Only 9% of America chose Trump and Clinton as the nominees

The greatest democracy on earth is all set to elect the next President. With the year-long primary season and the conventions out of the way, both the major political parties are focused on the general election and with the challenging task of electing the new President of the United States.

However, the just concluded primaries, where Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were elected by their own party’s registered voters, has had only less then 10% of the total population excercising their voting right.

According to surveys/research, the United States is home to 324 million people. 103 million of them are children, noncitizens or ineligible felons, and they do not have the right to vote. 88 million eligible adults do not vote at all, even in general elections, based on the share of eligible adults who voted in the 2012 general election.

An additional 73 million did not vote in the primaries this year, but will most likely vote in the general election. This number does not include people who voted in caucuses, which have less reliable turnout numbers. A small percentage of people vote in primaries but not in general elections, and they are also not included.

The remaining 60 million people voted in the primaries: about 30 million each for Republicans and Democrats. But half of the primary voters chose other candidates. Just 14 percent of eligible adults — only 9 percent of the whole nation — voted for either Trump or Clinton.

The overall shares were about the same in 2008, the last cycle without an incumbent president running. Trump and Clinton will be working to win the votes of these three groups. Polls suggest they will be separated by just a handful of votes, which will be the victory margin, between the loser and the winner, who will be holding the most powerful elected office on earth.

Trump criticized for comments on Muslim mother of fallen US soldier

Donald Trump is taking issue with a speech at this week’s Democratic National Convention by Muslim lawyer Khizr Khan, whose Army captain son was killed in action and who said on stage that Trump has “sacrificed nothing and no one” for America. But Democrats and advocates for veterans’ families say the Republican presidential nominee went too far in his response.

Khan made the comment during his tribute to his son, Humayun, who posthumously received a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart after being killed by a suicide bomber in Iraq in 2004.

As Khan spoke, his wife Ghazala, Humayun’s mother, stood silently by his side. Trump, during an interview with ABC’s “This Week,” said: “She had nothing to say. She probably, maybe she wasn’t allowed to have anything to say. You tell me.”

And Trump challenged Khizr Khan’s claims about having sacrificed nothing. “I’ve made a lot of sacrifices,” Trump said. “I work very, very hard. I’ve created thousands and thousands of jobs, tens of thousands of jobs, built great structures.” Ghazala Khan has said she didn’t speak because she’s still overwhelmed by grief and can’t even look at photos of her son without crying.

Trump’s comments sparked immediate outrage on social media — both because they critiqued a mourning mother and because many considered them racist and anti-Muslim. House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., has previously raised concerns about Trump’s previous comments about Muslims.

“Our commander in chief shouldn’t insult and deride our generals, retired or otherwise,” Hillary Clinton told a crowd gathered July 30 on a factory floor in Johnstown, Pennsylvania. “That should really go without saying.”

At a rally in Pittsburgh, she was introduced by Mark Cuban, the Dallas Mavericks owner, technology investor and television personality who recently endorsed her. “Leadership is not yelling and screaming and intimidating,” said Cuban.

India Tea Company Delivers ‘Cleansing’ Green Tea to Donald Trump

TE-A-ME Teas has reported that on July 14 that it delivered a four years’ supply of green tea to Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, requesting him to drink the beverage to become “less extreme” as it is never too late to “cleanse” himself.

“The special delivery went from the company all the way to Trump Tower, New York. New Yorkers witnessed the delivery,” the company said in a statement. “The message is simple: Mr. Trump, it’s never too late to cleanse yourself,” it said.

“We believe that green tea with all its goodness can help Trump, and in turn benefit his country and the world at large. We therefore prescribe at least three cups a day for Trump. If he needs more, we’ll be happy to provide!” said company’s managing director Sumit Shah. The consignment contained 6,000 bags of Assam green tea.

With Sanders endorsing Clinton against Trump, NRIs join Clinton bandwagon

The more than three million Indian Americans are relieved as the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton received a long- awaited endorsement from her party rival Bernie Sanders as the two leaders put aside their differences and joined hands to beat Republican Donald Trump in the November 8 election.

“Secretary Clinton has won the Democratic nominating process. And I congratulate here for that. She will be the Democratic nominee for president. And I intend to do everything I can to make certain she will be the next president of the United States,” Sanders, 74, told cheering supporters at a joint election rally in New Hampshire with Clinton, 68.

“I remember her as a great first lady who broke precedent in terms of the role that a first lady was supposed to play. And as she helped lead the fight to universal health care. I served with her in the US Senate and know her as a fierce advocate for the rights of our children,” he said.

The Vermont Senator, who has been a thorn in Clinton’s side over the last year, pledged to support his former rival through Election Day.

“I know her and all of you know her as one of the most intelligent people that we have ever met. Hillary Clinton will make an outstanding president and I am proud to stand with her today,” Sanders said.

While acknowledging the two have had disagreements, Sanders said both campaigns found common ground over the past weekend at the Democratic Platform Committee meeting in Orlando, Florida. He said he would work hard to elect Clinton, and that he was “proud to stand with her today.” He used the occasion to lash out at Trump.

“While Donald Trump is busy insulting Mexicans and Muslims and women and African Americans and our veterans, Hillary Clinton understands that our diversity is one of our greatest strengths,” he said.

“Donald Trump, like most Republicans, sadly and tragically is choosing to reject science, something no presidential candidate should ever do. He believes that climate change is a hoax. In fact, he wants to expand the use of fossil fuels. That would be a disaster for our country and for the entire planet,” he added.

Clinton said the party is now united and is ready to defeat Trump in the November general elections. “With your help, we are joining forces to defeat Donald Trump, win in November, and yes, together build a future we can all believe in,” she said amidst laud applause from her supporters.

Clinton thanked Sanders for his lifetime of fighting injustice. “I am proud to be fighting alongside you, because, my friends, this is a time for all of us to stand together. These have been difficult days for America,” she said.

A nationwide grass-root body of Indian-Americans has been launched by Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton’s campaign to support the former secretary of state, hinting that an Indian-American could also be appointed under her presidency.

The organisation named ‘Indian-Americans for Hillary Clinton’ (IAHC) was launched recently in a Maryland suburb of Washington by Clinton’s campaign manager John Podesta. Podesta, who personally came down from the campaign headquarters of New York, told a gathering of Indian-Americans that relationship between India and the US would reach a new level after Clinton is elected as the president in the November elections.

“One of the things that she is committed to having a broad diverse cabinet than any administration. And I think, as Senator and as Secretary she showed that commitment by appointing Indian-Americans to positions of responsibilities and I think you should expect that as president of the United States,” Podesta said.

Rina Shah Bharara stripped of credentials of being a delegate at GOP convention

Just as the convention is underway to nominate the Republican party front-runner, Donald trum as the official nominee of the party, Rina Shah Bharara, an Indian American GOP presidential convention delegate who has been critical of presumptive nominee has been ousted from the convention.

A credentials committee on July 15 voted to reject Bharara, 32, who had been a top vote-getter at the District of Columbia’s nominating convention. Bharara said July 15 the vote is a sign the convention is controlled by pro-Trump forces.

Bharara’s role as a delegate has been controversial since she gave an interview saying her opposition to Trump was so strong that she might support Democrat Hillary Clinton instead. She has since promised to vote for a Republican in November.

The executive committee of the D.C. GOP had stripped Bharara of her delegate status in a 14-6 vote in April this year after Breitbart News reported that Bharara actually lives in the state of Virginia, not the city of Washington, D.C. Bharara does not meet residency requirements to be a D.C. delegate. The D.C. party stressed the need to unite behind a frontrunner and mentioned Trump “in that context,” according to a party official present at the meeting.

“I think she’s done a lot of damage,” Lori Saxon, a Trump delegate candidate who lost the election, told Breitbart News. “My 14-year old daughter and I really campaigned and to find out someone like this actually won? It makes you think.”

Earlier last week, though, another convention committee recommended Bharara’s reinstatement. In an earlier AP story (http://bit.ly/29ZvF1O), Bharara acknowledged that she has homes in northern Virginia and the District and that she splits her time between the two, but said her District residency is legitimate. She said the residency issue is a pretext for removal by party officials upset she said she might prefer Clinton over Trump.

“This is all because they’re trying to appease people from other states in response to my anti-Trump comments,” she had said in a phone interview. Bharara was one of 19 people elected at the D.C. party convention in March to serve as delegate to the national GOP convention. She ran as a Marco Rubio delegate and was the second-leading vote-getter.

In an April 7 interview with The Associated Press that had been previously unpublished, she was even more explicit, saying she would vote for Clinton over Trump. “I think Hillary would be better for our country,” she said then. “I personally think she is safer than this renegade crazy person.”

Indian Americans play important role in enhancing ties: Ambassador Arun Singh

The 3.5 million Indian-American community has an important role to play in strengthening Indo-US ties, Indian Ambassador to the US Arun K Singh said, underlining that people-to-people contact is a key dimension of the bilateral relationship.

“I think, what gives a real, solid and fundamental basis to the (India-US) relationship is the people-to-people dimension of the relationship,” Singh told members of the Indian American community in Cleveland and those attending Republican National Convention here at a reception hosted in his honor.

The Indian American Forum for Political Education along with the Federation of Indian Associations of Cleveland, Ohio, held a reception July 20, on the sidelines of the Republican National Convention, to honor India’s Ambassador Arun Kumar Singh.

In his speech, Singh highlighted the progress in bilateral relations with India on every front including trade, manufacturing, nuclear energy cooperation in space, climate change, education, and defense technology. Singh also praised the Indian-American community, singling out several individuals.

There are 110,000 Indian- origin doctors in the US, he said, adding that recent statistics show that every seventh patient in the US is seen by an Indian doctor.

Forty per cent of the all hotel rooms in the US are owned and managed by people of Indian-origin, generating USD 13 billion to the US economy, he said.

