and New Delhi.
Picture : TheUNN
The delegation includes Deborah Ross, Kat Cammack, Jasmine Crockett Rich McCormick and Ed Case. For Khanna, this is history coming full circle. “His grandfather Amarnath Vidyalankar was an Indian freedom fighter who spent four years in jail alongside Gandhi and later was part of India’s first parliament,” the release noted.
“As co-chairs of the Congressional Caucus on India and Indian Americans, we are proud to lead a bipartisan delegation to India. We will be there to discuss how to strengthen economic and defense ties between our two counties, the oldest and largest democracies,” Khanna and Waltz stated.
“Both of us believe that the US-India relationship will be a defining one of the 21st century. India is a key partner in ensuring multipolarity in Asia and the denial of China as a hegemon,” they stated.
“We must continue to strive to make progress and build our partnership based on our shared founding values of democracy, freedom of the press and assembly, and human rights. This delegation is a historic opportunity to drive further collaboration and advance shared aims.”
Earlier this year, Khanna and Waltz hosted a historic US-India Summit on the Capitol Hill featuring panels and remarks from government leaders, experts, and Indian-American leaders from across the country.
Khanna, 46, is the second Indian-American after Ami Bera to hold the position of co-chair of the Congressional Caucus on India and Indian Americans since its inception in 1993.
(AP) — A day after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, as the country was still reeling from the violent attempt to halt the transfer of presidential power, a local Republican Party official greeted a group of computer experts outside the election office in a rural county in south Georgia, where they were given access to voting equipment.
Their intent was to copy software and data from the election systems in an attempt to prove claims by President Donald Trump and his allies that voting machines had been rigged to flip the 2020 election to his challenger, Democrat Joe Biden, according to a wide-ranging indictment issued late Monday.
Several of those involved are among the 19 people, including the former president, charged with multiple counts in what Georgia prosecutors describe as a “conspiracy to unlawfully change the outcome of the election in favor of Trump.”
The charges related to the breach of election equipment in Coffee County highlight that the pressure campaign by the former president and his allies didn’t stop with state officials and lawmakers, but extended all the way down to local government. Relying on Georgia’s racketeering law, the type of prosecution more typically associated with mobsters, the indictment alleges the events in Coffee County were part of a wider effort by Trump associates to illegally access voting equipment in multiple states.
“The one thing that Coffee County shows, and these other counties as well, is that the effort behind Jan. 6 didn’t stop on Jan. 6,” said Lawrence Norden, an election security expert with the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU’s School of Law. “The ongoing effort to undermine and sabotage elections has continued.”
The security breach inside the election office in Coffee County, about 200 miles southeast of Atlanta, is among the first known attempts by Trump allies to access voting systems as they sought evidence to back up their unsubstantiated claims that such equipment had manipulated the presidential vote. It was followed a short time later by breaches in three Michigan counties involving some of the same people and again in a western Colorado county that Trump won handily.
While the county-level equipment breaches have raised alarms about election data falling into the wrong hands and prompted two other prosecutions, they were absent from the recent federal indictment of Trump alleging interference in the 2020 election. The Georgia case is the first to argue that the breaches were part of a conspiracy by Trump and his allies to overturn the results.
Four people face six counts related to the breach in Coffee County, including conspiracy to commit election fraud, conspiracy to commit computer theft and conspiracy to defraud the state. They are lawyer and Trump ally Sidney Powell, former Coffee County elections director Misty Hampton, former Coffee County GOP Chair Cathy Latham, who also served as a false elector for Trump, and Scott Graham Hall, an Atlanta-area bail bondsman who prosecutors say is associated with longtime Trump adviser David Bossie.
A lawyer for Powell declined comment, while messages seeking responses from the others were not immediately returned.
After the 2020 election, Trump and Powell pushed various conspiracy theories about voting machines, specifically related to the Dominion Voting Systems equipment used in Georgia. Dominion earlier this year reached a $787 million settlement with Fox News over false claims aired on the network, including by Powell.
Court documents in Georgia show Powell hired a forensic data firm on Dec. 6, 2020, to collect and analyze Dominion equipment in Michigan and elsewhere, and prosecutors allege the breach of election equipment in Coffee County was “subsequently performed under this agreement.”
On Jan. 7, 2021, Hall and employees of the data firm traveled to the election office to copy software and data from voting equipment and were greeted outside by GOP official Latham and then taken on a tour of the office by elections director Hampton, according to the indictment and video surveillance obtained in an unrelated case about Georgia’s electronic voting machines.
Picture: WWNY
Later videos showed Hampton opening the office on Jan. 18, when it was otherwise closed for the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday. She allowed in Douglas Logan and Jeff Lenberg, both of whom have been active nationally in efforts to challenge the 2020 election and were part of the effort to examine voting machines in Michigan.
Neither Logan or Lenberg were charged in Monday’s indictment.
Logan’s company, Cyber Ninjas, a Florida-based firm with little election experience, was later hired by GOP lawmakers in Arizona to conduct a review of the 2020 election in Maricopa County. It ultimately confirmed Biden’s win but claimed to find various irregularities — claims that election experts said were inaccurate, misleading or based on a flawed understanding of the data.
In Coffee County, the men worked late into the evening, returning the following day. Lenberg also was seen at the office on at least three more days later that month, according to information collected in the separate voting machine lawsuit. Hampton resigned soon after their visits amid allegations of fraudulent timesheets.
This week’s indictment also mentions a Dec. 18, 2020, session in the Oval Office, where Trump allies including Powell and Michael Flynn, the former national security adviser, proposed ordering the military to seize voting machines and appoint a special prosecutor to investigate allegations of voter fraud in Georgia and other battleground states Trump lost.
In Michigan, authorities have charged three people in connection with breaches in three counties, including former Republican state attorney general candidate Matthew DePerno, who along with the others has pleaded not guilty.
So far, the special counsel assigned to the case has not charged any of the employees who handed over the voting equipment nor has he charged those who were asked to analyze them. In a statement, the special counsel said they had been deceived.
With Monday’s indictment, Hampton becomes the second top county election official to be charged in connection with a security breach in their office. The first was Tina Peters, the former clerk in Mesa County, Colorado, who has emerged as a prominent figure among those who say voting machines are rigged. Both are no longer working in elections.
Prosecutors allege Peters and her deputy were part of a “deceptive scheme” to provide unauthorized access to the county’s voting systems during a May 2021 breach that eventually resulted in a copy of the voting system hard drive being posted online.
Weeks afterward, Peters appeared at an event hosted by Trump ally Mike Lindell, the MyPillow CEO who has been seeking to prove the 2020 election was stolen and has called for a ban on voting machines.
Peters has denied wrongdoing and faces trial later this year, Her deputy pleaded guilty to lesser charges as part of an agreement with prosecutors.
Experts have described the unauthorized Colorado release as serious, saying it could provide a “practice environment” that would allow anyone to probe for vulnerabilities that could be exploited during a future election. Experts also worry it could be used to spread misinformation about voting equipment.
Colorado’s chief election official, Democratic Secretary of State Jena Griswold, said accountability is crucial to deterring any future attempts to illegally access voting systems. “We cannot allow election officials to destroy elections from within,” she said.
Rep. Greg Steube, a Republican from Florida, has taken a step ahead of his fellow party members, as he introduced articles of impeachment against President Biden on Friday. While various congressional committees are assembling a multifaceted argument for the removal of President Biden from office, Steube emphasized that the time for action has arrived. He submitted impeachment articles against Biden, alleging that the president had been complicit in his son Hunter’s alleged transgressions and had endeavored to shield him from legal consequences.
Steube declared, “The moment to impeach Joe Biden has long passed. He has eroded the credibility of his position, cast a shadow on the Presidency, breached the trust vested in him as President, and engaged in activities that undermine the authority of the law and justice, all at the expense of the American populace.”
The articles of impeachment filed by Steube encompass four allegations of grave offenses and misdemeanors attributed to Biden. The first charge contends that the president abused the power of his office by purportedly accepting bribes, engaging in extortion under the Hobbs Act, and committing honest services fraud in connection to his official role. These allegations stem from claims of Biden’s involvement in familial business transactions, including allegations that Hunter and James Biden (the president’s brother) attempted to sell access to then-Vice President Biden between 2009 and 2017 in exchange for monetary compensation and business openings from both foreign and domestic business partners.
Rep. James Comer, the chairman of the House Oversight Committee and a Republican from Kentucky, released a memorandum on Wednesday claiming that foreign payments to the Biden family totaled over $20 million. However, Democrats assert that none of the evidence suggests that President Biden accepted any payments or engaged in misconduct.
The second impeachment article accuses President Biden of obstructing justice, citing testimony from an IRS whistleblower. This testimony asserts that “members of the Biden campaign inappropriately collaborated with officials from the Justice Department (DOJ) to improperly interfere with investigations into potential tax violations involving Hunter Biden.” Both the Justice Department and special counsel David Weiss, who was appointed to investigate Hunter Biden, have denied any interference by the Biden administration in Weiss’ work.
The third and fourth impeachment articles allege that Biden was involved in “fraud” and financed Hunter Biden’s unlawful drug use and interactions with prostitutes, respectively. Steube emphasized, “The evidence continues to accumulate daily – the Biden family has personally profited from Joe’s governmental positions through acts of bribery, intimidation, and deception. Joe Biden should not be permitted to remain in the White House, jeopardizing our nation for personal gain.”
Simultaneously, on the same day, Steube introduced a legislative proposal requiring the Secret Service chief to present a report on the illicit use of controlled substances within the White House. This initiative followed the conclusion of the Secret Service’s investigation into cocaine discovered at the White House the previous month, which failed to identify a suspect. Steube named the proposed legislation the “Helping Understand Narcotics Traces at the Executive Residence (HUNTER) Act.”
Steube stated, “The United States Secret Service (USSS) boasts itself as one of the most elite law enforcement organizations globally. It is wholly unacceptable that the USSS has been unable to determine who was responsible for introducing cocaine into one of the most secure edifices in the world. The American people merit answers. My legislation demands information concerning the closed investigation into the July discovery of cocaine at the White House and concentrates on how Congress can exert oversight to forestall future unauthorized use of controlled substances at the White House.”
Steube’s articles of impeachment have leapfrogged over at least four committee investigations led by GOP members that were exploring avenues for impeaching Biden or his senior officials. The White House has derided suggestions of removing President Biden from his position.
White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre commented in July, “We will not delve into the hypothetical intentions or actions of House Republicans. That is their prerogative. Our focus is solely on the tasks at hand. The economic indicators are surpassing economists’ expectations, largely due to the accomplishments of this President. Our emphasis will remain on how we can enhance the lives of Americans, affording them some additional room to breathe.”
Justice Samuel Alito said Congress has “no authority” to regulate the Supreme Court in an interview with the Wall Street Journal’s opinion section published Friday, pushing back against Democrats’ attempt to mandate stronger ethics rules.
Alito, one of the high court’s leading conservatives, is just one of multiple justices who have come under recent scrutiny for ethics controversies that have fueled the renewed push.
“I know this is a controversial view, but I’m willing to say it,” Alito told the Journal. “No provision in the Constitution gives them the authority to regulate the Supreme Court — period.”
Although the Constitution enables Congress to structure the lower federal courts, it explicitly vests judicial power within a singular Supreme Court.
Alito and some legal observers argue that means Congress can’t prescribe certain regulations for the high court without running afoul of separation of powers issues.
Picture : TheUNN
Chief Justice John Roberts has also questioned Congress’s ability to act, but not as definitive as Alito’s new remarks. Many court watchers who disagree with the premise believe that Roberts’ questioning has given fodder to Republican objections.
“I don’t know that any of my colleagues have spoken about it publicly, so I don’t think I should say,” Alito told the paper. “But I think it is something we have all thought about.”
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.) was among the Democrats who rejected Alito’s reasoning, writing on X, formerly known as Twitter, “What a surprise, guy who is supposed to enforce checks and balances thinks checks shouldn’t apply to him.”
The piece also revealed Alito’s first public comments on the recent ethics push since he authored an op-ed for the same paper that was shared just before a ProPublica investigation into an undisclosed Alaskan fishing trip the justice accepted in 2008 paid for by a conservative donor was made public. Alito also conducted an interview with the Wall Street Journal in April.
One of the two authors of the piece, David Rivkin, is an attorney for conservative judicial activist Leonard Leo. Rivkin earlier this week penned a letter rebuffing Democratic lawmakers’ request for information about the Alaska trip, which Leo reportedly facilitated, and Rivkin also actively practices before the court. James Taranto, the other author, is the Journal’s editorial features editor.
“I marvel at all the nonsense that has been written about me in the last year,” Alito said.
The revelations about the Alaska trip followed a ProPublica investigation into luxury trips accepted by fellow conservative Justice Clarence Thomas. The Associated Press later raised concerns about an aide to liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor pushing book sales, and other justices past and present have also faced criticisms for a variety of other ethics dilemmas.
In the wake of the new reports, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted along party lines to advance a Supreme Court ethics reform bill, though the legislation faces slim odds of passage.
Republicans have portrayed the push as an attempt to tear down the court’s conservative majority, and some have similarly cited constitutional concerns.
Former President Trump was indicted Tuesday by a Washington grand jury on charges stemming from his efforts to remain in power after losing the 2020 election.
The 45-page indictment from special counsel Jack Smith puts Trump at the center of a lawless campaign to block the transfer of power, charging him with conspiracy to defraud the U.S. and other crimes.