Not only this, every year about 140,000 Indian students come to the US for higher studies bringing is about USD 4.5 billion to the US economy, he said. “So it’s a huge engagement with US institutions,” Singh said at the reception.

hosted by Indian-American Forum for Political Education headed by Dr Sampat Shivangi,

Referring to the number of meetings he had in Cleveland with the top leadership of the Republican party on the sidelines of its convention, he said this reflects their interest in India-US relationship.

“I believe all of you will have an important role to play in contributing to this. All of you in a sense are permanent Ambassadors here. You have an understanding of the US. You have an understanding of India and Indian society. So based on this understanding and the network that you have you will be in a position to take forward this relationship in different areas,” Singh said.

More than 150 people attended the event, organizers said. The IAFPE has traditionally held such receptions at national conventions over the years, Dr. Sampat Shivangi, president of the organization andan eminent Republican from Mississippi, said.

There is a very positive momentum on India US relationship, in particularly after the recent visit of the Prime Minister Narendra Modi, he added.

Shivangi gave an account of the work done by IAFPE, one of the oldest Indian-American organizations, toward fostering better India-U.S. relations. It lobbied and testified in the U.S. Congress to pass the Family Reunification Act that helped to bring families of U.S. residents, and for the India- U.S. Civil Nuclear Cooperation agreement, he pointed out. Earlier, Sujata Lekha welcomed the Ambassador and guests.

Referring to the Republican platform passed by early this week, India-US relationship would strengthen further and reach a new height under the next Republican president. India US relationship has a bipartisan support and would deepen further if the party is voted to power to the White House coming November, he said.

There were as many as 16 Indian American delegates who had pledged to support Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump at the party’s national convention in Cleveland, Ohio, which began on July 18.

Record NRI delegates GOP Convention: Calls “India, a geopolitical ally”

Describing India a “geopolitical ally” and “strategic trading partner” of the United States, the just concluded national convention of the Republican Party’s election manifesto has lauded India “for the dynamism of its people and the endurance of their democratic institutions are earning their country a position of leadership not only in Asia but throughout the world,” said the document, called Republican Platform 2016.

Though only a minority of Indian-Americans support the Republican Party, they nevertheless made their presence felt at the 4-day national convention held in Cleveland, Ohio, July 18-21.

Trump won the nomination July 19 evening after each state announced their delegate vote counts, based on primary elections and caucuses. Trump won 1,725 votes; he needed 1,237 to clinch the nomination.

While, an overwhelming majority (65 percent) of Indian-Americans lean Democratic, according to a 2014 Pew Research poll, and only 18 percent lean Republican, the number of delegates who made it to Cleveland, amounts to a significant representation in the GOP. At least 16 Indian-Americans delegates, elected by their local districts and state party officials, made their way to the Republican National Convention. The largest number, 6, were from California and one each from other 8 states.

The Republican platform or the party election manifesto said conflicts in the Middle East have created special political and military challenges for the people of Pakistan. The Republican platform adopted by the party national convention considerably dilutes the rhetoric that fueled presidential candidate Donald J Trump’s primary campaign, and sticks to traditional U.S positions on several key foreign policy issues.

Released on Day 1 of the party convention in Cleveland, the platform calls upon New Delhi to “permit expanded foreign investment and trade, the key to rising living standards for those left out of their country’s energetic economy,” the platform said.

Turning to Pakistan, the platform noted that “conflicts in the Middle East have created special political and military challenges for the people of Pakistan.” The GOP manifesto has called for a beneficial “working relationship” with Pakistan and securing its nuclear arsenal, and came down harsh on China over its military expansion and its “preposterous claim to the entire South China Sea”.

“Our working relationship is necessary, though sometimes difficult, benefit to both, and we look towards the strengthening of historic ties that have frayed under the weight of international conflict,” it said, noting: “This process cannot progress as long as any citizen of Pakistan can be punished for helping the war on terror.”

“Pakistanis, Afghans, and Americans have a common interest in ridding the region of the Taliban and securing Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal,” the document said, adding: “that goal has been undermined by the current (Obama) Administration’s feckless treatment of troop commitments and blatant disregard of advice from commanders on the ground, particularly with regard to Afghanistan.” “A Republican president will work with all regional leaders to restore mutual trust while insisting upon progress against corruption and the narcotic trade that fuels insurgency,” it asserted.

While the customary paragraph on India in the document reflects continuity and stability, and even singles out Indian Americans for praise – “Republicans note with pride the contributions to our country that are made by our fellow citizens of Indian ancestry” – the section on immigration leaves room for concern from an Indian perspective.

In an effort to calm the evangelical constituency of the Republican Party that gets agitated over reports of occasional religious violence against Christians in India, the document says: “For all of India’s religious communities, we urge protection against violence and discrimination,” said the document, which lauded the contributions made to the United States by people of Indian origin.

“America’s immigration policy must serve the national interest of the United States, and the interests of American workers must be protected over the claims of foreign nationals seeking the same jobs,” the party platform said. There is no specific reference to the H 1B visa program in the document, but the argument that foreign workers are taking over American jobs legally is raised frequently in its context.

The Republican Party has officially adopted the controversial Trump proposal to build a wall along the U.S border with Mexico but has watered down the idea of banning non-citizen Muslims from entering the country. “..we support building a wall along our southern border and protecting all ports of entry. The border wall must cover the entirety of the southern border and must be sufficient to stop both vehicular and pedestrian traffic,” it said.

“…we must apply special scrutiny to those foreign nationals seeking to enter the United States from terror-sponsoring countries or from regions associated with Islamic terrorism. This was done successfully after September 11, 2001, under the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System, which should be renewed now,” the platform says.

There were some South Asians who were propped up by the Republican leadership to give the appearance of diversity at the convention. A Sikh-American from California and an At-large Delegate to the convention Harmeet Dhillon, a critic of Trump, who is now toeing party line, gave the invocation in Punjabi on the first day. Pakistani-American Sajid Tarar said a closing prayer on the second day. Businessman Subba Kolla introduced his Virginia delegation and called out the roll-call vote. A 2013 video segment on South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley, a rising star in the Republican Party, was shown on the first day of the convention.

There were some critics of Trump at the convention too. An alternate Delegate, Dr. Sampat Shivangi from Mississippi, who was a Jeb Bush supporter, was reported to have criticized Trump for what he saw as “anti-immigrant, Islamophobic” statements, and lack of political experience. But, “I support Trump with my reservations,” he said.

“I’m still concerned about Trump,” Sudhir Parikh, founder of the Indian American Republican Council, told India-West. “Trump is too anti-immigrant, too anti-minority, and anti-trade. He sticks to his point of view and I’m not sure this represents the views of the Republican Party,” said the New Jersey physician, a prominent fundraiser for the Bush presidential dynasty. “I have not decided yet whether to vote for Trump. I’m not going to sit this election out, but I will wait for four months – until the general election – to see what emerges,” said Parikh, noting that many Republicans will follow conservative commentator Glenn Beck’s call to action and vote for a third party candidate.

Florida cardiologist Zachariah P. Zachariah, who has attended every Republican convention since 1992, told the media that he would not be attending this year. “It’s going to take a while for Trump to unify the party and all the people he’s alienated: Hispanics, Muslims and women,” said the long-time Republican Party fundraiser in an earlier interview with this publication. Former Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal also did not attend the convention. Jindal was one of 17 Republican presidential candidates during the primary elections, but dropped out last November after consistently-low polling numbers. South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley – a Republican – declined an invitation to speak at the convention. Haley said she would attend the meet, but maintain a low profile.

An Indian-American Republican Party activist and businessman from Illinois, Shalabh ‘Shalli’ Kumar, declared he had donated $898,800 to the Trump campaign. Raj Shah, the director of research and deputy director of communications at the Republican National Committee, authored the insider white paper on how to bring Clinton down, churning out one alleged scandal after another over the past year, climaxing in the anti-Hillary fervor at the Convention. “Obviously it (convention) has got a lot of anti-Hillary messaging which I’ve had a role in,” Shah admitted, “But there’s a lot mixed in. We provide a lot of content that can be drawn upon, and the convention has been a good mixture of those that articulate Hillary Clinton’s weaknesses.

“I would like to see more Indian-American delegates, and would encourage them to get involved locally. It’s a cool experience,” Shah said. Donald Trump, as a businessman and business owner, was an attractive candidate for the community, Shah argued. “His message would resonate with Indian-Americans and I hope they tune in.”

Dr. Sampat Shivangi elected delegate to GOP convention

Dr. Sampat Shivangi, an Indian-American has been elected as a Republican delegate for a record fourth consecutive term to the party’s July convention in Cleveland which is expected to  formally nominate Donald Trump as its presidential candidate. “I feel this will be a great political spectacle of our times and I am fortunate enough to witness and participate,” he said in a statement.

Shivangi, the national president of Indian-American Forum for Political Education and a long-time Republican leader, was recently elected as national delegate for the fourth consecutive term – a record for the community. The Republican convention in Cleveland is scheduled to be held from July 17 to July 22.

Dr. Shivangi was first elected as a delegate at the Republican convention in New York City in 2004, to nominate President George W Bush. Thereafter, he was elected as the national delegate in 2008 at Minneapolis to nominate John McCain and in 2012 at Tampa, to nominate Mitt Romney.

The Indian-American Forum, along with Ohio Community leaders and with FIA, AAPI will be hosting a reception on the sidelines of the Convention to honor the Indian ambassador to the US Arun Kumar Singh on July 19, a media release said.

Shivangi recently served as advisor to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. A former member of the Mississippi state Board of Health, he was appointed by former Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour to the state mental health board.

NRI Youth Outreach in support of Hillary Clinton launched

Saket Singh and Parth Patel, two Indian American teenagers, supporting Hillary Clinton are planning to reach out to youth from the Indian American community through social media to give a boost to the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee’s campaign.

Saket Singh, who was earlier a strong supporter of Donald Trump, now believes Clinton is his choice to be the next president of the U.S.

“This is my final decision. No more changes,” Saket Singh, 18, told the media in an interview outside a Clinton rally, where he, along with his younger sister, Sneha Singh, 10; and another friend, high school student Parth Patel, were campaigning in support of the former Secretary of State.