At its core, the Justice Department contends Trump embarked on a campaign of “dishonesty, fraud and conceit” to obstruct a “bedrock function” of a democracy — the counting of votes — generating charges for conspiracy to defraud the U.S.
Picture : PBS
“Despite having lost, the Defendant was determined to remain in power. So for more than two months following election day on November 3, 2020, the Defendant spread lies that there had been outcome-determinative fraud in the election and that he had actually won,” the indictment states.
“These claims were false, and the Defendant knew that they were false,” it continues. “But the Defendant repeated and widely disseminated them anyway—to make his knowingly false claims appear legitimate, create an intense national atmosphere of mistrust and anger, and erode public faith in the administration of the election.”
That lie was the basis for charges on four counts, alleging Trump was the director of a conspiracy to defraud the U.S. and was also central to a campaign to block the certification of votes on Jan. 6.
That campaign spurred charges for obstruction of an official proceeding, the same charge brought against many of those who followed Trump’s Jan. 6 rally call for action and later stormed the Capitol in a deadly rampage.
The indictment also says Trump’s violated the rights of millions of Americans to cast a vote for the candidate of their choice, a right enshrined in the Constitution but further protected from “Conspiracy Against Rights.”
The indictment indicates that Trump will be charged alongside six co-conspirators who, though unnamed, point to a series of close advisers to the former president.
The assertion that Trump knew he lost advances the case beyond was what laid out by the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol — an allegation the panel made but was not fully able to prove.
The indictment breaks down a series of incidents in which allies who either supported Trump or “who personally stood to gain by remaining in office” like Vice President Mike Pence, informed Trump that he had lost the election and there was no evidence of widespread voter fraud that could unwind the results.
“Defendant was notified repeatedly that his claims were untrue — often by the people on whom he relied for candid advice on important matters, and who were best positioned to know the facts — and he deliberately disregarded the Truth,” the indictment states.
Title: From N.P. (Nani Palkhivala) to N.P. (Naipaul, V.S.): Observations through the eyes of an overseas citizen of India
Synopsis: The author, an ophthalmologist who has lived abroad (in England and the USA) longer than in India, has visited India more than 120 times since 1977. Each visit was a working vacation to combat avoidable blindness among Indians, especially children. He founded “Eye Foundation of America” in 1979 who is active in India and 21 other developing countries.
As an avid reader of non-medical subjects, he discovered the extraordinary books by Nani and also the books by Nobel Laureate V.S. Naipaul. Nani brought to his readers the best of India and its roots, while also pointing out many shortcomings of present-day India. Naipaul criticizes India (and even its roots) with remarks that are both explosive and cruel.
In spite of their contrasting perspectives, the writings of both N.P. and N.P. contain elements of truth. The author (V.K.R.), while expressing his gratefulness to Mother India for giving him the best medical education almost for free, will attempt to discuss the voluminous historical and philosophical material in these books and to connect them with present-day India.
Finally, the author’s own account, “The Tragedy of Childhood Blindness in India,” illustrates numerous points—the good, the bad, and the ugly—from both Nani and Naipaul.
Vivek Ramaswamy has emerged as something of a breakout star in the 2024 GOP presidential primary, raising speculation over his future within the party.
Many Republicans have praised the 37-year-old biotech entrepreneur, calling him an effective communicator with an impressive professional resume for a political outsider.
The biotech entrepreneur and author of “Woke, Inc.: Inside Corporate America’s Social Justice Scam” is an audience favorite at multicandidate events and has polled well despite not being nationally known when he entered the race.
“Take it from me as a young person — I’m 37 years old. I was born in 1985. I truly hope and pray and believe that my best days may still be ahead of me,” he said at the Faith and Freedom conference in Washington, D.C. in June.
Ramaswamy’s campaign says he met the donor threshold earlier this year. This summer he rolled out “Vivek’s Kitchen Cabinet” to boost his donor numbers even more, by letting fundraisers keep 10% of what they bring in for his campaign.
While there’s heavy scepticism that Ramaswamy will win any of the early-state primaries, many see him as a rising figure within the party’s ranks.
Picture : MediaLite
“I think that his message is resonating well with the Republican activist crowd, and he is being positive enough with regards to [former President] Trump to basically be an alternative without being an anti-Trump guy,” said GOP strategist and former Michigan GOP Chairman Saul Anuzis.
“I think that resonates with many of the Trump supporters and let’s say soft Trump supporters who would like to move on, but yet see somebody who’s not running kind of on a message of attacking Trump and his legacy,” he added.
Initially considered a long-shot candidate when he launched his campaign in February, the “Woke, Inc.” author entered the race known in part for his staunch opposition to environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG) policies.
But the political outsider and first millennial to run for president on the GOP side has started to catch some momentum in the GOP primary.
He’s garnered attention for some of his stances and proposals, including pushing every candidate in the GOP primary to commit to pardoning Trump over the Justice Department’s indictment alleging the former president mishandled and obstructed attempts to retrieve classified documents. Other Republican contenders like Perry Johnson have also vowed to pardon the former president.
Earlier this month, Ramaswamy gained some praise after a video went viral of him engaging with a protester who interrupted his Iowa event. After the woman turned to leave after interrupting his remarks, Ramaswamy offered for her to come back to ask a question.
“There is a division in our country and I think people are hungry to start talking openly again, and I think Vivek has a unique skill that he’s able to really lead people and rally people around what this country was founded upon, which is free speech, which is an open debate,” said Ramaswamy campaign senior adviser Tricia McLaughlin.
“I think that’s what not only the GOP electorate is hungry for, but I think independents and even disaffected Democrats,” she added.
National polling, too, suggests voters are starting to give Ramaswamy a serious look.
A RealClearPolitics polling average shows Ramaswamy placing third at 5.4 percent, behind Trump in first place with 52.4 percent and DeSantis at 18.4 percent.
Still, most national polls show the biotech entrepreneur in the single digits compared to Trump, who remains the front-runner in surveys. Some early state polls in New Hampshire and South Carolina show Ramaswamy trailing some of the other GOP candidates, such as Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and Sen. Tim Scott (S.C.).
Republicans also acknowledge more GOP voters will start to tune into the primary around next month’s debate in Milwaukee and note there’s still months to go until the first early states’ primaries.
Not all Republicans are buying the Ramaswamy hype. GOP pollster and consultant Whit Ayres said the GOP millennial is “not a serious contender for the presidency” and waved off Ramaswamy’s recent polling.
“It’s a sign just like Herman Cain caught something in 2011 and Ben Carson caught something in 2015 and Andrew Yang caught something in 2020,” Ayres said, referring to presidential candidates who appeared to have momentum at one point in their primary before sputtering out.
New Hampshire-based strategist Matthew Bartlett similarly suggested that Ramaswamy doesn’t have a viable path to the presidency. Putting it bluntly, Bartlett said, “No one is expecting him to win,” and he said he didn’t see Ramaswamy going after the former president in the primary but was “looking to cozy up to Trump.”
“His campaign was not looking to end up in the Oval Office. His campaign was to promote himself and to some degree, his ideas and articulate that,” he added.
But that hasn’t stopped members of the party from suggesting that Ramaswamy could have a bright future ahead, saying he could run for Senate, be picked for a presidential cabinet position or even selected as someone’s running mate.
“There’s so many people even after the Family Leadership Summit [who] said, ‘Boy, what a young, positive, inspirational guy. He has a bright future. He’d be good in somebody’s cabinet. He might be a vice president,’” explained Bob Vander Plaats, president and CEO of the influential Family Leader in Iowa.
“His biggest hurdle right now is crossing that threshold where people say, ‘No, I think he can be president.’ So he’s gotten a lot of people excited about his candidacy. Now he needs to make that transition: ‘Now they can see me be president,’” he added.
Ramaswamy for his part has previously said he’s not interested in being a vice presidential pick or taking a cabinet position, saying he’d return to the private sector instead if he didn’t win the GOP presidential primary. But his campaign argues he shouldn’t be underestimated.
“I think Vivek has already done what everyone said he couldn’t do. The fact that he is beating … the most former vice president, multiple governors, the former U.N. ambassador, a sitting senator … four or five months ago, no one knew who Vivek Ramaswamy is,” McLaughlin, the senior Ramaswamy campaign adviser, said. “And now he’s third in national polls. That in itself is meteoric.”
Republican strategists, too, say that while Trump is still the front-runner in the primary, a strong showing in Iowa can help galvanize a candidate heading into the next few states.
“I wouldn’t count anyone out that’s coming in the top three in Iowa,” said GOP strategist Alice Stewart, who’s an alum of multiple presidential campaigns. “And the objective of Iowa has never been to choose the party nominee, it’s to winnow the field.”
The criminal indictment of ex-President Donald Trump for his alleged attempts to subvert democracy and incite the Jan. 6, 2021, melee in Washington has been a long time coming. Now that it’s here, two-and-a-half years after a mob listened to Trump, marched about a mile eastward, and ransacked the U.S. Capitol in service of his lies about a stolen 2020 election, it hits a little different than the charges previously brought against Trump.
A federal grand jury on Tuesday charged Trump with an alleged conspiracy to defraud the United States, a conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and a conspiracy against voting rights. The charges are a remarkable escalation of the legal troubles chasing Trump during what he hopes is a brief return to civilian life. Trump, who is running for President again in 2024 and is the runaway front-runner in the Republican field, could face years in prison if convicted. Now Trump has made history once again, becoming a thrice-indicted ex-Commander in Chief. Well, at least if the normal rules of political gravity still matter. History is being made, but not all history is good.
It was a day a lot of the folks who experienced the attack in Washington on Jan. 6 had been seeking for a long time. The wall-to-wall coverage on cable, the constant refreshes of social-media sites, and even the text chains around Capitol Hill all reflected an anxiety that this may be a false start. It will be similar when Trump is due in court on Thursday in D.C.
Picture : Vanity Fair
Politicos of both parties in D.C. watched in horror more than two years ago as a riot descended on Capitol Hill, the mob raiding offices, menacing lawmakers, and fighting hand-to-hand combat with police. The top leadership of both chambers followed evacuation protocols to make sure their branch of government wouldn’t be decapitated. Vice President Mike Pence was pinned down and forced to hide at a loading dock while White House aides unsuccessfully lobbied Trump to direct his legion of followers to stop terrorizing democracy. Partisanship fades when Hill staffers talk about that day, even if many of their bosses have publicly retreated from prior criticism of Trump and sought to shade the painful facts.
The Trump years numbed the country to the word “unprecedented,” amid the constant reverberations of history being made. From the day Trump took office as the only person ever elected to the presidency with zero government or military experience, around every corner came norm-breaking and precedent-smashing. His tweets broke the fourth wall, he was the only President impeached twice, became the first in 150 years to refuse to attend his successor’s inauguration, and his Administration paid so little heed to laws prohibiting politicking on the government dime that he held the Republican convention on the South Lawn of the White House.
Trump’s team has already started telling allies on the Hill that these latest indictments will not matter at all for his reelection hopes. Republicans cite “indictment fatigue,” hoping to plant the idea that voters don’t much care about it and have already accepted that Trump is a bad dude who doesn’t play by the rules. It’s going to be “Old News!” on the socials and “Witch Hunt!” in the hallways. The messaging leaves responsible conservatives squeamish, but they’ll still carry it for fear of being branded insufficiently MAGA, and thus vulnerable in a primary from someone who wears the red hat proudly.
Trump’s past two indictments suggest this one may, perversely, benefit him as well. The aftermath of those charges—totaling at least 78 felony allegations and counting—brought a fundraising boon and a polling surge . That’s right: the self-described billionaire will collect millions in donations from his fans who see the real estate mogul as a victim of a weaponized Justice Department. His best days of fundraising have been his worst ones legally.
It’s worth taking a beat to appreciate how casually we all blew through the phrase “past two indictments” in the previous paragraph. And the fact that a former President now accused of a “conspiracy to defraud the United States” remains the frontrunner for the Republican Party’s re-nomination next year. A thrice-indicted, convicted sexual abuser, alleged election interferer and wealth fabulist is on course to coast to the general election, past capable governors, investors, ambassadors, and even his own former Vice President. Trump could still return to power facing federal charges and, in turn, dodge accountability for any of his alleged misdeeds. (This is why the state-based cases, where Trump will lack pardon powers, may be the real places to watch.)
But that doesn’t mean the next year-plus will be easy for Trump. His troubles are as epic as they are history-making—and, maybe, incompatible with his campaign schedule. Trump is due in court in October to answer a $250 million civil lawsuit brought by the New York Attorney General on allegations the Trumps falsified business records. He is scheduled to begin a New York County criminal trial in March of next year on 34 charges that he falsified Trump Organization business records to pay off a porn star.
A federal judge ruled on July 19 the case in Manhattan should continue there, and not be moved into the federal track. Trump was arraigned last month on charges he had classified documents at his Florida vacation club and defied subpoenas to return them, a case also brought by special counsel Smith. He pleaded not guilty to 37 charges. Another three were added last week. A trial date could start in May in Florida.
On top of all of this, Trump faces potential criminal charges of election tampering in Georgia for a call asking the state’s balloting chief to change the winner; an indictment has been considered imminent in a county-based case since February, and a new grand jury was seated last week. A decision, it seems, is imminent.
Yet, somehow, there remains a better-than-even-odds chance he squirms out of any consequences, which would leave a lot of the witnesses to the chaos of Jan. 6 deeply skeptical about the evenhandedness of the criminal justice system if not dejected and cynical. After all, a high-wattage series of congressional hearings last year into Trump’s conduct surrounding the riot resulted in a collective shrug, and two impeachment trials—one of which was also about Jan. 6—failed to deliver convictions.
Those earlier indictments cut some parts of Trump’s clout down to size. But those haven’t yet been enough to take him down, because Presidents stand like giants. That may be changing, as instead of standing with Sequoia-like titans like Franklin D. Roosevelt and Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, the Trump sapling is being cut into a stump. With this latest indictment, which is a federal criminal probe that goes beyond fibbing on tax forms and mishandling spycraft files and includes a bodycount, Trump has few chances to rise to his predecessor’s heights, at least beyond a shady corner of his partisan bonfire. It’s why Tuesday’s indictment is not like the earlier ones: it may be the one cited in the first line of future history books. He may well dodge jail time, but even the one-time most-powerful person on the planet cannot escape the accountability of historians.
Congressmen Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL) and Larry Bucshon, M.D. (R-IN) led 56 of their colleagues have sent in a bipartisan letter July 28, 2023 to Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, urging the Biden Administration to take executive action to provide relief to high-skilled employment-based visa holders.
Indian immigrants comprise the overwhelming number of H1-B visa holders and applicants.
In their letter, lawmakers request that the Administration mark all dates for the filing of employment-based visa applications in the Bureau of Consular Affairs’ published Employment-Based Visa Bulletin as “current.”
Marking all dates as “current” would allow employment-based applications to be filed regardless of applicants’ country-based priority date, which would provide relief to thousands of individuals attempting to legally navigate the U.S. immigration system and could potentially also make some eligible for Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) to change jobs, start businesses, and travel abroad to visit family without penalty.
“Without this administrative action, which was also used during the administration of President George W. Bush, individuals are left in a constant state of limbo and, in some cases, are punished for utilizing a pathway of legal immigration by being forced to stay with one company or organization due to their green card status,” a press release from Krishnamoorthi’s office said.
“I’m proud to join my colleagues in urging the Biden Administration to address bureaucratic delays in our legal immigration system that are holding back our economy while leaving so many families in limbo,” Krishnamoorthi is quoted saying in the press release. “By using its authority under existing law, the Administration can ease this burden while strengthening our economy and helping to create jobs.”
“Indiana is home to many hardworking immigrants who are legally working as doctors, engineers, and in other critical professions. Unfortunately, due to bureaucratic red tape in our nation’s legal immigration system, they are caught in the visa backlog and don’t have the flexibility to change jobs, start businesses, and travel abroad without penalty. I believe that it’s important for the Administration to act within current law to make it easier for these legal immigrants to navigate our immigration system and continue making a positive contribution to our nation and our economy.” said Dr. Bucshon.
“This commonsense measure proposed in the letter by Congressmen Krishnamoorthi and Bucshon would be an absolute game changer to provide basic human rights—such as the ability to change jobs and travel—for nearly 1 million high skilled immigrants whose status in the United States can end at an any moment, and is entirely dependent upon the whims of their employer,” said Aman Kapoor, President of Immigration Voice. “The entire basis for this problem is a discriminatory immigration system that requires Indian nationals to have to wait 200 years for a green card while people from 150 other countries have no wait at all,” Kapoor added.
“While this larger problem cannot be fixed without legislation, our organization of over 100,000 members is absolutely thrilled with the bipartisan effort of Congressmen Krishnamoorthi, Bucshon and 56 other members of Congress to call on the Biden Administration to adopt this change,” calling on the Biden Administration “to do the right thing and heed the call of this rare bipartisan letter and give high-skilled immigrants here for over a decade the same rights to work and travel that people being paroled into the United States for the first time just this week have”.
Congressmen Krishnamoorthi and Bucshon were joined on the letter by U.S. Reps. Auchincloss (D-MA), Baird (R-IN), Bera (D-CA), Blunt Rochester (D-DE), Carter (R-GA), Casar (D-TX), Castro (D-TX), Cherfilus-McCormick (D-FL), Chu (D-CA), Crockett (D-TX), Davis (D-IL), Davis (D-NC), Dean (D-PA), Deluzio (D-PA), Dingell (D-MI), Evans (D-PA), Fitzpatrick (R-PA), Fletcher (D-TX), Frankel (D-FL), Gimenez (R-FL), Goldman (D-NY), Gomez (D-CA), Harder (D-CA) Houlahan (D-PA), Jackson Lee (D-TX), Jayapal (D-WA), Johnson (D-GA), Kamlager-Dove (D-CA), Keating (D-MA), Khanna (D-CA), Kim (D-NJ), Manning (D-NC), McGarvey (D-KY), McGovern (D-MA), Meng (D-NY), Morelle (D-NY), Nadler (D-NY), Pallone (D-NJ), Panetta (D-CA), Phillips (D-MN), Porter (D-CA), Raskin (D-MD), Ross (D-NC), Ruppersberger (D-MD), Salazar (R-FL), Schiff (D-CA), Smith (D-WA), Stanton (D-AZ), Swalwell (D-CA), Thanedar (D-MI), Trahan (D-MA), Trone (D-MD), Velázquez (D-NY), Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), Watson Coleman (D-NJ), Wexton (D-VA).
The letter from the U.S. Representatives is available at Krishnamoorthi.house.gov
Indian-American Democrats Raja Krishnamoorthi and Ro Khanna have come out in support of Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy over an attack on his Hindu faith. At a public event, Hank Kunneman, the senior pastor of the non-denominational Lord of Hosts Church in Omaha, Nebraska and a televangelist targeted Ramaswamy’s faith in an attempt to prevent people from voting for him.
According to a video posted on Twitter by Right Wing Watch, Kunneman said that as a country, America is in danger. “Listen to me Generation Z, listen to me millennials, those of you who are watching that like this new young guy (Ramaswamy). If he does not serve the Lord Jesus Christ and stand primarily for Judeo-Christian principles, you will have a fight with God.
“You’re gonna have some dude put his hand on something other than the Bible? You’re gonna let him put all of his strange gods up in the White House and we’re just supposed to blink because he understands policies?” Kunneman was heard saying in the video. “Those of you that like this new young guy — if he does not serve the Lord Jesus Christ and stand primarily for Judeo-Christian principles, you will fight with God…”
Reacting to Kunneman’s disparaging comments, Congressmen Raja Krishnamoorthi and Ro Khanna said they don’t agree much with Ramaswamy but condemned the “bigoted remarks” against the 37-year-old.
“I don’t agree with @VivekGRamaswamy on much, but one thing is certain: all political parties in America should welcome individuals of all faiths, including Hindus. I condemn the bigoted remarks directed toward Ramaswamy, and I hope that Republican electeds and others do the same,” Krishnamoorthi tweeted on Tuesday.
“I have had spirited disagreements with @VivekGRamaswamy. But this is a disgusting and anti-American attack on his faith. We are a nation of many faiths, & the fact that so many Christian American Republicans are willing to support Vivek speaks to that ideal,” Khanna said in his tweet.
Seen as former President Donald Trump’s supporter, Kunneman calls himself a “prophet” and had said earlier that Trump’s 2020 election loss was God’s way of refuting prophets on Earth.
Ramaswamy was raised by Indian immigrants and is a practicing Hindu, which poses a dilemma for some conservative Christian voters who make up a significant share of the Republican primary electorate and are accustomed to evaluating candidates not just on their policy proposals but also on their biographies and personal beliefs, including religious faith.
“I’m not Christian. I was not raised in a Christian household. But we do share the same Christian values that this nation was founded on,” the Republican presidential hopeful had said in one of his campaign events.
In his address to prospective voters, Ramaswamy often rues that faith, patriotism, hard work and family “have disappeared, only to be replaced by new secular religions in this country”.
In response to a query on faith at a gathering in Nashua, New Hampshire on July 11, Ramaswamy said that the US was founded on Judeo-Christian values. He clarified, “I am not running to be a pastor-in-chief. I am running to be our commander-in-chief.”
(RNS) — Like many Republican presidential candidates, Vivek Ramaswamy has been outspoken about the role of faith and society. An enthusiastic second-generation Indian American, Ramaswamy also isn’t shy about talking about his own faith.
“I’m a person of faith. Evangelical Christians across the state are also people of faith,” he said in a July interview with NBC News. “We found commonality in our need to defend religious liberty, to stand for faith and patriotism and stand unapologetically for the fact that we are one nation under God.”
To reach evangelical Christians, the largest religious group skewing Republican, Ramaswamy has affirmed both his Hindu identity and the Judeo-Christian civic religion in which he was raised. Ramaswamy attended Catholic School where he studied the Bible, uniquely positioning him to use both fai
Not everyone is happy with that message. Earlier this week, a conservative pastor went viral for his condemnation of Ramaswamy’s faith.
“If he does not serve the Lord Jesus Christ and stand primarily for Judeo-Christian principles, you will have a fight with God,” said Hank Kunneman, of One Voice Ministries, in a video tweeted by Right Wing Watch on July 24. “You are going to let him put all of his strange gods up in the White House and are we just supposed to blink because he understands policies? No.”
Hindu Americans across the country condemned the pastor’s remarks, including Democratic Congressmen Raja Krishnamoorthi and Ro Khanna. The United States-India Relationship Council, a political action committee dedicated to supporting political candidates who are pro-India, released a public statement.
“We need to expose and condemn this bigotry,” said Amit Desai, founder of the PAC. “By doing so, people will get educated.”
The ancient tradition of Sanatana Dharma — more commonly known as Hinduism — has long been misunderstood by unfamiliar audiences, especially in places like the United States, where Christianity predominates.
A tradition that has more than a billion adherents worldwide, Hinduism does not always fit neatly into categories understood by those more familiar with Abrahamic faiths like Christianity, Islam and Judaism. Hindus hold a pluralistic worldview in which many paths exist to experiencing the supreme, eternal spirit of reality known as Brahman.
Brahman, sometimes referred to as God, is a genderless and metaphysical concept, but Hindus believe it manifests itself in the sometimes human-like forms of gods and goddesses. Many Hindus can see the divine revealing itself in the holy people of other religious traditions.
Hindus worship at temples and within their homes to as many murtis as they wish, or embodied forms of God. Families and communities within Hinduism can also have a patron deity, known as an Ishta Devata, that they especially venerate.
To help people from other backgrounds better understand their faith, Ramaswamy, like other American Hindus, has emphasized the elements of Hinduism that relate closely to Christianity — such as a focus on one God that all of humanity shares.
The Hindu American Foundation, the largest nonprofit representing the religious community, has started shifting away from using the word “idol,” instead using “deity,” so as to eliminate the chance of misunderstanding by Christians.
Suhag Shukla, executive director of HAF, says that even though God might not necessarily be the appropriate word to equate to Brahman, saying God is the fastest way to communicate with other faith traditions.
“When your goal is to educate people who are wholly unfamiliar with a tradition or a philosophy or religion, you have to meet them where they are,” said Shukla. “The words that might have some resonance for Christians is a good starting point.”
Anantanand Rambachan, a Hindu theologian and author of “Pathways to Hindu-Christian Dialogue,” says that, while it is not incorrect to say Hindus worship one divine being, practitioners should not shy away from explaining that this one being has infinite names and forms. The faith is neither polytheistic nor monotheistic, he says, but something entirely more complex.
“In communicating our tradition, we should not be afraid to be different,” said Rambachan. “To reduce the murtis (idols) only to a symbol, is not to be faithful to centuries of a very sophisticated theology.”
Back in 2007, as the first non-Christian chair of the Religion Department at St. Olaf College, a Lutheran school in Minnesota, Rambachan faced his share of backlash from critics who insisted he could not serve a largely Christian student body.
“Communicating the Hindu point of view in all of its richness and its integrity is possible, but it takes time,” said Rambachan. “Those who are formed and steeped in an exclusive theological position — it is not easy to open their hearts and minds.”
While Hindus have overwhelmingly voted Democrat, some in the community say they are disappointed with the party for not standing against anti-Hindu hatred they say is rampant.
For Desai, a leader of USIRC, Ramaswamy’s battle against what he calls “woke-ism” and his embracing of young voters is enough to sway his vote. He points to Rishi Sunak, the prime minister of the UK and a member of the Conservative Party, as an example of someone who has held his Hindu faith on unapologetic display.
Filing his candidacy, Hirsh Vardhan Singh, an Aerospace engineer from New Jersey, has become the fourth Indian-American to enter the race for 2024 US Presidential Polls. On Thursday, July 27, 2023, he formally submitted his candidature to the Federal Election Commission.
He is the third Indian American to join numerous Republicans vying for their party’s endorsement to run for President. The other two are former governor of South Carolina Nikki Haley and entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy.
Taking to X, formerly known as Twitter, Singh posted a video and said he is a “lifelong Republican” and “America First” conservative who worked to restore a conservative wing of the New Jersey Republican Party. In the video, he criticized the “corruption” of Big Tech and pharmaceutical firms, saying they had “relentlessly attacked our freedoms.”
“We need strong leadership to reverse the changes that have occurred in the past few years and restore American values. That is why I have decided to seek the Republican Party’s nomination for the 2024 election for the office of president of the United States,” Singh said in his video, according to The Hill.
With a dozen contenders vying for the Republican nomination, including former president Trump, Singh joins a crowded field.