“Now that Bernie Sanders is out, she will get the support of the youth,” said Saket Singh, who is headed to India in a few days. “I was initially a Donald Trump supporter. I went to one of his rallies, but those are not the values I believe in,” said Saket Singh, who moved to the U.S. as a one year old along with his parents who are IT professionals.

A few weeks ago, Saket Singh and Patel, along with some other Indian American friends, came together to lead the youth group of ‘Hindus for Hillary’ through which they said they plan to launch a nationwide campaign among Indian Americans to come out and vote in support of Clinton in the November general elections.

“I was also a Donald Trump supporter, but Hillary changed my mind,” said Patel, whose father is a software developer and whose mother is a dermatologist. “Donald Trump is more of an extremist, and Hillary sides with my social views and social issues,” he told PTI.

Saket Singh and Patel said they now plan to use the power of social media and the Internet to reach out to Hindu American youth to garner support for Clinton. A recent survey revealed that Indian Americans overwhelmingly support Clinton over Trump.

Indian Americans voice opposition to Donald Trump

Samina Ali from California and Mira Jacob of New York joined hundreds of writers from across the U.S. in adding their names to an online public petition against Trump, 69, whom they referred to as a dictator who “appeals to the most violent elements in society.”

The two Indian American authors are among hundreds of writers who have voiced their opposition to presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, slamming him for “encouraging aggression” among his followers, intimidating dissenters and denigrating women and minorities.

Indian Americans voice opposition to Donald TrumpAli is an award-winning author, activist and cultural commentator, according to her profile on her website. Her debut novel ‘Madras on Rainy Days’ won France’s prestigious Prix Premier Roman Etranger award and was a finalist for the PEN/Hemingway Award in Fiction.

Jacob, who currently teaches fiction at New York University, is the author of the critically acclaimed novel ‘The Sleepwalker’s Guide to Dancing’ which was shortlisted for India’s Tata First Literature Award.

Among the big names signing the petition are Stephen King, David Eggers, Amy Tan, Junot Diaz and Cheryl Strayed. In the “open letter to the American people” on the literary website Lithub, the writers voiced their opposition to Trump, saying that mere wealth or celebrity status does not qualify “anyone to speak for the United States, to lead its military, to maintain its alliances, or to represent its people” and, as writers, they are aware of the many ways that “language can be abused in the name of power.” “Unequivocally” opposing Trump’s candidacy for president of the U.S., the writers said the rise of a political candidate who “deliberately appeals to the basest and most violent elements in society, who encourages aggression among his followers, shouts down opponents, intimidates dissenters, and denigrates women and minorities, demands, from each of us, an immediate and forceful response.”

They said American history, despite periods of nativism and bigotry, has brought people of different backgrounds together and not pitted them against one another. “The history of dictatorship is the history of manipulation and division, demagoguery and lies,” the writers said

Progress to protect Sikh history & students in CA

Sacramento, CA: The California Department of Education (CDE) tentatively approved the submissions that will successfully preserve Sikh history, said a statement by a Sikh advocacy group. After two years of advocating for the accurate inclusion and preservation of Sikh history in the California curriculum framework, the CDE unanimously agreed with the Sikh Coalition and other community partners that the Sikh contributions to California history are uniquely valuable and that Sikhism absolutely deserves its own individual place as a faith, tradition and community.

“This decision is so important to Sikhs nationwide because California will set a precedent for future decisions that will be made by other states across the nation,” said the Sikh Coalition’s California Community Development Manager, Harjit Kaur. “The facts of history should always trump the orchestrated attempt by special interest groups to distort reality, and we are thrilled to see California educators come to this same conclusion.”

Through academic, government and community engagement, the Sikh Coalition has worked tirelessly to ensure that Sikh history is preserved. While attending every public hearing, the Sikh Coalition also partnered with a diverse coalition of over 20 organizations, which comprised Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims, Jains, Buddhists and atheists, titled “South Asian Histories For All.” The message delivered by this coalition was loud and clear: nobody agrees with the distorted attempts by special interest groups to rewrite our histories. This message resonated with nearly 10,000 community members across the United States who signed our petition.

Recently, organizations that have been pushing to distort Sikh history, like the Hindu American Foundation (HAF), Uberoi Foundation, California Parents for the Equalization of Educational Materials (CAPEEM), resorted to filing a legal letter requesting justification for rejecting their version of our history.

“Until the final vote goes through, this fight is not over because special interest groups will resort to anything in an effort to distort our history,” said Harjit Kaur. “However, these developments are a very positive sign for our children in California and Sikhs all across the United States.”

The Sikh Coalition would like to thank all of our “South Asian Histories For All” coalition partners. We remain more committed than ever in fighting for the rights of all minority faiths and traditions in the state of California.

The Sikh Coalition also recently co-sponsored the “Safe Place to Learn Act,” AB2845, which would require the CDE to meaningfully assess whether California educational agencies have provided enough resources to students who are subject to discrimination and bias-based bullying.

Earlier this week, AB2845 was unanimously passed out of committee and will be voted on in the upcoming months. If passed, it will be a significant step forward in better protecting Sikh children in schools all across California.

A Sikh-American councilman in New Jersey described as a ‘terrorist’ by Trump supporter

Ravinder Bhalla, a city council member at large and council president of Hoboken, New Jersey, was called a “terrorist” on Twitter by a Donald Trump supporter, media reports here say. The Sikh-American councilman hit back at the troll, saying “you clearly don’t know what it means to be an American”.

Ravinder Bhalla posted a message on Twitter about the Hoboken City Council approving a waterfront multi-use pathway. After Bhalla sent out the tweet, Robert Dubenezic – an open supporter of Republican presidential nominee Trump – expressed shock that Bhalla was a councilman. “How the hell did Hoboken allow the guys to be councilman? Shouldn’t even be allowed in the US #terrorist,” Dubenezic tweeted on Thursday, last week.

Bhalla, was quick to answer, exclaiming, “Sir, I am born and raised in America. You clearly don’t know what it means to be an American…#ignorant.” Dubenezic’s Twitter page contains several posts expressing his support for presumptive Republican presidential nominee Trump.

“With a lot of the rhetoric we’re hearing from people like Donald Trump about Muslim Americans and people who are perceived to be from a Muslim background, I think the spread of Islamophobia from our national leaders sends the wrong message,” Bhalla told NBC News.

Many voiced their support of Bhalla, including elected officials US Representative Bonnie Watson-Coleman and Hoboken mayor Dawn Zimmer, members of the Sikh-American community, and his constituents.

Bhalla is an attorney and founding member of the national Sikh Bar Association. He earned national recognition for leading a successful challenge to the New York Police Department for restricting the religious practice of a Sikh officer, and he successfully challenged the search policy of the Federal Bureau of Prisons after he was asked to remove his turban in order to see a client.

“I hope this episode shows people that words can be hurtful and that discriminating based on how someone looks shouldn’t just be ignored. People should be educated on different faiths and backgrounds so that diversity is celebrated,” Bhalla said. “America is, after all, a nation of immigrants. And if we work together instead of against each other, we’ll accomplish so much more. At the end of the day, I don’t hold any malice toward this person. I forgive him for what he said and hope he will educate himself about how his comments can be hurtful and divisive,” Bhalla said.

28% Americans will consider relocation if Trump elected US President

According to one recent Morning Consult/Vox poll, 28 percent of Americans would “likely” consider moving to another country if Trump wins the US Presidential elections in November. Google said the search “how can I move to Canada?” surged 350 percent on March 1 when Trump won seven Republican state elections.

Money makers on both sides of the border have turned the hype into a savvy marketing tool. “Leaving the country if TRUMP is elected PRESIDENT? Give me a call and LET’S GET YOUR HOME SOLD!!” advertised one US realtor.

A millennial entrepreneur in Texas set up dating site Maple Match promising to help Americans “find the ideal Canadian partner to save them from the unfathomable horror of a Trump presidency.” The site is the brainchild of 25-year-old Joe Goldman, who always wanted to set up a dating site but used the Trump bandwagon to drive publicity.

While actual introductions and dates are a way off, Goldman says that more than 30,000 people hungry for love have already signed up. “The Donald Trump campaign for president has provided us with an opportunity to make something positive,” he told AFP. “But ultimately Maple Match itself is not political. It’s about bringing Americans and Canadians together.”

After Cape Breton Island, off the tip of Nova Scotia, offered a refuge to Trump-hating Americans earlier this year, visitors to its tourism site exploded from 65,000 last year to 600,000, says tourist chief Mary Tulle.

Canada has tightened immigration procedures for many categories of people, although it has been liberal in accepting Syrian refugees. Americans opposed to Trump hardly meet the UN definition of a refugee, Katz warned. “It is a tough argument to make that you are being politically persecuted in the US,” said Katz, president at Apex Capital Partners Corp.

Actor Kal Penn, Neera Tanden Slam Trump’s Policies

Washington, DC: Indian-American star Kal Penn, best known for his roles in Harold & Kumar and The Namesake, says most Americans don’t agree with controversial presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s racist views.

“I seriously believe that most of the Americans don’t agree with Donald Trump over his racist, anti-women, anti-LGBT practices. We are not that country. Hopefully elections will prove that,” Penn, who was associate director in the White House Office of Public Engagement from 2009 to 2011, said at the “Cultural Connections in US-India Relations” at the American Center here.

Indian American Neera Tanden led the Hillary Clinton campaign in slamming the economic policies of Donald Trump, the Republican presidential presumptive nominee, and alleging that this poses a threat to the economic future of women and families. “Make no mistake: Trump’s divisive comments about women’s health are a direct threat to our dignity and economic security,” said Tanden, president of the Center for American Progress Action Fund. “Trump is now trying to cover up the bald spots in his economic plan but women can see for themselves and women can see through his comb over,” said Tanden, who was joined by Senator Barbara Mikulski of Maryland.

Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, expected to be pitted against Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton in November, has been opposed by peoples and critics, and often been tagged “anti-immigrant”, “misogynist”, “racist” and “worse”. During the event, Penn’s 2007 film “The Namesake”, which also stars Bollywood actors Irrfan Khan and Tabu, was screened.

Sharing his experience about campaigning for Obama, Penn said that it would not “weird” for him to shift from acting to politics. “For me it was an honor to get a chance to serve for your country,” said Penn, whose real name is Kalpen Suresh Modi, and is best known for his role of Kumar Patel in the popular “Harold & Kumar” film franchise. He has also appeared on TV shows like “House”, “How I Met Your Mother” and “The Big Brain Theory”.

Kal Penn, who served in the Barack Obama administration, was in India for the shooting of Guneet Monga’s upcoming project “The Ashram”. With Ben Rekhi as the director, the film is an English-language spiritual fantasy thriller set in the mystical world of Himalayan yogis.

“The Ashram” also features Melissa Leo, Sam Keeley, Hera Hilmar and Radhika Apte. Talking about Indian cinema, Penn said he is more inclined towards watching off-beat films, that too of Amitabh Bachchan and Irrfan Khan. He also said that loved watching 2013 film “Mere Dad Ki Maruti”.

Actor Kal Penn, Neera Tanden Slam Trump's PoliciesAccording to Tanden, the trillions in tax cuts for millionaires, billionaires and corporations laid out in Trump’s tax plan would be an enormous boon for the top one percent of earners, made at the expense of working families, seniors and the health of the economy. Trump’s plan would give $3 trillion over 10 years or more than 35 percent of its tax breaks to millionaires, enough money to ensure Medicare and Social Security’s solvency for the next 75 years, repair the ailing infrastructure, or raise every person now living in poverty up to the poverty line. Trump would give multi-millionaires in the top 0.1 percent like himself a raise of $1.3 million a year, or $100,000 a month.

Tanden said Trump still opposes raising the minimum wage because he believes “wages are too high,” and recently said he doesn’t favor a federal floor for the minimum wage, which could leave many workers subject to a lower minimum wage.

Tanden alleged Trump’s ideas are not the only risk his presidency would pose for the economic future of women and families around this country. “His tax plan gives $3 trillion to millionaires, that’s enough to make Social Security and Medicare solvent for 75 years. Women, who rely disproportionately on Social Security, can’t afford such an irresponsible giveaway.”

Hindu Group in India prays for Trump’s Victory

Donald Trump , the presumptive Republican nominee seems have admirers in India. According to reports, nearly a dozen members of a right-wing Hindu group gathered on New Delhi’s “protest lane” last week to pray for Trump’s victory in the U.S. presidential election.

According to the Associated Press, the group chanted in Sanskrit and made offerings around a small ritual fire and before a picture of the billionaire politician adorned with a red Hindu mark on the forehead. Trump’s call for temporarily banning Muslims from the United States “until we can figure out what’s going on” apparently a positive chord with some in India’s Hindu nationalist movement, the report said.

“The whole world is screaming against Islamic terrorism, and even India is not safe from it,” said Vishnu Gupta, founder of the Hindu Sena nationalist group. “Only Donald Trump can save humanity.” A separate movement of “Hindus for Trump” has also been gaining speed on Twitter and Facebook in recent days.

In months on the campaign trail, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee has made several statements about India both positive and negative. He described the country as a necessary check to nuclear-armed Pakistan but also mentioned India of being among several countries he believes are stealing jobs from the United States

“We’re being ripped off with China, ripped off with Japan, ripped off with Mexico at the border and then trade, ripped off by Vietnam, and by India, and by every country,” Trump said at a rally in February. In a speech in Delaware last month, he mimicked the accent of an Indian call center worker in a speech about the trade imbalance and the job market, later adding — “India is a great place.”

GOP Delegate, Rina Shah Bharara Dismissed After Favoring Clinton Over Trump

Rina Shah Bharara, an Indian American Republican convention delegate, who had said she might prefer Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump has been stripped of her slot. Bharara, 32, was one of 19 people elected at the D.C. party convention in March to serve as delegate to the national GOP convention. She ran as a Marco Rubio delegate and was the second-leading vote-getter.

Republican Party officials also said, Bharara had lied about her residency. According to reports, an investigation determined Bharara is a Virginia resident and therefore ineligible to be a D.C. delegate, said Patrick Mara, executive director of the District of Columbia’s GOP.

Bharara is reported to have acknowledged that she has homes in northern Virginia and the District and that she splits her time between the two, but said her District residency is legitimate. She said the residency issue is a pretext for removal by party officials upset she said she might prefer Clinton over Trump. “This is all because they’re trying to appease people from other states in response to my anti-Trump comments,” she is said to have told the media.

In an interview with The Associated Press Bharara was quoted to have said that she would vote for Clinton over Trump. “I think Hillary would be better for our country,” she said then. “I personally think she is safer than this renegade crazy person.”

Donald Trump Clinches GOP Race

Washington, DC: Donald J. Trump became the presumptive Republican presidential nominee on Tuesday, May 1st, with a landslide win in Indiana that drove his principal opponents, Senator Ted Cruz and Governor John Kasich of Ohio from the race and cleared the way for the polarizing, populist outsider to take control of the party.

After months of sneering dismissals and expensive but impotent attacks from Republicans fearful of his candidacy, Trump is now positioned to clinch the required number of delegates for the nomination by the last day of voting on June 7.

In the Democratic contest, Senator Bernie Sanders rebounded from a string of defeats to prevail in Indiana over Hillary Clinton, who largely abandoned the state after polls showed her faring poorly with the predominantly white electorate. But the outcome was not expected to significantly change Clinton’s sizable lead in delegates needed to win the Democratic nomination.

According to analysts, Trump’s victory was an extraordinary moment in American political history: He is now on course to be the first standard-bearer of a party since Dwight D. Eisenhower, a five-star general and the commander of Allied Forces in Europe during World War II, who had not served in elected office.

Trump, a real estate tycoon turned reality television celebrity, was not a registered Republican until April 2012. He has given hundreds of thousands of dollars to Democrats, including his likely general election opponent, Mrs. Clinton. And, at various points in his life, he has held positions antithetical to Republican orthodoxy on almost every major issue in the conservative canon, including abortion, taxes, trade, and gun control. But none of this stopped him.

While some called for unity, many Republican leaders refrained from falling in line behind Trump, with dozens avoiding inquiries about where they stood or saying they wanted Trump to detail his policies or tone down his language first.

The Economic Recovery: The Plight of the Middle Class & Obama Legacy

The economic downturn that shook the nation nearly eight years go has had its influence on everyone. Just as any other community in the US, Indian Americans, a mostly affluent Immigrant community in the US, has been affected by the recession that hit the economy as well as by the recovery that is underway today.

Eight years after one of the largest the financial crisis America has ever faced, today, unemployment is at 5 percent, the country’s deficits are down and G.D.P. is growing. However, a majority of Americans feel left behind, writes Andrew Ross Sorkin, a financial columnist for The New York Times, founder and editor at large of DealBook and co-anchor of CNBC’s “Squawk Box.”

When Obama took office in early 2009, the U.S. economy was losing 800,000 jobs a month and the Dow was under 7,000. Today, the unemployment is 5 percent, the deficit is under 3 percent, AIG, the world’s biggest insurance company, has turned profitable and the government made all the money back on the banks.

Andrew Ross Sorkin draws to the impact of Obama policy in the past seven years. Overall, the U.S. economy is in much better shape than the public appreciates, especially when measured against the depths of the financial crisis and the possibility — now rarely even considered — that things could have been much, much worse. The economy has certainly come further than most people recognize. The private sector has added jobs for 73 consecutive months — some 14.4 million new jobs in all — the longest period of sustained job growth on record. Unemployment, which peaked at 10 percent the year Obama took office, the highest it had been since 1983, under Ronald Reagan, is now 5 percent, lower than when Reagan left office. The budget deficit has fallen by roughly $1 trillion during his two terms. The U.S. economic growth has significantly outpaced that of every other advanced nation.

In spite of all the progress in the past few years under Obama, Andrew Ross Sorkin says, despite the gains of the past seven years, many Americans have been left behind. A large swath of the nation has dropped out of the labor force completely, and the reality for the average American family is that its household income is $4,000 less than it was when Bill Clinton left office.

Economic inequality, meanwhile, has only grown worse, with the top 1 percent of American households taking in more than half of the recent gains in income growth. “Millions and millions and millions and millions of people look at that pretty picture of America he painted and they cannot find themselves in it to save their lives,” Bill Clinton himself said of Obama’s economy in March. “People are upset, frankly; they’re anxiety-ridden, they’re disoriented, because they don’t see themselves in that picture.”

Kenneth Rogoff, a Harvard economics professor and co-author of “This Time Is Different,” a well-regarded history of financial crises, said, “We had a systemic financial crisis since World War II. I mean this was like nothing we’ve experienced since World War II. The 1982 Volcker recession was nothing compared to this, and so you have to look at the nature of the shock.”

Charles Homans, the politics editor for the New York Times magazine, says, on one end of the “middle class” spectrum is a dream inexorably receding from view; on the other is a pair of socioeconomic blinders obscuring the harsher economic realities of those further down the scale. Summarizing today’s economy, Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party’s presumptive nominee, said, “Many are still barely getting by,” while Donald Trump said that “we’re a third-world nation.”

Richard V. Reeves, a scholar at the Brookings Institution, argues that the most significant dividing line in recent American experience isn’t between the 99 percent and the 1 percent, but between the 80 percent and the 20 percent — a group that includes not just the very rich but also people most Americans would identify as upper middle class. The top 20 percent saw its average real household income rise to $185,000 in 2013 from about $109,000 a year in 1967. The middle 40 percent saw their real incomes rise, too, but to only $68,000 from $52,000 — the equivalent of a $348-­a-­year raise. The top 20 percent is also more likely than the middle 40 percent to believe that hard work gets you ahead in life.

According to a Brookings study released last year, men and women with bachelor’s degrees earned a median of 7 percent and 16 percent more in 2013 than they did in 1990. Women who either didn’t attend college or attended but didn’t graduate made just 3 percent more — up to a meager $29,500 — and those men made 13 percent less: a median of $40,700 a year, down from $47,100 a year.