Singh entered the Republican primaries for New Jersey governor in 2017 and 2021, a House seat in 2018, and the Senate in 2020, but he was unable to secure the party’s nod.
Aerospace engineer Hirsh Vardhan Singh has become the third Indian-American vying for the Republican nomination for the 2024 US presidential race after former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley and entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy.
Singh joins a crowded list of Republican candidates vying for presidency, which includes Trump, former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, Florida Governer Ron DeSantis, former Vice President Mike Pence, Ramaswamy, Haley, Senator Tim Scott and businessman and pastor Ryan Binkley.
Singh, 38, introduced himself as a lifelong Republican and an “America First constitutional carry and pro-life conservative who helped restore the conservative wing of New Jersey’s Republican Party starting in 2017” in a video message posted on Twitter on Thursday.
He ran unsuccessfully for the US Senate in 2020, and the present bid is the fourth time the defense and aerospace industry executive is eyeing public office.
According to Singh, Americans face grave threats from the corruption of both, big tech and big pharma, and in addition, there is an all out attack on American family values, parental rights and open debate.
“While Big Pharma has made massive profits working with the government to compel everyone to take the experimental vaccines, Big Tech has become the Big Brother, who invades our privacy and indulges in censorship of our political and contrarian viewpoints,” her said in an over three-minute-long video.
“We need strong leadership to restore American values. That is why I have decided to seek the Republican Party’s nomination for the 2024 election,” he added.
While praising fellow Republican candidate Donald Trump as the “greatest president of my lifetime”, Singh said that “America needs more”.
“It is time to move past outdated politicians of a bygone era,” Singh said, calling himself the “only pure blood candidate for the President” as he never gave in to the Covid vaccinations. “Even New Jersey’s Democrat Senate President labelled me as ‘Trump on steroids,” he said in his video message.
According to a recent Morning Consult poll, 59 per cent of voters support Trump, 16 per cent would vote for DeSantis, 8 per cent to Ramaswamy, 6 per cent to Pence, and 2 per cent to Scott.
Born to Indian immigrant parents, Singh has a bachelor’s degree in engineering from the New Jersey Institute of Technology in 2009. Entering New Jersey politics in 2017 as a candidate for Governor, Singh finished third in the race, securing a meagre 9.8 per cent of the vote share.
He was awarded Aviation Ambassador in 2003 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. (IANS)
The 2024 United States Presidential elections is turning out to be an Indian American affair as tech entrepreneur Shiva Ayyadurai became the fourth candidate from the community to announce his bid for the country’s top post. Scientist and entrepreneur, Shiva Ayyadurai is running as an independent candidate.
Announcing his campaign bid recently, the 59-year-old Mumbai-born said he wants to serve America, beyond “Left” and “Right” to deliver solutions people need and deserve.
“I am running for President of the United States of America. We stand at the crossroads where we can either head into a Golden Age or into the Darkness… America becomes great when innovators, entrepreneurs, working people with skills and those committed to using common sense and reason run this country,” Ayyadurai said. “We stand at crossroads where we can either head into a Golden Age or the Darkness. I stand before you as someone who is a personification of the American Dream.”
On his campaign website, Ayyadurai maintained that America becomes great when innovators, entrepreneurs, working people with skills and those committed to using common sense and reason run the country. He added, “The Founders of America were blacksmiths, engineers, soldiers, architects, entrepreneurs, scientists — they worked for a living and produced through their labor, products and services to help other citizens.”
He is now the fourth Indian-American to bid for the US presidency, following Indian-American aerospace engineer Hirsh Vardhan Singh, former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley, and entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy.
A Fulbright Scholar with four degrees from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Ayyadurai has started seven hi-tech companies, including EchoMail, CytoSolve, and Systems Health. He is said to have “invented email” at the age of 14. Currently, he serves as the Founder and CEO of CytoSolve, Inc, which is working on discovering cures for major diseases, from pancreatic cancer to Alzheimer’s.
The 59-year-old MIT scholar, who “invented email” when he was just 14, had earlier made headlines when he expressed interest in taking up the position of Twitter’s chief executive officer after Elon Musk said he wishes to step down from the post.
Mumbai-born Ayyadurai is an award-winning scientist and recently invented CytoSolveⓇ, a revolutionary platform for modeling complex biological phenomena, to support the development multi-combination medicines without animal testing. His parents immigrated to the US in 1970, when he was seven years old and settled in Paterson, New Jersey.
The question remains, if a foreign born US citizen is able to run for President’s office!
This spring, Bristol Smith, a manager at a McDonald’s in Maryville, Tennessee, came across the name Vivek Ramaswamy shortly after the entrepreneur Mr. Ramaswamy announced that he was running for president. Mr. Smith was drawn in. He liked Mr. Ramaswamy’s plan to send the military to the southern border to fight drug cartels and the way he “stands up against the wokeness.” He regarded Mr. Ramaswamy’s insight as a money manager worth countless dollars.
Then, at that point, Mr. Smith, 25, looked for Mr. Ramaswamy’s confidence. Mr. Smith is an evangelical Christian who recently established a modest church at his parents’ house.
He recalled, “I looked up his religion and saw he is Hindu.” I planned to decide in favor of him until that surfaced.” Mr. Smith believes that the nation needs to be “put back under God,” and he doesn’t want to risk it with a non-Christian.
By then, he said, “I got back on President Trump’s train.”
Mr. Ramaswamy, 37, is a practicing Hindu who was brought up in India by immigrants. Some conservative Christian voters, who make up a significant portion of the Republican primary electorate and are accustomed to evaluating candidates not only based on their policy proposals but also on their biographies and personal beliefs, including religious faith, face a dilemma as a result of this.
A candidate’s faith is a sign of a candidate’s values, lifestyle, loyalties, and priorities as a leader for many conservative voters. It’s the classic Sunday morning question about which candidate you’d like to have a beer with most: Who is a good fit for your church?
“It’s another obstacle individuals need to cross to go to him,” Weave Vander Plaats, a powerful fervent forerunner in Iowa, said of Mr. Ramaswamy.
Mr. Vander Plaats as of late had Mr. Ramaswamy’s family over for Sunday dinner at his home, where the feast opened with a request and the perusing of an entry from the Good book. He said that Mr. Ramaswamy’s message aligned with the priorities of many evangelical voters and that he left impressed. He referred to Mr. Ramaswamy’s list of ten fundamental “truths,” the first of which is as follows: God really exists. The subsequent: There are men and women.”)
“I believe he’s truly interfacing with the crowds in Iowa,” said Mr. Vander Plaats, who has not embraced an up-and-comer. ” He is open to more in-depth inquiries. In the most recent national polls, Mr. Ramaswamy receives less than 5% of the vote.
Mr. Ramaswamy has taken the direct approach of addressing the issue and arguing that he shares more similarities with observant Christians than they might think.
“I’m not Christian. In June, he addressed Mr. Vander Plaats in front of a small audience at the Family Leader’s headquarters. “I was not raised in a Christian household.” However, we truly do have the very Christian qualities that this country was established on.”
In a meeting in late June, in the wake of leaving a gathering with a couple dozen ministers in New Hampshire, Mr. Ramaswamy said his confidence instructed him that Jesus was “a child of God, totally.” ( That “a” will be a sharp qualification from the focal Christian conviction that Jesus is the child of God. Many Hindus believe in a plethora of deities, and some even consider Jesus to be a single teacher or god.) Hinduism is a fluid and expansive religion.
Mr. Ramaswamy pointed out that even though he is not a Christian, he openly discusses why belief in God is important, why increasing secularism in the United States is bad for the country, and values like marriage fidelity, duty, religious liberty, and self-sacrifice.
Regarding the theological differences between Hinduism and Christianity, he stated, “I don’t have a quick pitch to say, ‘No, no, that doesn’t matter.'” It’s that I see precisely why that would make a difference to you.”
Mr. Ramaswamy cites Thomas Aquinas and makes references to Bible stories at campaign stops, including the crucifixion of Jesus. He frequently discusses his time spent attending a Cincinnati “Christian school” (Catholic St. Xavier High School). Also, he differentiates “religions like our own,” which have gone the distance, with the contending perspectives of “wokeism, climatism, transgenderism, orientation belief system, Covidism,” as he put it to a group of people in New Hampshire.
The campaign of Mr. Ramaswamy has distributed videos of him responding to a New Hampshire man who asked about his “spiritual beliefs” at a town hall and of a pastor in Iowa comparing him to King David from the Bible. A woman blessed Mr. Ramaswamy in the name of Jesus Christ by placing her hand on his chest in Iowa.
“So be it,” Mr. Ramaswamy said as she closed her request.
Mr. Ramaswamy will be able to win over evangelical primary voters in the crowded Republican field in part because of outside forces. Rather than seeking a “pastor-in-chief,” many conservative voters now say they are looking for someone who shares their political and cultural goals and will fight on their behalf.
“The culture has changed, but theology is important. America has changed,” said David Brody, the boss political expert for the Christian Telecom Organization, who has talked with Mr. Ramaswamy. Mr. Brody stated that the fight against “cultural Marxism” and reversing the course of “a country gone haywire” are currently the most important goals.
He compared evangelical priorities in the Iowa caucuses the following year to those in 2008 and 2012, when conservative Christian candidates Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee won.
Mr. Brody stated, “I don’t buy it at all the lazy narrative that he’s Hindu so he can’t appeal to evangelicals.”
As political divides have widened, theological boundaries have become increasingly muddled. Few temples split nowadays over old discussions like the specific timing of the final days or the job of through and through freedom in salvation. About portion of American Protestants presently say they like to go to a congregation with individuals who share their political perspectives, as per surveying from Lifeway Exploration.
Mr. Ramaswamy’s accentuation on his faith in one God has a long history for Hindus in the US, particularly those addressing white Christian crowds, said Michael Altman, a teacher of strict examinations at the College of Alabama.
Master Vivekananda, who addressed Hinduism at the Parliament of the World’s Religions in Chicago in 1893, went to considerable lengths to portray his confidence as monotheistic, rather than the generalizations of its devotees as “pagan” polytheists. Although the religion has a number of deities, they are typically subordinate to a single supreme “reality.” Its theology, according to many scholars and Hindus, is too complicated to be classified as either entirely monotheistic or entirely polytheistic.
“The polytheism obstacle is the principal thing that must be tended to” for the majority American Christian crowds, Mr. Altman said. He believes that Mr. Ramaswamy’s argument against “wokeism” is a way to dispel myths that Hinduism is synonymous with yoga, hippies, and vegetarianism.
According to evangelical observers, former President Donald J. Trump paved the way for Republican candidates who weren’t necessarily the kind of people voters would expect to sit next to on Sunday mornings at church. Numerous fervent citizens embraced the rough, threefold wedded gambling club financier not on the grounds that he was one of them but since they accepted he would battle in the public square for their benefit.
Most Indian Americans, including Hindus, are leftists. However, a segment of the population that places a high value on family, marriage, and education presents a chance for conservatives. Mr. Trump celebrated Diwali at the White House while serving as president, and the Republican National Committee introduced a brand-new Republican Hindu and Indian American Coalition in April. When he appeared with President Trump in Houston in 2019, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi drew a crowd of 50,000 people, making him a well-known figure to a growing group of right-wing Indian Americans. Mr. Ramaswamy talked last year at a celebration coordinated by the conservative U.S. bunch HinduPACT, which is lined up with Mr. Modi’s style of patriotism.
Nikki Haley, one more Indian American competitor in the 2024 essential, has also underlined her experience as the girl of foreigners. However, Ms. Haley converted to Christianity and now attends a large Methodist church in South Carolina, despite the fact that she was raised Sikh. Bobby Jindal, a Republican from Louisiana who ran for president in 2016, was born and raised Hindu, but he has said that he is an “evangelical Catholic.”
Mr. Ramaswamy goes to a similar sanctuary in Dayton, Ohio, that he did as a youngster that his folks actually do.
In 2015, he had his wedding in New York City officiated by one of the priests from the temple. His wife, Dr. Apoorva Ramaswamy, stated that he, his wife, and their two young sons attend the temple on holidays and for special occasions, including the younger son’s first birthday in early July.
Dr. Ramaswamy, who has spoken out about the family’s faith on the campaign trail, stated that serious and nominal adherents to the same faith share more similarities than committed believers from different traditions.
Dr. Ramaswamy stated, “The fact that we are believers, that we have that sense of humility, that we raise our children with true respect, fear, and love of God — that is so much more unifying than the name of the God to whom people pray.”
The inquiry for her significant other’s mission is whether enough Christian citizens will concur.
Ken Bosse, the pastor of New Life Church in Raymond, New Hampshire, said that he is “an extreme follower of Jesus Christ” and that, all things considered, he would rather have a Christian in the White House. But because “we have had some professing Christians in that position who didn’t follow biblical principles,” he would be open to the right candidate who is not a Christian.
Mr. Bosse welcomed Mr. Ramaswamy to convey a concise discourse at his congregation on a Sunday morning in April. He enjoyed the competitor’s accentuation on recovering a positive American personality, he expressed, and on his story as an independent tycoon who is the offspring of workers. Right now, in any case, Mr. Bosse is inclining in the direction of supporting Mr. Trump. (Courtesy: The New York Times)
Vivek Ramaswamy, a business visionary running for the Republican presidential nomination, has released a rundown of expected decisions for the U.S. Supreme Court, with an end goal to feature his moderate certifications to early-state citizens who might have one or two serious misgivings of an up-and-comer without a political foundation.