President Barack Obama, recalling his efforts to rebuild the U.S. economy from the 2008 financial crisis, in spite of the criticisms and non-cooperation from the left, right and center, laments that his efforts were vastly underappreciated. “If you ask the average person on the streets, ‘Have deficits gone down or up under Obama?’ probably 70 percent would say they’ve gone up,” Obama said, with some justifiable exasperation — the deficit has in fact declined (by roughly three-quarters) since he took office, and polls do show that a large majority of Americans believe the opposite.

“I actually compare our economic performance to how, historically, countries that have wrenching financial crises perform,” he said. “By that measure, we probably managed this better than any large economy on Earth in modern history.” Obama said, “Anybody who says we are not absolutely better off today than we were just seven years ago, they’re not leveling with you. They’re not telling the truth.”

Raj Shah Leads Research On Hillary For Use In Possible General Election Campaign Against Her

Raj Shah, an Indian American entrusted with the Republican National Committee’s opposition research arm, a beehive of two dozen tech-savvy idealists who have already spent two years searching through decades of government documents, tax filings, TV footage and news archives, has been leading research on Hillary Clinton, the possible Democratic Party candidate in the US General Elections this year.

Searching in the Clinton presidential library to probe the Clintons’ accumulated past, and requesting more than 330 Freedom of Information Act, the teamhas netted 11,000 pages of records, and counting. Clinton “may not like those of us willing to hold her accountable, but she only has herself to blame,” Shah says. “We’re simply citing her own past words, positions and actions.”

“In this political cycle Republican investigators have been given a rare gift: a clear front-runner with a long and public history,” The New York Times wrote of Hillary Clinton. The Republicans boast that their research shop is bigger and better than the Democratic National Committee’s, but in fact the Republicans’ biggest advantage is Mrs. Clinton herself. Over 40 years of public life, she has changed roles, funding mechanisms, policy positions, even regional accents.

“We’ve got all sorts of fun and interesting things that reinforce” Clinton’s image as “untrustworthy, dishonest … whether its policy flip-flops, secret emails, and things about her life story,” Raj Shah, the deputy communications director at RNC, who wrote an operational handbook on GOP strategy against Clinton, said on the nationally syndicated “The Alan Colmes Show” on Fox News Radio April 19.

Clinton, Shah said, was the “architect” of seemingly unpopular policies relating to Libya and the nuclear deal with Iran and other Obama administration policies she staunchly supports even after leaving office. Add to that, her administration of the State Department which he said, showed “failure after failure” revealed in reports such as those routinely issued by the Government Accountability Office, on various government operations. “Donor and special interests rather than those in need … get in the front of the line,” those reports show, Shah contended.

Denying that his work digging the dirt on Clinton supported her contention of a “right wing conspiracy” Shah countered all parties have “professionalized opposition research.”
While admitting that Republican candidates such as billionaire Donald Trump and Senator Ted Cruz had negatives, he said, “But Hillary Clinton is extremely well defined, and defined in a negative way.

Shah also said the GOP has a big file on Sen. Bernie Sanders, and explained why the GOP plans to focus on the negative aspects of the Iran nuclear deal. “We are prepared for several scenarios including the potential ‘White Night’ scenario with (Vice President) Joe Biden stepping in,” Shah said, “But we are most prepared for Hillary Clinton.”

These revelations can be very damaging to any candidate who is running for public office. For instance, when Mrs. Clinton said recently that she is opposed to the Trans-Pacific Partnership — a trade pact she called a “gold standard” when she was secretary of state — they were able to send out her contradictory quotes on social media almost instantly. They did the same thing when she introduced a broad plan for gun control after largely opposing it in her last presidential run.

In New Hampshire this month, when Mrs. Clinton repeated a questionable story about wanting to join the Marines in her youth, the Republicans could catalog the times she made that claim in the past and the shifting reasons she gave. Recently they compiled a list of all the groups with ties to the financial sector and other industries with business before the federal government that paid Bill and Hillary Clinton millions in speaking fees well before the Clintons released lists on their own.

Americans may hate what this dredging enterprise says about modern campaigning, but it’s a legitimate part of the process, and any seasoned politician is likely to have inconsistencies, failures and embarrassments. What really keeps the opposition research machine humming are efforts by the candidates themselves to be all things to all voters, sacrificing their credibility.

7 in 10, including half of Republican voters unfavorable to Trump

(WASHINGTON) — For Americans of nearly every race, gender, political persuasion and location, disdain for Donald Trump runs deep, saddling the Republican front-runner with unprecedented unpopularity as he tries to overcome recent campaign setbacks.

Seven in 10 people, including close to half of Republican voters, have an unfavorable view of Trump, according to a new Associated Press-GfK poll. It’s an opinion shared by majorities of men and women; young and old; conservatives, moderates and liberals; and whites, Hispanics and blacks — a devastatingly broad indictment of the billionaire businessman.

Even in the South, a region where Trump has won GOP primaries decisively, close to 70 percent view him unfavorably. And among whites without a college education, one of Trump’s most loyal voting blocs, 55 percent have a negative opinion.

Trump still leads the Republican field in delegates and has built a loyal following with a steady share of the Republican primary electorate. But the breadth of his unpopularity raises significant questions about how he could stitch together enough support in the general election to win the White House.

It also underscores the trouble he may still face in the Republican race, which appears headed to a contested convention where party insiders would have their say about who will represent the GOP in the fall campaign.

“He’s at risk of having the nomination denied to him because grass-roots party activists fear he’s so widely disliked that he can’t possible win,” said Ari Fleischer, a former adviser to President George W. Bush.

Beyond their generally negative perception of Trump, large majorities also said they would not describe him as civil, compassionate or likable. On nearly all of these measures, Trump fared worse than his remaining Democratic or Republican rivals.

Not that voters have all that much love for those rivals. But their negative perceptions don’t match the depth of the distaste for Trump. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who is seeking to catch Trump in the Republican delegate count, is viewed unfavorably by 59 percent, while 55 percent have negative views of Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton.

Another problem for Trump is that his public perception seems to be getting worse. The number of Americans who view him unfavorably has risen more than 10 percentage points since mid-February, a two-month stretch that has included some of his biggest primary victories but also an array of stumbles that suggested difficulties with his campaign organization and a lack of policy depth.

A survey conducted by Gallup in January found Trump’s unfavorable rating, then at 60 percent in the their polling, was already at a record high level for any major party nominee in their organization’s polling since the 1990’s.

Clinton’s campaign believes Trump’s sky-high unfavorable ratings could offset some questions voters have about her own character, and perhaps even give her a chance to peel off some Republicans who can’t stomach a vote for the real estate mogul.

More than 60 percent of all registered voters and 31 percent of Republicans said they definitely would not vote for Trump in the general election. One group that is still with him includes those who describe themselves as both Republicans and supporters of the tea party movement. Sixty-eight percent of them have a favorable view.

Indian American Republicans In New York Support Trump In Crucial Primary Set For April 19th

Not withstanding that Donald Trump, the Republican Party’s leading contender in the Primaries had said that Mexicans are rapists and drug dealers, suggested a temporary ban on Muslims entering the United States and called for the deportation of the more than 11 million undocumented immigrants in the country, there are some immigrants supporting him for reasons that are “intensely personal and, not surprisingly, are often aligned with their politics back home.”

As the entire nation is looking upto New York for the upcoming crucial Primaries on April 19th,  The New York Times reports that “some small groups of immigrants have come forward to support him.” A group of Latino Republicans in Rockland County is planning to endorse him, and some older Indian-American professionals and young Hindus in the region already have.

Quoting a recent informal poll conducted by a Russian-language radio station in New York City, the Times wrote that more than 80 percent of 5,000 callers preferred Trump, the Republican front-runner, to Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party’s likely nominee.

Anand Ahuja, a lawyer in his mid-60s on Long Island, who was a founder of Indian-Americans for Trump 2016, a political action committee, has his own reasons to support Trump. Ahuja visited the United States in his 20s on a tourist visa from India, is reported to have said that  “friends were marrying for green cards. They stayed and prospered, but he returned to India and waited nine years to immigrate legally.”

Ahuja is said to have praised Trump for wanting to stop immigrants from entering the country illegally. “You should not reward people who have broken the law,” he said. “You follow the law, you get punished. That’s why I like Donald Trump when he says, ‘Let’s build a wall.” He added, “I believe anybody who came in this country illegally should be deported.” Ahuja, however, added that showing support for Trump also invites backlash and criticism. “You become a subject of mockery and fun and criticism,” Ahuja said, adding that he faced a lot of flak on social media for supporting Trump.

Adity Sharma, 30, a law student, and one of about 20 members of Hindus for Trump, a Facebook group that occasionally meets in cafes in Brooklyn, was quoted in the report that her Indian-American family supported Hillary Clinton. “To each his own,” she said, adding of Trump: “He’s a strong candidate, he’s different than the others. By him not being so politically correct, it does make people sit up and listen.” She and the group’s other members believe that current American policy is too friendly toward Pakistan and that Trump could change that to benefit India. They also approve of Trump’s proposed ban on Muslim refugees.

Raju Bathija, 56, another member of the group, said she no longer trusted Mrs. Clinton or her foreign policy in India. But more than 15 years ago she said she attended a fund-raiser for Mrs. Clinton’s Senate race, as a member of the Indo-American Democratic Party. Now, she supports Trump, because, “You go where your bread is buttered,” Ms. Bathija said.

However, these are individuals and their personal views. It looks to be seen if the larger community will go behind the billionaire turned politician. Devesh Kapur, director of the Center for the Advanced Study of India at the University of Pennsylvania, was quoted in the report in The Times as saying that Ahuja’s group was an outlier in an Indian diaspora that had overwhelmingly voted for Democrats. “It has no reflection of representativeness by a long, long shot,” said Mr. Kapur, who is an author of a coming book about Indian immigrants’ success in the United States. “Whether it’s Sikhs for Trump, Hindus for Trump, in each of them you would say: ‘Really? How can that be?’ It’s a really tiny fraction. They represent themselves, not all Sikhs.”