The move reverberations one made by Donald J. Trump in the 2016 official mission, when he was all the while confronting inquiries from Republican electors about his past as a Democrat from New York who had once upheld fetus removal privileges and had showed up additional moderate on specific issues.
The roster includes two senators — Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Mike Lee, R-Utah — former Solicitor General Paul Clement and a half-dozen of the nation’s most conservative federal appellate court judges. Some of them have worked to limit abortion and transgender rights.
Ramaswamy also named seven judges, from various federal district courts, the U.S. Court of International Trade and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, as a pool from which he would select U.S. circuit court nominees if he is elected.
“We were looking for diversity of vantage points on the Constitution, but without a diversity of commitment to the originalist understanding of the Constitution,” Ramaswamy said in an interview with NBC News.
Ramaswamy’s rundown, detailed prior by Axios, incorporates legal advisers who have controlled on different parts of the Republican culture wars, including strict issues, free discourse, antibody commands and transsexual privileges. In a proclamation, Mr. Ramaswamy looked to differentiate his way to deal with that of President Biden, who promised during his mission to designate the main Person of color to the most noteworthy court, which he did when he named Ketanji Brown Jackson. Mr. Ramaswamy excused that move as “purely skin-deep diversity.”
Ramaswamy stated, “The unwavering dedication to the principles of originalism and commitment to a constitutionalist judicial philosophy is what each of the individuals I would appoint share.” Our courts are the last line of guard against a managerial express that guidelines by fiat, enacts from the seat, smothering opportunity and truth.”
Ramaswamy said he, his staff and what helpers portray as “outsider associations” went over every one of the compositions and choices of the nine appointed authorities on his rundown, zeroing in on originalism — the legal way of thinking that depends on the expressions of the Constitution when it was composed rather than an understanding in light of current perspectives — and a “guarantee to a constitutionalist legal way of thinking.”
In early-state and national polls, Ramaswamy is polling well behind Mr. Trump and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. Be that as it may, Mr. Ramaswamy has committed broad opportunity to Iowa, where his rundown of judges for a potential open Supreme Court seat could matter.
His list includes Senators Mike Lee of Utah and Ted Cruz of Texas. Mr. Lee was on Mr. Trump’s initial list in 2016. Mr. Cruz has been mentioned on lists of prospective conservative jurists, but his decision to object to certifying the 2020 election’s Electoral College outcome would raise hackles among Democrats, who may cite other objections as well.
Judge James Ho, who serves on the Court of Appeal for the Fifth Circuit, which incorporates Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas, is additionally on the rundown. An individual from the moderate Federalist Society and a previous representative for Equity Clarence Thomas, Judge Ho has been a vocal rival of the right to a fetus removal.
Another legal adviser, Judge Lawrence Van Dyke of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, was designated for that situation by Mr. Trump in 2019. At that point, the American Bar Association said in a letter that it had worries that he wouldn’t be reasonable for L.G.B.T.Q. individuals.
Others on the rundown incorporate Appointed authority Lisa Branch, an individual from the Federalist Society who sits on the Court of Allures for the eleventh Circuit; Paul D. Forebearing, a previous specialist general; Judge Thomas M. Hardiman of the Court of Allures for the Third Circuit, who was on Mr. Trump’s underlying short rundown to supplant Equity Antonin Scalia; Judge Justin R. Walker of the Court of Allures for the Locale of Columbia Circuit; and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge John K. Bush.
“The United States and India are pleased to notify the DSB (dispute settlement body), in accordance with Article 3.6 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes, that the parties have reached a mutually agreed solution to the matter raised in this dispute,” according to a communication of the WTO dated July 17.
The dispute panel has been urged by the two nations to limit its report to a brief description of the case and information that the two nations have reached a solution.
The exchange question which was settled relates to a protest documented by the US in 2019 against India.
India had forced extra traditions obligations on 28 US items including chickpeas, lentils and apples in reprisal to the US expanding obligations on specific steel and aluminum items.
Against this goal, India would eliminate extra obligations on eight US items, including chickpeas, lentils and apples, which were forced in 2019 because of America’s action to increment taxes on specific steel and aluminum items, government sources said.
Six World Trade Organization (WTO) disputes were settled during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s recent state visit to the United States, and these retaliatory tariffs on certain US products were lifted.
In 2018, the US forced an import obligation of 25% on steel items and 10 percent on specific aluminum items on grounds of public safety. In reprisal, India in June 2019 forced traditions obligations on 28 American items.
Former President Trump said Tuesday last week that he has been alerted he is a target of the Justice Department’s Jan. 6 investigation focusing on his efforts to stay in power after losing the 2020 election. Trump said he received the “target letter” Sunday evening.
“Deranged Jack Smith, the prosecutor with Joe Biden’s DOJ, sent a letter (again it was Sunday night!) stating that I am a TARGET of the January 6th Grand Jury investigation, and giving me a very short 4 days to report to the Grand Jury, which almost always means an arrest and indictment.”
It had been clear that Trump’s actions would be a central focus of the Department of Justice (DOJ) investigation, as Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed a special counsel to review the matter last year to determine “whether any person or entity unlawfully interfered with the transfer of power.”
But, as Trump states, receiving a target letter is often a sign someone could soon face charges in a matter where prosecutors have gathered substantial evidence.
Trump pursued a multi-pronged plan to remain in office, turning to the DOJ, state officials and even his own supporters, who ransacked the Capitol after then-Vice President Mike Pence refused Trump’s request to overturn the election results.
It’s unclear what specific charges Trump could face if prosecutors decide to move ahead.
A model prosecution memo analyzing publicly available details about the DOJ investigation suggested the former president could face charges on conspiracy to defraud the United States after creating fake electoral certificates that were submitted to Congress.
Creating those fake electoral certificates could also invoke statutes that prohibit obstruction of an official proceeding, a charge also leveled at numerous rioters who entered the building, including members of the Oath Keepers and military and chauvinist group the Proud Boys.
Prosecutors in recent weeks have called a number of Trump allies before the grand jury, including Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner and former aide Hope Hicks. Prosecutors reportedly asked questions about whether Trump knew he had lost the election, as demonstrating intent is key for some charges.
An indictment would mark the third time this year Trump has been charged with a crime, and the second time in a matter of months that he would face federal charges. He was charged in Manhattan in April over an alleged hush money scheme to keep quiet an affair, and in June he pleaded not guilty to federal charges over his handling of classified documents upon leaving office. The former president is still under investigation in Georgia over his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results in the state. The district attorney leading the investigation has signaled charges could be filed in August.
Trump has repeatedly claimed that the myriad investigations into his conduct are part of an attempt to undermine his 2024 White House bid, pointing to his sizable lead in Republican primary polls, as well as some surveys that have shown him narrowly leading President Biden in a hypothetical rematch.
“THIS WITCH HUNT IS ALL ABOUT ELECTION INTERFERENCE AND A COMPLETE AND TOTAL POLITICAL WEAPONIZATION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT!” Trump said Tuesday. “It is a very sad and dark period for our Nation!”
The Biden White House has been adamant that they have had no contact with the DOJ about cases involving Trump.
In the case over his handling of classified materials, a May 19 letter from the DOJ notified Trump he was a target of the investigation, according to court filings. Trump posted on social media June 8 that he had been indicted.
In this case, however, it appears Trump has been given until Thursday to appear before the grand jury in Washington.
Trump’s office did not immediately respond to questions about whether he will appear before the grand jury — a chance to offer his own evidence in the case — and Smith’s office declined to comment on the matter.
In the halls of Congress, Republicans defended Trump, repeating his claims that he is being unfairly targeted.
Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), who in the days after the Jan. 6 attack said that Trump “bears responsibility” for the riot, sounded a different tune Tuesday morning.
“Recently, President Trump went up in the polls and was actually surpassing President Biden for reelection. So, what do they do now? Weaponize government to go after their No. 1 opponent,” he told reporters. “This is not equal justice. They treat people differently and they go after their adversaries.”
On the day of the insurrection, McCarthy called Trump, pleading with him to make a public statement to call off his supporters, at one point reportedly telling the then-president that “they are trying to f ing kill me.” “Yeah, it’s absolute bulls ,” Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) said. “This is the only way that the Democrats have to beat President Trump.”
But Democrats argued Trump’s plan to stay in power was an effort to subvert democracy, one that should carry serious consequences.
“A mob of insurrectionists violently attacked the U.S. Capitol on January 6th in order to halt the peaceful transfer of power,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) wrote on Twitter.
“The American people deserve to know the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.”
Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, called a potential case among the most serious Trump would face.
“If he’ll be facing charges with respect to the Jan. 6 insurrection, those are perhaps the most serious charges,” he said. “If he’s convicted of insurrection, he’s ineligible to ever hold any office of profit or trust under the United States.”
Former President Trump predicted Wednesday that he will soon face arrest and indictment for his role in the Capitol riot of Jan. 6, 2021.
Trump is basing that assessment on the fact that his attorneys have been informed he is a target of the federal grand jury in Washington, D.C.
If Trump is indeed indicted, it would be the third case in which he has been charged this year. Possible charges loom in a fourth case in Georgia.
Here is a roundup of the legal challenges Trump faces.
New York and the hush money payments
Trump’s first criminal indictment is in many ways the least compelling.
In early April, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg laid out 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree.
The charges relate to three stories about Trump’s personal life. The most famous of these centers on porn actress Stormy Daniels, who alleges she had a sexual encounter with Trump in 2006. A $130,000 deal to buy Daniels’s silence was sealed by Michael Cohen, Trump’s now-estranged attorney, in the closing weeks of the 2016 presidential campaign.
The Bragg indictment also encompasses payments made by Trump allies to another woman — former Playboy model Karen McDougal — who alleges she had a sexual relationship with him, and an additional, smaller deal allegedly aimed at silencing a former Trump Tower doorman.
The charges, in simple terms, are that the Trump Organization concealed these hush-money payments in its official business records.
Theoretically, Trump could face a four-year jail sentence on every count, which would make for a maximum sentence of 136 years. However, most legal experts consider it inconceivable the sentence would be anywhere close to that punitive, even if he is found guilty.
Trump has pleaded not guilty. His allies contend that a criminal case would not even have been brought against a private citizen who engaged in the same conduct.
Mar-a-Lago and the classified documents
Trump’s second indictment — and the first to come from special counsel Jack Smith, who is also investigating Jan. 6 — is significantly stronger.
Trump has been charged with 31 counts of willful retention of national defense information, one count of conspiracy to obstruct justice, one count of making false statements and four additional offenses pertaining to different forms of concealment.
A Trump aide, Walt Nauta, is the co-defendant on five of the charges and has been individually charged for making false statements.
The indictment lays out its case in some detail, with several accompanying photos.
It includes a transcript of a conversation in which Trump appears to acknowledge that at least one document in his possession is “secret information” and “highly confidential.”
There are also allegations that, if true, look like textbook examples of obstruction. The indictment includes an episode where, under subpoena to produce documents, Trump muses as to whether his legal team could simply not “play ball,” or deny he possesses the relevant documents.
There are also allegations that boxes of documents were moved at Trump’s direction, seemingly to hide them from Trump’s own attorney.
The obstruction charge alone carries a maximum sentence of 20 years.
Trump pleaded not guilty to all the charges at a June 13 arraignment in Miami. He has furiously attacked Smith in speeches and on social media, and his legal team has sought to delay a trial until after the 2024 election.
The investigation into Jan. 6
In his Truth Social post Wednesday morning, Trump said that the official notification that he was a target “almost always means an arrest and indictment.”
The former president is correct on that point.
Former Vice President Mike Pence, former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and “Stop the Steal” organizer Ali Alexander are among those reported to have testified to the grand jury.
An indictment is expected any day now, and much speculation concerns what the actual charges will be.
Multiple news outlets reported Wednesday that the warning letter mentions federal statutes relating to deprivation of rights, conspiracy to defraud the U.S. and tampering with a witness.
The referrals made to the Department of Justice (DOJ) by the House Select Committee investigating Jan. 6 late last year also provide some possible clues.
Referrals have no real legal force, but the committee prodded the DOJ to look at possible charges of inciting or aiding an insurrection; obstruction of an official proceeding; conspiracy to defraud the United States; and conspiracy to make a false statement.
If charges are indeed pressed, Trump is virtually certain to plead not guilty.
In a second Truth Social post Wednesday, he contended he had “the right to protest an Election that I am fully convinced was Rigged and Stolen.”
The ongoing Georgia probe
Fulton County (Ga.) District Attorney Fani Willis first asked for a grand jury to be empaneled in January 2022. Her request was fulfilled four months later.
Willis’s original request contended that there was a “reasonable probability” that the 2020 presidential election results in Georgia were “subject to possible criminal disruptions.”
Even among Trump loyalists, there has long been trepidation about the Georgia probe.
The main reason is that Trump was recorded during a phone call with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R) on Jan. 2, 2021.
In that call, Trump — still the president — pressed Raffensperger to “find” enough votes to overcome President Biden’s narrow margin of victory in the state. Biden had carried the Peach State by fewer than 12,000 votes.
Trump also warned ominously that Raffensperger could face criminal consequences if he did not comply. Raffensperger later wrote that he construed Trump’s words as “a threat.”
It’s possible, of course, that Willis in the end indicts nobody — or that she indicts Trump allies but not the former president himself.
She has suggested a charging decision will be made by Aug. 18
Republican presidential hopeful Vivek Ramaswamy has achieved the necessary donor threshold to qualify for the first GOP debate, his campaign confirmed on Friday. Tricia McLaughlin, a senior adviser on Ramaswamy’s campaign, verified that he had surpassed the required minimum of 40,000 donors, reaching an impressive 65,000 unique donors.
The Republican National Committee (RNC) had outlined specific criteria in June for candidates to participate in the debate. Apart from the donor threshold, candidates must also meet polling requirements. They should have at least 1 percent support in three national polls or 1 percent support in two national polls and one state poll from early primary or caucus states, such as Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina.
Ramaswamy’s achievement comes at a time when his campaign is gaining some momentum. Recent polling averages from FiveThirtyEight show him in third place among GOP primary contenders with 6.8 percent support, a remarkable increase of over four points in the last month, placing him comfortably above the RNC’s threshold.
Interestingly, Ramaswamy took the opportunity to criticize the current GOP frontrunner, former President Donald Trump, during a town hall event in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. This approach is quite different from his previous tactics, as he had largely avoided directly targeting Trump. Ramaswamy argued that Trump’s polarizing nature might hinder the party’s progress, suggesting that a significant portion of the population suffers mentally when he is in office. Despite this criticism, Ramaswamy has shown loyalty to the former president, even supporting him amidst legal challenges, including the potential indictment over the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot.
As the date of the first GOP debate draws near, Ramaswamy’s rise in the polls may indicate a shift in his campaign strategy. The debate is scheduled for August 23 in Milwaukee and will be moderated by Fox News.
It is evident that Ramaswamy’s ability to secure a substantial number of donors showcases his growing support within the party. His surge in popularity, surpassing the required polling and fundraising benchmarks, positions him as a serious contender for the GOP nomination.
In the upcoming debate, Ramaswamy will have the opportunity to present his ideas and policy proposals to a nationwide audience. This platform could be a game-changer for his campaign, allowing him to introduce himself to a broader audience and potentially increase his support base.
With the debate just a few weeks away, all eyes will be on Ramaswamy and the other candidates vying for the GOP nomination. The dynamics of the race may change as candidates seek to distinguish themselves and articulate their visions for the party’s future.
It’s worth noting that Ramaswamy’s decision to critique Trump directly could be a strategic move to set himself apart from other candidates who have been more cautious in their remarks about the former president. By addressing the potential challenges posed by Trump’s polarizing leadership style, Ramaswamy may be attempting to appeal to a broader segment of the Republican electorate.
The debate itself will be a critical event for Ramaswamy and his fellow candidates. It will offer them the chance to showcase their policy expertise, articulate their stances on various issues, and demonstrate their ability to lead the country effectively.
As the debate approaches, the candidates will likely intensify their campaigning efforts, seeking to secure more donors and improve their polling numbers. The primary race is highly competitive, and each candidate will be striving to make a strong impression on potential voters.
Ramaswamy’s rise in the polls and his qualification for the debate indicate that he is gaining traction and support within the Republican Party. However, the road ahead is challenging, with numerous hurdles to overcome before securing the nomination.
The first GOP debate will be a significant moment in Ramaswamy’s campaign journey. How he performs and how voters respond to his ideas and message will undoubtedly shape the trajectory of his candidacy.
As the date of the debate draws closer, the focus will be on the candidates’ preparations, their debate strategies, and their ability to connect with the American public. The nation will be eagerly watching the event, eager to see which candidate emerges as a front-runner in the race for the Republican nomination.
“Here’s a reality about my friend, Donald Trump,” Ramaswamy said. “I respect what he did, but it’s just a fact, it’s not even his fault — 30 percent of this country becomes psychiatrically ill when he’s in the White House.”
Vivek Ramaswamy’s successful qualification for the first GOP debate by meeting the donor threshold is a noteworthy accomplishment, indicating a growing momentum in his campaign. His rise in the polls and willingness to directly address concerns about Donald Trump’s leadership style suggest a change in campaign strategy. With the debate set to take place in August, Ramaswamy and his fellow candidates will have a crucial opportunity to showcase their visions and positions on the national stage. The debate’s outcome could have a significant impact on the Republican primary race, influencing the direction of Ramaswamy’s candidacy and shaping the competition for the party’s nomination.
The Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) has put forward a proposal as part of the National Defence Authorisation Act (NDAA) to bolster the United States’ defense cooperation with India. This draft legislation, if implemented, would deepen collaboration between the two countries in key areas of defense and security. The SASC has called on the Pentagon to consider India’s eligibility for various security cooperation benefits, recognizing it as a major defense partner.
The proposed NDAA urges the US defense secretary to expand cooperation with India in crucial domains, including artificial intelligence (AI), undersea domain awareness, air combat and support, munitions, and mobility. Additionally, it advocates for joint efforts in counter-terrorism operations, maritime and border security operations, and military intelligence operations to build capacity.
The Senate’s version of the NDAA, though not the final act, carries weight as it enjoys bipartisan support and is based on inputs from the Department of Defense (DOD) as well as the result of increased engagement between the US Congress and India in recent months. High-level diplomatic interactions, such as the visit of Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer to India, underscore the significance of the partnership between the two nations in the context of competition with China.
The NDAA draft proposes four specific lines of effort to ensure India’s benefits as a major defence partner:
1. “Eligibility for funding to initiate or facilitate cooperative research, development, testing, or evaluation projects” in areas like AI, undersea domain awareness, air combat, munitions, and mobility.
2. “Eligibility to enter into reciprocal agreements with the Department of Defence for the cooperative provision of training” in areas such as counter-terrorism, border security, military intelligence, and cyberspace security.
3. “Eligibility to enter into a memorandum of understanding or other formal agreement with the Department of Defence for conducting cooperative research and development projects on Défense equipment and munitions.”
4. “Eligibility for Indian companies to bid on contracts for the maintenance, repair, or overhaul of DOD equipment located outside the US.”
The proposed legislation also requires the defense secretary to provide a briefing to relevant Senate and House committees on the status of security cooperation activities with India in the specified areas by March 1, 2024.
Sameer Lalwani, an expert on South Asia at the US Institute of Peace, emphasized the significance of this proposed legislation in enhancing the US-India defense relationship. He noted that the legislation moves beyond mere expressions of optimism and offers guidance on specific areas of focus and modalities.
Highlighting the next steps, Lalwani added, “But after assessing India’s eligibility, Congress may then have to tackle potential regulatory or procedural hurdles and appropriate the requisite resources to ensure these efforts of joint research, training, and sustainment remain robust and sustained over time.”
In conclusion, the proposed NDAA reflects the growing importance of the US-India partnership in the defense and security domain. It outlines specific measures to deepen collaboration, emphasizing the need to address challenges and allocate adequate resources for sustained efforts in building capacity and enhancing security cooperation. As the House of Representatives finalizes its version of the NDAA, the proposed legislation sets the stage for further strengthening the defense ties between the two nations in the face of shared regional challenges and interests.
Depending on their political affiliation, Americans had a wide range of opinions regarding the most recent decisions made by the Supreme Court, including those that restricted the use of race-based affirmative action in higher education and prevented student loan forgiveness.
New surveying directed by ABC News/Ipsos shows that Americans’ reactions to the High Court have been uneven, with the level of conservatives and free thinkers who view the court’s choices as driven by governmental issues remaining to a great extent unaltered. Meanwhile, Democrats are becoming more and more vocal about their belief that the justices base their decisions on their political opinions rather than the law. While just 33% of conservatives and a big part of free movers say the court leads basically based on hardliner political perspectives, 3/4 of leftists currently have that perspective – – a spike of 20 rate focuses since eighteen months prior when the inquiry was posed to in a January 2022 ABC News/Ipsos survey.
ABC News sought out poll participants to learn more about their perspectives. According to follow-up interviews with poll respondents, there is a high degree of polarization, and opinions within partisan groups are somewhat varied. Individuals from the two players have differing insights about the level of the court’s politicization, whether it involves concern, and the thing to do about it. All respondents requested to be recognized simply by their most memorable names aside from where generally showed.
Conservatives
A solid greater part of conservatives – – around 66%, as indicated by ABC News/Ipsos surveying – – accept that High Court judges pursue their choices based on regulation, not legislative issues.
Asha Urban, who spoke with ABC News earlier this month at a Trump rally in South Carolina, says that the justices are focused on the law. She advised, “Rule on the law, and push other things back to the states that need to be ruled in the states.”
Urban believes that former President Donald Trump’s tenure was marked by the appointment of three Supreme Court justices. She also believes that the Trump-appointed justices are reversing a legacy of politicized rulings prior to his presidency.
She stated, “He campaigned on bringing in conservative judges who would be constitutionalists rather than politicians.” I believe that is what the vast majority of us need.”
Michael, a South Carolina Republican, has a different perspective. He was surprised to learn that Republicans were more likely than Democrats to believe that Supreme Court justices rule based on their personal political views. He is one of about a third of Republicans who believe this.
He jokingly stated, “It distresses me that I might lean toward the Democrats.” He concurs with the court’s new choices on governmental policy regarding minorities in society and understudy loans. In any case, the 74-year-old is worried by the way that the court’s navigation could turn out to be in an exposed fashion political later on – – a pattern he sees as connected with the country’s polarization overall.
He stated, “I’m worried that they’re not following the law.” They weren’t chosen. We have no recourse when a president serves them up—and it’s for life. They can’t be voted out.
Concerns about the direction of the court were expressed by Dwight Edward Allen, a 47-year-old Kentucky man who describes himself as “more of a conservative than a Republican.” While he accepts that the judges pursue sound legitimate choices more often than not, including their new choice with respect to educational loans, he said that the court is turning out to be more political, and explicitly that it is “going in reverse.”
“That is great assuming you’re white or special, yet in the event that you’re simply attempting to scrape by, then, at that point, it’s not,” he said.
Democrats According to ABC News/Ipsos polling, many Democrats view the Supreme Court as an increasingly politicized institution after a year of controversial rulings.
One such Democrat who is concerned about partisanship on the Supreme Court is Natalie. She stated that her upbringing as a Filipina immigrant gave her a profound appreciation for nonpartisan judicial systems and that she is concerned about what she sees as the weakening of democracy in the United States as a whole.
“I know what it’s like to live under a dictatorship because I spent my childhood in the Philippines under martial law. She stated, “I know what it’s like when the politicians in power influence the Supreme Court.”
Natalie said that the Supreme Court’s recent decisions on affirmative action, President Joe Biden’s policy on student loan debt, and abortion show that the court doesn’t always follow the law.
“Experiencing childhood in a nation where we generally admired the majority rule standards of the US, and perceiving how it’s getting disintegrated the present moment, is troubling to me,” she added.
Another Democrat who is concerned about partisanship on the court, Vicki, claims that politics have become more influential on the court in the past year. She shared, “I think that they are more partisan now than they have been in the past.”
Vicki emphasized that justices should adhere to the letter of the law and should not be influenced by political parties or politicians—something that, according to her, has not been the case in recent months.
She stated, “I idealistically believe that they should be ruling based on what is written in the Constitution, rather than what the party supporting the president that appointed them might support.”
According to ABC News/Ipsos polling, independents are roughly evenly divided regarding whether the court rules primarily on the basis of the law.
Greg Freeman, an autonomous, said that albeit the ongoing High Court judges’ decisions convey hardliner inclinations, they are sensible translations of the law.
He stated, “Even though it appears that what they’re doing right now is partisan…” He added, “I think we’re just seeing that the decisions of the court are very reflective of the presidents who nominated them.”
That Freeman still has faith in the Court despite partisanship. The 49-year-old South Carolinian, who asserts that he has major concerns with both political parties, views it as a natural part of a democracy’s power struggles.
“At the point when certain issues were deciphered contrastingly in past High Court decisions, moderates jumped on a ‘liberal’ court. In an email to ABC News, Freeman wrote, “Liberals are railing against a mostly conservative court now that the reverse is arguably true.” Partisanship in the Court is the same old thing, and it has a major impact in how presidents are picked by citizens. Continuously has, consistently will.”
Dan, another California independent, concurred with Freeman’s diagnosis but expressed concern about the trend. He declined to discuss specific cases but stated that he senses that the court has become more political over the past decade. He self-identifies as a swing voter.
“The current court appears to be biased, in my opinion,” he stated. “I’m concerned that the current Supreme Court would change long-term positions.” A decade prior, I could never have said that.”
Dan said that he wouldn’t uphold extending the quantity of judges on the court, an answer that has been proposed by a few Vote based legislators, assuming that the judges were still politically named. However, he expressed broad support for the establishment of term limits for Supreme Court justices and other measures to make the court less partisan.
The high school student government vote in the classic 1999 film “Election” has everything: bare desire, crusade banner destroying, voting form control, unfaithfulness and then some Tracy Flick is played by Reese Witherspoon, who can differentiate between “morals” and “ethics” and always raises her hand first in class. Jim McAllister, who has been named teacher of the year three times, is played by Matthew Broderick. He doesn’t like Tracy and gets a popular jock to run against her for student body president.
In any case, what the skilled author Tom Perotta probably couldn’t envision was a political race wherein two disliked competitors get down to business for president. That doesn’t occur in secondary school, even in an ironical film.
While a great deal can occur before the primaries start one year from now, the two driving competitors right now, President Joe Biden and previous President Donald Trump, are both disagreeable with the American public.