Will Raising Minimum Wages & Raising Taxes On The Rich Solve Income Inequality?

There is an increasing anger among the majority of the people in the country towards the American establishment, the mainstream American politicians and both the political parties. The rise and growing popularity of unconventional politicians with varied ideologies and outlook to the future of the United States in both the Republican and the Democratic Parties may be explained, to some extent, due to this growing frustration among the middle class and the poor in the country.

Income inequality is one of the major global issues talked about today. It is the bane of the working class’s existence. It’s more evident in the United States today than ever before. In the US, income inequality increased the most among all the developed nations – the richest 1% growing by 275%, while wages of the poor grew by only 20% in 30 years. The Forbes 400 list of the richest Americans, states that the total net worth of those on the list in 1982, the first year the list was compiled, was $93 billion. In 2014, that number was $2.3 trillion, up 2,400%. At the same time, median household income in the United States rose only about 180%.

The American middle class has been shrinking relative to upper- and lower-income groups, both of which represent bigger shares of the population than at any time since at least 1971, a new Pew Research Center report finds. The increased income inequality since the 1980s is due to a decreasing real minimum wage, which means, the real wages were growing slower than inflation, contributing to increase in the inequality.

Shawn Donnan of the Financial Times says, “We’re seeing a real divergence in American society. What’s interesting about these numbers that have come out from the Pew Research Center and that we’ve built our series around is that, really, this is the broadest measure in terms of income of the American middle class out there.”

In inflation-adjusted terms, the real value of the minimum wage is lower today than it was at its late-1960s peak. This decline in the real value of the minimum wage, coupled with the decline in unionization and the rise of automation, accounted for much of the growth in income inequality in the 1980s.

While there is a push to increase the minimum wages, there is also a demand to increasing income taxes on top earners, and in turn giving those funds to those on the bottom. Both income inequality and the minimum wage have become hot-button political issues in recent years, particularly since the rise of the Fight for $15 campaign. Democratic presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders talk about income inequality as a major economic problem and advocate for raising the minimum wage as one possible solution for the issue.

It sounds like simple math, and has an allure for many politicians and American families alike, but a new Brookings research suggests that this proposal would actually do little to reduce inequality.

This growing inequality has immense consequences for the nation’s future. As the children of the rich are getting better services, and in turn, a higher likelihood of social and cognitive development, which means that they are more likely to take up the high paying executive positions than the others, whose parents are perhaps not so lucky. Unequal starting points only mean that the finishing points will be unequal as well. The exact cause of income inequality is up for debate.

Kim Weeden, director of the Center for the Study of Inequality at Cornell University, says while raising the minimum wage will unlikely decrease the levels of income inequality, it would make a huge difference for those struggling to make ends meet.

However, there are those in the Republican Party and others, who think that increasing the minimum wages will not help in diminishing income inequality. According to Heritage Foundation expert James Sherk, labor economists have found no correlation between higher minimum wages and lower poverty. Raising the minimum wage simply would not reduce poverty.

Sherk says, raising the minimum wage will not affect many poor families. Higher minimum wages cost some workers their jobs. Raising the minimum wage makes these entry-level jobs harder to find. That makes it harder for less skilled workers to gain the skills necessary to get ahead. And finally, the raising wages will disqualify millions from receiving federal grants that are eligible to them now. As workers’ incomes rise they qualify for less and less aid—effectively an additional tax on their income.

Another suggestion put forth is to tax the rich more. It’s a popular idea on the 2016 campaign trail, but a new study says that won’t do much to dent inequality in America. Many of America’s uber rich, including billionaires Warren Buffett and Jamie Dimon, have said they would be willing to pay more in tax.

Bernie Sanders has proposed a “billionaire surtax” of 10% that he says would only impact the nation’s 530 billionaires. He also wants to increase the inheritance tax — what people pay when they transfer land or money to their kids — from 40% to a top rate of 55%. Donald Trump, Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton have all proposed eliminating the “carried interest loophole” that allows many hedge fund managers to tax their investment income at a lower tax rate (20% versus 39.6%).

A new paper from Brookings Economics Studies found that raising the top income tax rate to 50 percent would mean an additional $6,464 in taxes owed for households in the 95-99th percentiles of income and an additional $110,968 for households in the top 1 percent. Extremely wealthy households in the very top 0.1 percent could expect to experience an average income tax increase of $568,617. As per the analysis, increasing the top marginal tax rates for those in the 95th percentile and up had a “trivial effect on overall income inequality.” only lowering the gap modestly.

Researchers looked at what would happen if all the extra money raised from the tax hike on the rich were given to America’s poorest. Lower-income families would receive about $2,650 a year, they found. That kind of redistribution would lessen inequality a little bit more, but the country would still remain far more unequal than it was in the 1970s.

The reality is that that tax hikes for top earners could raise critical revenue for the federal government, and redistribution policies would still provide substantial benefits to low-income households, if not economic mobility as a whole.

The need to close the gap between the rich and the poor and according the majority poor, lower middle class and the middle class their right to thrive is a basic necessity. They need to be able to meet their daily needs and offering them resources to grow and become productive citizens rather than become a burden on the nation, means, investing in the present by raising the minimum the income, redistributing the wealth of the nation to invest in the products and services that will enhance the quality of the lives every citizen.

 

Indian-Origin Journalist Heckled, Arrested And Then Released At Trump Rally

WASHINGTON: An Indian-origin journalist with a CBS, a major US television network, was heckled by Donald Trump’s supporters and arrested by police during a protest at the Republican presidential frontrunner’s campaign rally here, media reports said.

CBS News reporter Sopan Deb was detained by police while covering the protest that broke out last night following the cancellation of Trump’s rally in Chicago. Deb was covering the clash between protesters and the Republican front-runner’s supporters when he was detained, the news organisation said.

“Deb was filming video of a man whose face was bloody and laying on the ground near police at the time of his arrest,” according to a ‘CBS This Morning’ report.

Deb alleged that he was thrown to the ground and handcuffed without notice or warning, the CBS news reported. Illinois State Police charged Deb with resisting arrest though the network reported that neither his video, nor that of a nearby film crew, showed any sign of resistance.

“I have never seen anything like what I am witnessing in my life,” Deb tweeted after the incident. Deb, who has been covering Trump’s campaign ever since he announced his presidential run last June, said “A Trump supporter just asked me at Reno event if I was taking pictures for ISIS. When I looked shocked, he said, ‘yeah, I am talking to you’.”

The president of CBS News is standing by one of the network’s journalists who was arrested outside a Donald Trump rally that was canceled amid violence between Trump supporters and protesters.

David Rhodes tweeted that journalist Sopan Deb, who was covering the rally at the University of Illinois’ Chicago campus on Friday, was handcuffed and charged with resisting arrest. “On tape you see he did not resist, identified himself as working press,” Rhodes said in his tweet.

The Trump campaign did not immediately respond to questions. Trump cancelled his campaign rally here citing security concerns after hundreds of people gathered at the arena to protest against his ‘politics of hatred’ and scuffled with his supporters in the largest-ever demonstration against the Republican presidential front-runner.

Of late journalists have been at receiving end at the Trump campaign. Foreign journalists have been made totally out of bound while the domestic media are put inside an enclosure at all his rallies and are not allowed to move out of that.

In the last few weeks, several journalists have been scuffled by security agents and Trump’s supporters. The developments forced the White House Correspondents Association (WHCA) to issue a rare statement.

“Broadly speaking, the WHCA unequivocally condemns any act of violence or intimidation against any journalist covering the 2016 campaign, whether perpetrated by a candidate’s supporters, staff or security officers. We expect that all contenders for the nation’s highest office agree that this would be unacceptable,” WHCA president Carol Lee said in a statement early this week.

“We have been increasingly concerned with some of the rhetoric aimed at reporters covering the presidential race and urge all candidates seeking the White House to conduct their campaigns in a manner that respects the robust back-and-forth between politicians and the press that is critical to a thriving democracy,” said Lee, White House correspondent of The Wall Street Journal.

Study: Divided Parties Rarely Win Presidential Elections

Athens, Ga. – Divided political parties rarely win presidential elections, according to a study by political science researchers at the University of Georgia and their co-authors. If the same holds true this year, the Republican Party could be in trouble this presidential general election.

The study, which examined national party division in past presidential elections, found that both national party division and divisive state primaries have significant influence on general election outcomes.

In this election cycle, the nominee of a divided Republican Party could lose more than 3 percent of the general election vote, compared to what he would have gained if the party were more united.

“History shows that when one party is divided and the other party is united, the divided party almost always loses the presidential election,” said Paul-Henri Gurian, an associate professor of political science at UGA. “Consider, for example, the elections from 1964 through 1984; in each case the divided party lost.” The study measures party division during the primaries and indicates how much the more divided party loses in the general election.

The study found that divisive state primaries can lead to a 1 to 2 percent decrease in general elections votes in that state. For example, Hillary Clinton received 71 percent of the Democratic vote in the Georgia primary, while Donald Trump received 39 percent of the Republican vote. According to the historical model, a Republican-nominated Trump would lose almost 1 percent of the Georgia vote in the general election because of the divided state primary.

National party division has an even greater and more widespread impact on the national results, often leading to decreases of more than 3 percent nationwide.

Looking again at the current presidential election cycle, Trump had received 39.5 percent of the total national Republican primary vote as of March 16, while Clinton had received 58.6 percent of the Democratic vote. If these proportions hold for the remainder of the nomination campaign (and if these two candidates win the nominations), then Trump would lose 4.5 percent of the vote in the general election, compared to what he would have received if the national Republican Party was not divided.

“In close elections, such as 2000, 2004 and 2012, 4-5 percent could change the outcome in terms of which party wins the presidency,” Gurian said.