Only 41% of Americans, according to a June CNN poll, approve of Biden’s performance. Trump finished his administration in 2021, days after the January 6 US State house revolt, with a typical endorsement rating that was even lower – 39%. 59% of all Americans believe that Trump should end his campaign following his indictment this year on federal charges of mishandling classified documents.
“This puts a lot of Americans in a position they don’t want to be in,” Harry Enten wrote last month. At this point, a historically high percentage of them dislike either man. “A plurality (36%) viewed neither candidate favorably, while 33% viewed Trump favorably and 32% viewed Biden favorably,” according to a CNN poll.
“Even with his mediocre approval ratings,” Biden has advantages over some of his predecessors, according to historian Julian Zelizer. He has “a formidable legislative record,” as he puts it. He can boast of a robust economy with numerous jobs and price stability now that inflation has subsided. But he argued that Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s primary challenge must concern the president. Biden also benefits from the specter of a second Trump presidency, which is enough to rally Democrats and scare voters who might otherwise be tempted by a challenger.
Presidents Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, and George H.W. Bush are just a few examples from history who lost out in crucial primaries. Large numbers of Biden’s 2020 allies are disappointed with the president, and any assaults Kennedy will release could additionally harm Biden and give an establishment to conservatives to pursue him in the mission,” composed Zelizer. If Biden’s name is not on the ballot, RFK Jr. could even win the New Hampshire primary. The president is in favor of depriving that state of its right to hold the first-in-the-nation primary in favor of South Carolina, which was the state that gave Biden’s 2020 campaign a lot of energy.
Trump has a sizable lead over his kindred GOP competitors yet faces a remarkable arrangement of legal difficulties originating from his two prosecutions, other forthcoming examinations and common claims. Trump’s opponents, both within and outside the party, have more cause for concern as his MAGA base proclaims its love for the former president.
Consider Sen. Lindsey Graham’s participation in a Trump rally over the weekend. Despite the fact that he was in his home province of South Carolina just miles from his origin, the congressperson was completely booed by Trump’s allies, as Dignitary Obeidallah called attention to.
“While the roasting served as yet another reminder of how some Trump supporters demand absolute loyalty to the former president, I must admit that it was fun to watch Graham bomb with the audience. When Trump said that Graham and everyone else makes a “mistake,” it seemed like the mistake was not being completely loyal to Trump.
Trump has been promoting the idea of “bringing back” retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI and was pardoned by the former president. “The United States would be in for quite a scary ride if Flynn were to be brought back into a senior national security role in a possible second Trump administration, based on Flynn’s tight embrace of the Christian nationalist right and wild conspiracy theories,” wrote Peter Bergen and Erik German.
Featuring in a “Enliven America Visit,” “Flynn is named, without incongruity, ‘America’s general,’ and, at the occasion we went to in May, America’s general was the certain superstar. Flynn told the crowd, many of whom had paid hundreds of dollars for tickets to the event and the cost of staying at the Trump resort, that there was a conspiracy to take over the world while standing on stage at a podium flanked by jumbotron TVs draped with red Trump flags.
“As per Flynn, this scheme is driven by … the World Financial Discussion,” Bergen and German composed. In recent years, bizarre conspiracy theories have become a hotbed of discussion at the World Economic Forum, which is best known for its annual Davos conference, which brings together CEOs and world leaders.
The Conservative Public Board of trustees requires up-and-comers who partake in its discussions to make a vow that they will uphold the party’s possible candidate, who could be Trump. It’s a serious mix-up, composed Geoff Duncan, a GOPer who previously filled in as lieutenant legislative head of Georgia. The requirement that “every GOP presidential candidate must state, without equivocation, that the 2020 election was not stolen” would be a better policy. No really moving around the issue with a wink and a gesture about ‘worries’ about Coronavirus time strategies making the way for expected extortion… ”
“It’s well beyond time for the Conservative Alliance to show our freedom from previous President Trump. The GOP’s losing streak through the 2018 midterms is a result of his politics, personality, and policies. We must first change our party’s leadership before we can change the direction of our country.
The climactic finish to the High Court term kept on resonating the week before. It was just a year prior that the court’s moderate larger part upset Roe v. Swim, a disagreeable move that permitted liberals to score a few major political wins and keep away from a lamentable midterm political race.
The current year’s choices, dismissing governmental policy regarding minorities in society in school confirmations and striking down Biden’s understudy loan pardoning plan, are more averse to assemble electors, contended David Imprint.
David Mark wrote, “Democrats plan to put the Supreme Court on trial in the lead up to the elections in 2024.” However, Democrats face the challenge of the court’s views on the issues pertaining to higher education being more in line with voters’ values than their own. However their political fight intend to defame the High Court has as of recently been to a great extent effective, liberals are ready to make a significant error on the off chance that they expect the current year’s choices will push more individuals against the court and in this way further into Popularity based arms… ”
“Consider that in the country’s transcendent blue stronghold of California, Biden cavorted to triumph against Trump. However, on the same ballot, voters rejected a measure repealing California’s affirmative action ban from 1996 by 57%-43%.
Problem with free speech Kara Alaimo wrote that a Supreme Court decision “that makes it harder to hold people responsible for harassment” got lost in the rush of the end of the term. Online harassment is protected by the First Amendment unless the perpetrator disregards a “substantial risk that his communications would be viewed as threatening violence,” according to the court, which overturned a man’s conviction for stalking and inflicting “emotional distress” on singer Coles Whalen.
“While the court may claim to be defending free speech by ruling that the threats were protected by the First Amendment,” the decision is likely to censor and silence harassment victims.
In court and beyond, “Finding the right balance between free speech and protecting people from abuse is difficult.”
The Equality Act, which provides legal protections for the LGBTQ+ community, was reintroduced last week Wednesday, according to Democrats in the House and Senate.
During a news conference on Capitol Hill, Democrats joined LGBTQ+ leaders to say that the laws currently in place make that community vulnerable to discrimination in employment and many other areas.
Senate Greater part Pioneer Hurl Schumer, R-N.Y., and House Minority Pioneer Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., vowed to make a solid effort to get the Correspondence Act passed notwithstanding resistance from conservatives.
The Equity Act would revise the Social equality Demonstration of 1964 to broaden securities for instruction, lodging, and work for the LGBTQ+ people group by growing insurances to incorporate sexual direction and orientation character.
As evidence that the Equality Act has a path forward, they cited the Respect for Marriage Act, which enshrined the protection of gay marriage and passed last year with bipartisan support.
Sen. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., stated, “Progress must not be mistaken for victory.” who once again introduced the bill in the Senate. “[ We should fight] until all Americans have the opportunity of fairness.”
According to Jeffries, the Equality Act has not been modified since it failed to gain traction a year ago. However, the rash of state laws that target the transgender community has contributed to the creation of some momentum in the effort to take action to safeguard the LGBTQ+ community.
“Until we get it over the finish line, the Equality Act is and will continue to be one of our top priorities,” Jeffries stated. Choosing hopefulness over hatred is the purpose of the Equality Act, which seeks to combat discrimination against the LGBTQ+ community.
Common liberties Mission said 525 bills have been presented by states that have designated the local area and have harmed freedoms. At the news conference, HRC President Kelly Robinson stated that gay, lesbian, and transgender people are subject to different laws than the rest of the country.
According to conservatives, the law would probably violate religious liberties and rights. Mario Diaz-Balart, R-Fla., said that the bill will be difficult for any GOP member to sign in 2021 because it does not provide enough protections for those with deeply held religious beliefs.
This spring, Bristol Smith, a manager at a McDonald’s in Maryville, Tennessee, came across the name Vivek Ramaswamy shortly after the entrepreneur Mr. Ramaswamy announced that he was running for president. Mr. Smith was drawn in. He liked Mr. Ramaswamy’s plan to send the military to the southern border to fight drug cartels and the way he “stands up against the wokeness.” He regarded Mr. Ramaswamy’s insight as a money manager worth countless dollars.
Then, at that point, Mr. Smith, 25, looked for Mr. Ramaswamy’s confidence. Mr. Smith is an evangelical Christian who recently established a modest church at his parents’ house.
He recalled, “I looked up his religion and saw he is Hindu.” I planned to decide in favor of him until that surfaced.” Mr. Smith believes that the nation needs to be “put back under God,” and he doesn’t want to risk it with a non-Christian.
By then, he said, “I got back on President Trump’s train.”
Mr. Ramaswamy, 37, is a practicing Hindu who was brought up in India by immigrants. Some conservative Christian voters, who make up a significant portion of the Republican primary electorate and are accustomed to evaluating candidates not only based on their policy proposals but also on their biographies and personal beliefs, including religious faith, face a dilemma as a result of this.
A candidate’s faith is a sign of a candidate’s values, lifestyle, loyalties, and priorities as a leader for many conservative voters. It’s the classic Sunday morning question about which candidate you’d like to have a beer with most: Who is a good fit for your church?
“It’s another obstacle individuals need to cross to go to him,” Weave Vander Plaats, a powerful fervent forerunner in Iowa, said of Mr. Ramaswamy.
Mr. Vander Plaats as of late had Mr. Ramaswamy’s family over for Sunday dinner at his home, where the feast opened with a request and the perusing of an entry from the Good book. He said that Mr. Ramaswamy’s message aligned with the priorities of many evangelical voters and that he left impressed. He referred to Mr. Ramaswamy’s list of ten fundamental “truths,” the first of which is as follows: God really exists. The subsequent: There are men and women.”)
“I believe he’s truly interfacing with the crowds in Iowa,” said Mr. Vander Plaats, who has not embraced an up-and-comer. ” He is open to more in-depth inquiries. In the most recent national polls, Mr. Ramaswamy receives less than 5% of the vote.
Mr. Ramaswamy has taken the direct approach of addressing the issue and arguing that he shares more similarities with observant Christians than they might think.
“I’m not Christian. In June, he addressed Mr. Vander Plaats in front of a small audience at the Family Leader’s headquarters. “I was not raised in a Christian household.” However, we truly do have the very Christian qualities that this country was established on.”
In a meeting in late June, in the wake of leaving a gathering with a couple dozen ministers in New Hampshire, Mr. Ramaswamy said his confidence instructed him that Jesus was “a child of God, totally.” ( That “a” will be a sharp qualification from the focal Christian conviction that Jesus is the child of God. Many Hindus believe in a plethora of deities, and some even consider Jesus to be a single teacher or god.) Hinduism is a fluid and expansive religion.
Mr. Ramaswamy pointed out that even though he is not a Christian, he openly discusses why belief in God is important, why increasing secularism in the United States is bad for the country, and values like marriage fidelity, duty, religious liberty, and self-sacrifice.
Regarding the theological differences between Hinduism and Christianity, he stated, “I don’t have a quick pitch to say, ‘No, no, that doesn’t matter.'” It’s that I see precisely why that would make a difference to you.”
Mr. Ramaswamy cites Thomas Aquinas and makes references to Bible stories at campaign stops, including the crucifixion of Jesus. He frequently discusses his time spent attending a Cincinnati “Christian school” (Catholic St. Xavier High School). Also, he differentiates “religions like our own,” which have gone the distance, with the contending perspectives of “wokeism, climatism, transgenderism, orientation belief system, Covidism,” as he put it to a group of people in New Hampshire.
The campaign of Mr. Ramaswamy has distributed videos of him responding to a New Hampshire man who asked about his “spiritual beliefs” at a town hall and of a pastor in Iowa comparing him to King David from the Bible. A woman blessed Mr. Ramaswamy in the name of Jesus Christ by placing her hand on his chest in Iowa.
“So be it,” Mr. Ramaswamy said as she closed her request.
Mr. Ramaswamy will be able to win over evangelical primary voters in the crowded Republican field in part because of outside forces. Rather than seeking a “pastor-in-chief,” many conservative voters now say they are looking for someone who shares their political and cultural goals and will fight on their behalf.
“The culture has changed, but theology is important. America has changed,” said David Brody, the boss political expert for the Christian Telecom Organization, who has talked with Mr. Ramaswamy. Mr. Brody stated that the fight against “cultural Marxism” and reversing the course of “a country gone haywire” are currently the most important goals.
He compared evangelical priorities in the Iowa caucuses the following year to those in 2008 and 2012, when conservative Christian candidates Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee won.
Mr. Brody stated, “I don’t buy it at all the lazy narrative that he’s Hindu so he can’t appeal to evangelicals.”
As political divides have widened, theological boundaries have become increasingly muddled. Few temples split nowadays over old discussions like the specific timing of the final days or the job of through and through freedom in salvation. About portion of American Protestants presently say they like to go to a congregation with individuals who share their political perspectives, as per surveying from Lifeway Exploration.
Mr. Ramaswamy’s accentuation on his faith in one God has a long history for Hindus in the US, particularly those addressing white Christian crowds, said Michael Altman, a teacher of strict examinations at the College of Alabama.
Master Vivekananda, who addressed Hinduism at the Parliament of the World’s Religions in Chicago in 1893, went to considerable lengths to portray his confidence as monotheistic, rather than the generalizations of its devotees as “pagan” polytheists. Although the religion has a number of deities, they are typically subordinate to a single supreme “reality.” Its theology, according to many scholars and Hindus, is too complicated to be classified as either entirely monotheistic or entirely polytheistic.
“The polytheism obstacle is the principal thing that must be tended to” for the majority American Christian crowds, Mr. Altman said. He believes that Mr. Ramaswamy’s argument against “wokeism” is a way to dispel myths that Hinduism is synonymous with yoga, hippies, and vegetarianism.
According to evangelical observers, former President Donald J. Trump paved the way for Republican candidates who weren’t necessarily the kind of people voters would expect to sit next to on Sunday mornings at church. Numerous fervent citizens embraced the rough, threefold wedded gambling club financier not on the grounds that he was one of them but since they accepted he would battle in the public square for their benefit.
Most Indian Americans, including Hindus, are leftists. However, a segment of the population that places a high value on family, marriage, and education presents a chance for conservatives. Mr. Trump celebrated Diwali at the White House while serving as president, and the Republican National Committee introduced a brand-new Republican Hindu and Indian American Coalition in April. When he appeared with President Trump in Houston in 2019, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi drew a crowd of 50,000 people, making him a well-known figure to a growing group of right-wing Indian Americans. Mr. Ramaswamy talked last year at a celebration coordinated by the conservative U.S. bunch HinduPACT, which is lined up with Mr. Modi’s style of patriotism.
Nikki Haley, one more Indian American competitor in the 2024 essential, has also underlined her experience as the girl of foreigners. However, Ms. Haley converted to Christianity and now attends a large Methodist church in South Carolina, despite the fact that she was raised Sikh. Bobby Jindal, a Republican from Louisiana who ran for president in 2016, was born and raised Hindu, but he has said that he is an “evangelical Catholic.”
Mr. Ramaswamy goes to a similar sanctuary in Dayton, Ohio, that he did as a youngster that his folks actually do.
In 2015, he had his wedding in New York City officiated by one of the priests from the temple. His wife, Dr. Apoorva Ramaswamy, stated that he, his wife, and their two young sons attend the temple on holidays and for special occasions, including the younger son’s first birthday in early July.
Dr. Ramaswamy, who has spoken out about the family’s faith on the campaign trail, stated that serious and nominal adherents to the same faith share more similarities than committed believers from different traditions.
Dr. Ramaswamy stated, “The fact that we are believers, that we have that sense of humility, that we raise our children with true respect, fear, and love of God — that is so much more unifying than the name of the God to whom people pray.”
The inquiry for her significant other’s mission is whether enough Christian citizens will concur.
Ken Bosse, the pastor of New Life Church in Raymond, New Hampshire, said that he is “an extreme follower of Jesus Christ” and that, all things considered, he would rather have a Christian in the White House. But because “we have had some professing Christians in that position who didn’t follow biblical principles,” he would be open to the right candidate who is not a Christian.
Mr. Bosse welcomed Mr. Ramaswamy to convey a concise discourse at his congregation on a Sunday morning in April. He enjoyed the competitor’s accentuation on recovering a positive American personality, he expressed, and on his story as an independent tycoon who is the offspring of workers. Right now, in any case, Mr. Bosse is inclining in the direction of supporting Mr. Trump. (Courtesy: The New York Times)
When asked about the ideal age of a president, around half of Americans (49%) say they prefer someone in their 50s, according to a recent Pew Research Center survey. Another 24% say it’s best for a president to be in their 60s, while 17% say they should be in their 40s.
Just 3% of Americans say they prefer a president to be in their 70s or older. An equally tiny share (3%) say it’s best for a president to be in their 30s. (The minimum age for a presidential candidate is 35.)
The survey asked Americans about the best age for presidents generally. It did not refer to President Joe Biden – at 80, the oldest president in U.S. history – or former President Donald Trump, who is 77.
Age differences in views of the ideal age for a president
Younger adults are more favorable than older Americans toward presidents being in their 30s and 40s. About half (48%) of adults under the age of 30 say it is ideal for a president to be in their 30s or 40s; only 6% of adults over the age of 50 share this view.
By contrast, older adults prefer a president who is in their 60s or older. For example, 41% of adults in their 50s or older say they prefer a president in their 60s or older. Only 11% of adults in their 30s or younger say the same.
Partisan views of the ideal age for a president
Democrats and Republicans have similar views about the best age range for a president.
Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents are slightly more likely than Republicans and Republican leaners (25% vs. 15%) to prefer presidents in their 30s and 40s, while Republicans are slightly more likely than Democrats to prefer presidents in their 60s or older (32% vs. 24%). However, these minor differences are largely due to the age composition of the parties.
President Biden on Friday reported new activities to offer understudy loan borrowers some pardoning, once again introducing his absolution plan grounded in the Advanced education Act (HEA).
For years, prominent Democrats and advocates for student loans have advocated for using the HEA to alleviate student debt. Proponents of the HEA argue that it grants the education secretary the authority to “compromise, waive, or release” student loans. Before this route can take effect, there will be a period of public comment and notice.
In remarks delivered at the White House on Friday afternoon, he stated, “We need to find a new way, and we’re moving as quickly as we can.”
The organization had tied the understudy obligation alleviation plan — struck somewhere around the High Court — to the public crisis laid out during the Coronavirus general wellbeing emergency, refering to the Advanced education Help Open doors for Understudies (Legends) Act. In the majority opinion that the court issued on Friday morning, Chief Justice John Roberts stated that the HEROES Act does not grant the authority.
Biden said Education Secretary Miguel Cardona has taken steps to start the rulemaking process, but he didn’t say who would qualify or how much debt relief borrowers would get under his new plan to use the HEA.
Friday marked the beginning of the “negotiated rulemaking” procedure, with the department sending out a notice. The main formal review with regards to this issue will happen July 18 to get input from partners. Although the administration stated that it would make every effort to move “as quickly as possible,” the procedure may proceed smoothly until the end of 2023.
“This understudy obligation help isn’t being carried out consequently. This is a disaster. Debt Collective’s press secretary, Braxton Brewington, stated in response to the announcement, “This will be a bureaucratic nightmare.”
In addition, the president said that the administration will start an “on-ramp” repayment program for borrowers who might miss payments when payments start again this fall. The Education Department will not refer borrowers who miss payments to collection agencies or credit bureaus for a year, so there would be no risk of default or harm to credit ratings.
“In the event that you can take care of your month to month bills you ought to, however in the event that you can’t, assuming you miss installments, this entrance briefly eliminates the danger of default or having your credit hurt,” Biden said.
Understudy obligation installments have been stopped since the pandemic, yet in an arrangement with Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) to get an obligation roof understanding, Biden permanently set up the resumption of reimbursements starting in October. At the beginning of September, interest will begin to accrue once more.
More than 40 million borrowers were prevented from receiving loan forgiveness as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision on Friday, which marked a significant setback for one of the president’s most important campaign promises. Biden’s options for keeping that promise are limited by the decision.
If an individual’s income was less than $125,000, the program, which was announced in August, would have canceled up to $20,000 in loans for Pell Grant recipients and $10,000 for other borrowers.
Not long after the High Court struck down the president’s understudy loan pardoning plan, the White House said it was ready and that Biden had another activity to carry out.
The White House has been avoiding discussing its “Plan B” for months as student debt relief has been held up in court, prompting this announcement.
Indian-American Republican presidential candidate, Vivek Ramaswamy, hailed the Supreme Court’s ruling to ban affirmative action at universities and colleges, which allowed educational institutes to admit an increased number of Black, Hispanic, and other minority students on campus. According to the Republican affirmative action is “one of the most disastrous and failed policy experiments of last century.”
Calling affirmative action as “one of the most disastrous and failed policy experiments of last century,” in a tweet Ramaswamy said that it was time to restore “colorblind meritocracy” in America. He also vowed to repeal President Lyndon Johnson’s executive order 11246 which mandated affirmative action in the private sector.
Johnson’s order required federal contractors to take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed and treated without bias during employment. According to Ramaswamy, the order was unfair to White Americans and Asian Americans as well as Hispanic and Black Americans who were looked down upon by their colleagues despite having achieved their positions based on merit.
“Everyone loses in the end,” Ramaswamy asserted and pledged that his goal after being elected as President of the U.S. will be to end affirmative action across all spheres of American life.
In another development, a US newspaper editor has apologized to Indian Americans for publishing an “offensive” cartoon that played on stereotypes of the community while trying to criticise Vivek Ramaswamy who is seeking the Republican Party’s presidential nomination.
“Racist and hateful ideas, words or images have no place in our publications, much less our society”, Tom Martin, the executive editor of the Quad City Times said in the apology to the community and Ramaswamy published in his paper on Friday.
He said that the cartoonist, Leo Kelly, has been banished from the newspaper.
But Ramaswamy came to the defence of the cartoonist in a letter published in the paper. “Let’s not go further or see people get fired over it; the cartoonist should in no way be ‘cancelled.’ We are all human”, he wrote.
“I’m empathetic to people who make mistakes once in a while”, he wrote while accepting the editor’s apology.
The cartoon sought to show Republicans as bigots with whom Ramaswamy was aligned, but it backfired as it was someone opposed to that party and the candidate who used the anti-Indian epithet.
The Quad-City Times is a regional newspaper based in Davenport, Iowa, which also covers parts of neighbouring Illinois. It is owned by the media company Lee Enterprises which publishes over 70 newspapers across the US, including the Dispatch-Argus, which also published the cartoon.
“We apologise today for letting such an image slip through our editorial process and into our opinion page Wednesday in the form of a political cartoon,” Martin wrote.
He added: “The cartoon, while intended to criticise racist ideas and epithets, uses a phrase that is racist and insensitive to members of our Indian American community.”
The phrase apparently is “Get me a slushee, Apu” that a character in the cartoon is shown shouting at Ramaswamy in an almost empty hall. “Apu Nahasapeemapetilon” runs a store in the popular animated TV cartoon serial, “The Simpsons”, and spoke in an exaggerated Indian accent voiced over by a White American comedian, Hank Azaria.
“Apu” has been turned into a racist taunt used against Indians, especially for bullying school children. The problem was highlighted in a documentary, “The Problem with Apu”, produced by Indian American comedian Hari Kondabolu. Because of protests over the way Apu was presented and how it became a tool for harassment, the character was taken off the show but has returned occasionally with non-speaking background appearances.
Azaria has repeatedly apologized for his role in spreading the stereotype of Indians telling an interviewer, “I did not know any better”.
After the cartoon was published, Ramaswamy tweeted, “It’s sad that this is how the MSM (mainstream media) views Republicans. I’ve met with grassroots conservatives across America & never *once* experienced the kind of bigotry that I regularly see from the Left.”
“Iowa’s @qctimes absolutely has the right to print this, but it’s still shameful”, he added.
Ramaswamy and Nikki Haley, the Indian American candidate for the Republican nomination, along with Tim Scott, an African American senator seeking the nomination have come for intense criticism from Democrats and their supporters who believe that non-Whites should be loyal only to their party. The cartoon sought to convey the idea that Ramaswamy was under bigoted attack by Republicans with the other characters shouting “Muslim” and “Show us your birth certificate” while he greets them saying “Hello, my MAGA friends”. (MAGA standards for Make America Great Again, a rallying cry of former President Donald Trump taken up by the Republican right.)
“It is the dripping disdain from the far left — the elite condescension from the Democrat Party — that we will never escape”, said Emily Compagno, a conservative TV host, referring to the cartoon.
Republicans continue to be broadly doubtful about votes being counted accurately — in the early contests or beyond them. About one-quarter of Republicans say they have at least “quite a bit” of confidence that the votes in the 2024 presidential election will be counted accurately, significantly lower than Democrats. Slightly fewer than half of U.S. adults overall (46%) believe the same, which is in line with an 
But when the dark streets of most American cities, especially Los Angeles and San Francisco, in the state of California, are turning into the ‘mecca of homeless’, it is just hypocritical to laugh at the broad-mindedness of this great country and not hide it by applying “Modi tech ” here.
When immigration is instead driven by the push of climate change, social tensions exacerbated by authoritarian rulers and gangs, as well as fluctuating anti-immigrant sentiment in the U.S., it is harder to predict, said Manuel Pastor, a professor of sociology and American Studies & Ethnicity at the University of Southern California.
Blinken said the two countries were taking very concrete steps to deliver on the vision that President Joe Biden and Prime Minister Narendra Modi put forward at their meeting in Washington in June.
One significant move unveiled is a proposal by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) that would prevent companies in various sectors from imposing concealed and deceptive fees. This rule would mandate sellers to disclose all essential costs upfront. The FTC could potentially impose financial penalties on companies that violate this rule. Proponents argue that this regulation will enable consumers to make more informed price comparisons and create a level playing field for businesses that are transparent about their costs.
The government’s borrowing spree in recent years took place during a period of historically low interest rates. However, as interest rates rise and prices continue to climb, the cost of servicing this debt is set to increase. According to the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, nearly $2 billion is spent daily on interest payments for the national debt.
That move marked a profound shift from earlier in the week, when a shutdown looked all but inevitable. A shutdown would mean that most of the government’s 4 million employees would not get paid – whether they were working or not – and also would shutter a range of federal services, from National Parks to financial regulators.
The second impeachment article accuses President Biden of obstructing justice, citing testimony from an IRS whistleblower. This testimony asserts that “members of the Biden campaign inappropriately collaborated with officials from the Justice Department (DOJ) to improperly interfere with investigations into potential tax violations involving Hunter Biden.” Both the Justice Department and special counsel David Weiss, who was appointed to investigate Hunter Biden, have denied any interference by the Biden administration in Weiss’ work.