The results of this study provide political analysts with a way to anticipate the impact of each primary and, more importantly, the impact of the total national primary vote on the general election results. Subtracting the percent of the Republican nominee’s total popular vote from that of the Democratic nominee and multiplying that by 0.237 indicates how much the Republican nominee is likely to lose in the November election, compared to what would otherwise be expected. The 4.5 percent figure calculated through March 16 can be updated as additional states hold their primaries. (The same can be done for each individual state primary by multiplying by 0.026.) The study was conducted by Paul-Henri Gurian and Audrey Haynes, together with Nathan Burroughs, Lonna Atkeson and Damon Cann.

Arvind Kejriwal in Fortune list of 2016 ‘Greatest Leaders’

Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal has been named by Fortune Magazine as one of the world’s greatest leaders. The list of Fortune’s World’s 50 Greatest Leaders for the year 2016 features men and women from across the world who have excelled in business, government, philanthropy and arts, transforming and inspiring the world to repeat their feat. The third annual list was announced March 24th.

Fortune has listed Arvind Kejriwal as the 42nd in the list and is the only Indian name to make it to the list. Another person of Indian origin to make it to the list is the Governor of South Carolina Nikki Haley, with a rank of 17. And the only other Indian American politician and lawyer Reshma Saujani, based in New York, has also made it to the list at the 20th spot.

The Fortune list sought outstanding leaders in all sectors of society around the world. It recognized those who are inspiring others to act, to follow them on a worthy quest and who have shown staying power.

According to Fortune, Kejriwal, the founder of the Aam Aadmi Party, has worked towards controlling the pollution of one of the busiest metros of India through the odd-even scheme, which has taken a toll on his popularity back in India.

Fortune said “When Kejriwal unveiled a blueprint to tackle the smog in New Delhi — called the world’s most polluted city by the World Health Organization — many were sceptical. A key component: an ‘odd-even’ pilot project in which vehicles were allowed on the roads only on alternate days.”

It also added “The uplifting result of the pilot this January: roads were less clogged, hourly particulate air pollution concentrations dropped by 13 percent, and citizens could breathe deeply.” It also said that the leadership is not just demagoguery, pandering, even populism but the way normal citizens work towards making a change in the life of fellow beings in a way people have never imagined.

The US-based magazine said in a reference to Kejriwal and Domenico Lucano, the Mayor of the Italian town of Riace, who was ranked 40th on the list that when the Delhi Chief Minister risked his career to fight pollution, the Italian mayor showed example by welcoming Middle East migrants to his tiny town—improving its economy and brightening their prospects.

Fortune  highlighted the summer of 2015, following the massacre of nine people in a Charleston, S.C., church, when Haley was instrumental in the removal of the Confederate flag from the state capitol grounds. That removal sparked a movement throughout the South to remove the charged symbol, Fortune said. It added that the Republican Haley “is proving that Trumpism isn’t the only way. South Carolina’s Indian American governor was among the earliest in her party to call out GOP presidential front-runner (Donald Trump), warning against ‘the siren call of the angriest voices’— in a nationally televised State of the Union response, no less.”

Reshma Saujani, Founder and CEO, Girls Who Code, that works to close the gender gap in technology has been listed in as the 20th in the list. The 40-year old former Wall Street attorney has given training and internship programs for more than 40,000 girls. In a TED talk in February, which has since accrued more than 800,000 views, Saujani stressed teaching girls to be brave rather than perfect.

Also in the list is Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, who according to Fortune is the only female leader among the Organization of Islamic Cooperation member states. “Hasina has deftly navigated the competing demands of Islamic tradition and women’s rights,” says Fortune.

Amazon CEO Bezo topped this year’s list and has been consistently featuring in all three years since Fortune started listing the World’s Greatest Leaders. Pope Francis is listed at the 4th position followed by Apple CEO Tim Cook. The list includes names of German Chancellor Angela Merkel (2), Myanmar’s pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi at (3), US astronaut Scott Kelly and Russian cosmonaut Mikhail Kornienko (22), IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde (36), Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Co-chair and CEO Melinda Gates and Susan Desmond-Hellmann (41), Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau (48) and Bhutanese Prime Minister Tshering Tobgay (50).

While introducing the 50 greatest leaders, Fortune wrote: “The leaders you’ll meet here, known and new, will lift your mood and upgrade your assessment of the world’s future. Some may inspire you to join their followers. And those unheard-ofs, so seemingly ordinary, may even prompt you to rethink your own potential as an inspiring leader.”

Harmeet Dhillon Makes Bid To Be Member of Republican National Committee

Sacramento, CA: Harmeet Dhillon, vice chair of the California Republican Party, is currently running unopposed to represent the state as committeewoman for the Republican National Committee. The RNC allots each state a chairman to the National Committee, along with one committee man and one committee woman. The state’s delegates will vote for the posts April 30, during the upcoming California Republican Party convention in Burlingame, Calif.
 
Linda Ackerman, who has held the post for eight years, earlier this month said she would not run again this year. Her term will end after the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, which begins July 18.
 
Indian American attorney  Dhillon’s term as vice chair of the state party ends this year. She told India-West it was “a natural progression” for her to take on a role at the national level. The role entails determining the party’s policy for the next four years and deciding the party’s presidential candidate during the 2020 election cycle.
 
Dhillon has previously served as the GOP’s chairman in San Francisco County and has served as vice chair of the state party since 2013, the first Indian American to serve in that role. In a Feb. 22 statement announcing her candidacy, Dhillon said she has worked tirelessly to build a strong Republican Party in the state.
 
“I’ve fought hard for the party and for the future of California in just about every way a volunteer can – and as I have been doing since I was a teenager in the conservative movement,” she said.
 
“It’s time that California had a strong advocate in the RNC, to promote California’s interests at the national party level. For too long, California has been neglected by our national party,” said Dhillon.
 
Dhillon has won the endorsement of almost all members of the California State Senate and Assembly Republican Caucuses. She has also won the endorsement of the California Republican Party’s Board of Directors and a majority of county chairmen. She has assembled a team of volunteers who plan over the next six weeks to speak to every delegate in the state to pledge their support. Dhillon said she hopes for a unanimous vote.
 
The 2016 presidential election cycle poses some interesting challenges for the Republican Party, Dhillon told India-West, noting that billionaire contender Donald Trump has brought more interest and a greater number of people to the polls.
 
“Trump as the leading candidate is not in keeping with the image of our party. There is a lot of hand-wringing going on, because he’s ‘not one of us,’” said Dhillon. “But a lot of Republicans equally feel that the party has not done its job” in keeping the Obama administration in check, she said.
 
The veteran politician — who has run unsuccessfully for the state Assembly and Senate — said obliquely that she differs from Trump’s ideology, leaning more towards the late Jack Kemp and Ronald Reagan’s style of conservative policy. “I will support the nominee of the party,” she added, noting that she is not supporting anyone at this juncture.
 
California will more than likely determine the party’s nominee, said Dhillon, noting there was no chance that Republican contenders Texas Senator Ted Cruz or Ohio Governor John Kasich would drop out of the race before the national convention. Kasich has stated his support for a brokered convention, even if one candidate does have the necessary number of delegates to get the party’s nomination.
 
If Trump continues to amass delegates at his current rate, no one will have the required number of delegates — 1,237 — to win the nomination outright. After the Mar. 15 primaries in Illinois, Ohio, Florida, Missouri and North Carolina, Trump had amassed 673 delegates, while Cruz had 411 and Kasich 143.
 
A total of 885 delegates still remain un-allotted. Trump would have to win 564 more delegates to get the party’s nomination outright, a feat which Dhillon predicts is mathematically impossible.

Sikhs And Muslims Back Donald Trump

Muslims and Sikhs in Maryland have joined the camp of Donald Trump claiming that the Republican presidential frontrunner is not actually against their communities. Members of the two groups – “Sikh Americans for Trump” and “Muslim Americans for Trump” – whose members are mostly South Asians, held its first meeting in a Maryland suburb that was addressed by a representative from the Trump campaign. According to media reports, the organizers of the meeting argued that the view of Trump about minority community has been “twisted” and “taken out of context” by the mainstream media. They also said that the billionaire real estate magnet would create more jobs in the country which would benefit the minorities.

“He (Trump) is not at all against the Sikhs or the Muslim community. What he says is given spin. The mainstream media gives a spin because they are scared of him. He is not the status quo. He is not taking anybody’s money,” Jasdip Singh, who helped organize the “Sikh Americans for Trump” in Maryland, was quoted as saying in a news agency report widely published in Indian newspapers.

A prominent member of the Sikh community, Singh is chairman of the Maryland governor’s Commission on South Asian Affairs and chairman of the Board of Sikh Associations of Baltimore. He said when Trump talks about Muslims, he does not talk about all Muslims or American Muslims. “He spoke in the context of the refugee crisis that was happening in Syria. We (Sikhs) agree with him. Muslim Americans agree with him that we should not bring people into this country before we can vet them. And this was a temporary measures proposed by him,” Singh said.

Trump is not against the minorities, he said, adding that he believes that his presidency will be good for India. Sajid Tarar, a Pakistani-American, who helped organize the Muslim Americans for Trump, said that of all the presidential candidates, Trump is the only one who has achievements to show.

“We believe, he has the ability and capacity to change America. He has built a huge empire. He is self-funding the campaign. There is no special interest behind him,” Tarar said. “There is a war going on against Trump. Every message and speech of his has been twisted,” he said referring to the Trump’s call to temporarily ban Muslims from entering the country.

Sikhs in US raise $400,000 to create awareness about Sikhism

San Francisco, CA: Sikhs in the US and around the world have been often misjudged or wrongly identified and subjected to harassment by people with little understanding of Sikhism. Efforts have been underway, especially after 9/11 attacks, to create awareness about the Sikh faith and the followers of Sikhism.

In a very first time in the fund raising efforts of Sikhs, the organization committed to creating awareness about their faith in America, has been able to raise $400,000. This is the first time, Sikhs have raised this amount of money to spread the awareness about their faith in America.

“This is a historic moment for the Sikh community in America. Never before have we had the opportunity to tell our story to our fellow Americans and that time has come now,” said, Kaval Kaur, National charter member of National Sikh Campaign(NSC). Previous record is of USD 90,000 in NSC’s Los Angeles Gala last year.

At a fund raising gala in San Francisco Bay Area, television advertisements created by AKPD, former President Obama’s campaign media team, were unveiled, a statement said. Last year, National Sikh Campaign had hired the services of AKPD and Hart Research Associates which is headed by Geoff Garin, Hillary Clinton’s former chief strategic advisor, to develop the messaging and framework of these advertisements.

Among the attendees were prominent Sikh entrepreneurs, leading Silicon Valley IT professionals, Medical doctors, owners of trucking companies and officials of all gurdwaras in the area. “We, Sikhs, need to change the narrative and present the correct image of who we are, showcasing how we are totally integrated in the American society and not only as victims,” said Rajwant Singh, co-founder of National Sikh Campaign, who presented the overview of the campaign and appealed to the audience to donate for the cause.

Reports here state that the Sikhs in the US are increasing their efforts for a national media campaign to generate awareness among Americans about their religion in the backdrop of increasing hate crimes against the community.

Republican hopeful Donald Trump, known for his caustic remarks and attitude towards Muslims, refugees and certain ethnicities, had recently attacked a Sikh man. Why? Because of the latter’s turban. The Sikh man was escorted out of a Donald Trump rally at Muscatine High School, Iowa.

This happened after the man interrupted Trump’s speech by displaying a banner that read ‘Stop Hate’. Trump then pointed to the crowd, referring to the protester and another person accompanying him, and said, “He wasn’t wearing one of those hats, was he? And he never will, and that’s OK because we got to do something folks because it’s not working.”

Nikki Haley Endorses Marco Rubio In Bid For GOP Presidential Nomination

Charlotte, SC: South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley has endorsed Florida Senator Marco Rubio in his bid to be the nominee of the Republican Party in the upcoming presidential elections. “If we elect Marco Rubio, every day will be a great day in America,” she said alongside the Florida senator during a rally in suburban Columbia.

Polls suggest Trump continues to hold a big lead in South Carolina and in upcoming states, as Cruz works to rally the Republican Party’s most conservative wing and Rubio tries to consolidate mainstream Republicans behind his candidacy. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Ohio Gov. John Kasich continue to battle for a spot at the table, while retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson struggles for relevancy.

A highly coveted endorsement from popular Nikki Haley — one Jeb Bush himself had described as “the most powerful, meaningful one in the state” earlier this week — has gone to Rubio. Haley’s endorsement was a major setback for Bush, who said her decision left him “disappointed.”

Nikki Haley, the popular Indian American governor, who is being speculated as a possible US vice presidential candidate, said she was tasked with identifying the best candidate as she surveyed the crowded GOP field.

In her endorsement, Haley said: “I wanted somebody that was going to go and show my parents that the best decision they ever made for their children was coming to America. We say that every day is a great day in South Carolina. Ladies and gentlemen, if we elect Marco Rubio, every day will be a great day in America!” Haley said.

“You know that I always say I am the proud daughter of Indian parents. That reminded us every day how blessed we were to live in this country,” she said in her brief remarks. Haley said she wants a president who is going to have the backs of military veterans and those in active duty.

“I want a president that knows that when we fight wars, we win wars. I want a president that understands we have to stop the federal mandates that have been pushed on the states like Obamacare and the EPA,” she said. In endorsing Rubio, Haley said: “I wanted somebody with fight, somebody with passion, somebody with conviction to do the right thing, but also somebody humble enough to remember you work for all the people.”

“But I want a president who understands that they have to go back to Washington, D.C., and bring a conscience back to our Republicans. Our Republicans need to remember what we are about, which is about balanced budgets, cutting debt, building reserves and making sure that they understand that this guy, he is all about term limits in D.C., and that is what we want to see in a president,” Haley said. “We were excited when we got the word that this was a real possibility,” Rubio said after securing Haley’s endorsement.

“For us and for me, I have said this before, and I would say, despite the endorsement, I would say this: She represents everything I want the Republican Party to be about — fiscal responsibility and a limited federal government. All the things that our government should be about and all the things our party should be about, she embodies,” Rubio said.

Haley is viewed as an asset in a Republican Party that has struggled to appeal to non-white voters. She made a high-profile speech at the National Press Club in September, and in January was picked by congressional leaders to give the Republican response to President Obama’s final State of the Union speech. Her decision to endorse Rubio follows her earlier criticism of GOP frontrunner Donald Trump.

“Every time someone criticizes him, he goes and makes a political attack back,” Haley said in September. “That is not who we are as Republicans. That’s not what we do. That not what I want my South Carolinians to do.” Haley has also urged her fellow Republicans to celebrate the contributions of legal immigrants, a pointed departure from Trump’s anti-immigrant rhetoric. Haley said, electing Rubio would “show my parents the best decision they made for their children was coming to America.”

Thoughts on the World Economic Forum Meeting in Davos

The World Economic Forum (WEF) meeting in Davos was different in tone that previous meetings. First, the emphasis has finally shifted from all-things-finance to all-things-digital with the publication of founder Klaus Schwabb’s The Fourth Industrial Revolution and discussions on current and future digital disruptions to both industry and employment. Google’s Eric Schmidt forecast that the Internet as we know it will cease to exist as everything around us connects. Facebook’s Sheryl Sandberg, Rwanda’s Paul Kagame and others discussed the opportunities inherent in a world where another billion people come online.

Nonetheless, the mood was grim, not only because of volatile stock markets and slowing global growth but also because the viability of Donald Trump’s candidacy in the United States suggested to participants that growing inequality posed an existential threat to society. Another report dealt with the future of jobs and many discussions wrestled with projected vulnerability of up to 50 percent of today’s jobs as a result of artificial intelligence, robotics, and virtual reality.

Also casting a pall was a sense of a governance crisis–that states and multinational corporations haven’t been able to deal with cross-border flows of data and refugees or cross-border challenges of climate change and terror. The WEF published a 2016 Global Risk Report that covered these and other topics.

Meanwhile, on the sidelines, European and U.S. government officials negotiated and postured on Safe Harbor. And in front of the cameras, the encryption debate continued. At a press conference Loretta Lynch said she didn’t want a backdoor–but then confused matters when she said she wanted “to work with Silicon Valley and the tech industry to make sure that, as we preserve encryption, we also preserve what we currently have, which is the ability for companies to respond to law enforcement warrants, court-ordered, court-authorized requests for information.”

The number of women participants remained disappointing to the organizers, at 18 percent, despite the fact that the WEF offers strategic partners an extra ticket if they bring a woman. A report on the gender gap suggested that if the proportion of women at Davos is tied to the proportion the of women at the highest levels of corporate America, we won’t see a big improvement any time soon.

During Historic Visit To Baltimore Mosque, Obama Advocates For Religious Tolerance And Unity

With increased stereotyping and hatred towards Muslims around the world, President Obama advocated religious tolerance and unity. During his first ever visit to a mosque in the United States on February 3, President Barack Obama joined Muslim Americans from around the nation at the Islamic Society of Baltimore, Maryland, and said: “We’re one American family. And when any part of our family starts to feel separate or second-class or targeted, it tears at the very fabric of our nation.”

Obama noted that violence against the Muslim American and Sikh American communities has surged in the aftermath of the Paris terrorist attacks last November – in which extremists affiliated with the Islamic State killed 183 people – and the San Bernardino shootings in December, when a Muslim American couple killed 14 people at a rehabilitation center for handicapped people.

“I know that in Muslim communities across our country, this is a time of concern and, frankly, a time of some fear. Like all Americans, you’re worried about the threat of terrorism,” said the president, who removed his shoes before entering the mosque, in deference to Islamic custom. “But on top of that, as Muslim Americans, you also have another concern – that your entire community so often is targeted or blamed for the violent acts of the very few,” he said.

“I’ve had people write to me and say, ‘I feel like I’m a second-class citizen.’ I’ve had mothers write and say, ‘my heart cries every night,’ thinking about how her daughter might be treated at school. A girl from Ohio, 13 years old, told me, ‘I’m scared.’ A girl from Texas signed her letter ‘a confused 14-year-old trying to find her place in the world,’” said Obama.

“These are children just like mine. And the notion that they would be filled with doubt and questioning their places in this great country of ours at a time when they’ve got enough to worry about — it’s hard being a teenager already — that’s not who we are.”

Obama stated that hate crimes must be reported and punished. He encouraged the community to speak out against hateful rhetoric and violence against any faith, and to reject religious extremism.

The president rejected the notion that America is ‘at war with Islam’, stating: “We can’t be at war with any other religion, because the world’s religions are a part of the very fabric of the United States, our national character. And we can’t suggest that Islam itself is at the root of the problem. That betrays our values. It alienates Muslim Americans.”

Muhammed Ahmed Chaudhry, CEO of the Silicon Valley Education Foundation, and a volunteer with the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, joined Obama on his visit to the Baltimore mosque. Chaudhry is reported to have told the media that after the visit that he had been invited to the White House for dinner with the president last year and had encouraged him to visit a mosque.

Chaudhry said it was heartwarming to see the president remove his shoes before entering the mosque. “It showed respect and true leadership,” he said. The visit to the mosque was a great symbolic way for the president to highlight the Muslim American community’s positive contributions to the U.S.

According to reports, half of Americans say the next president should be careful not to criticize Islam as a whole when speaking about Islamic extremists, while four-in-ten want the next president to speak bluntly about Islamic extremists even if the statements are critical of Islam as a whole. A new Pew Research Center survey finds that blunt talk is preferred by two-thirds of Republicans and those who lean toward the Republican Party (65%), while seven-in-ten Democrats and independents who lean Democratic express the opposite view, saying the next president should speak carefully about Islamic extremism so as not to criticize Islam as a whole.

While many Americans are concerned about Islamic extremism, the new survey shows that most people think the problem with violence committed in the name of religion is people rather than with religion per se. Indeed, fully two-thirds of Americans say the bigger problem is that some violent people use religion to justify their actions (68%). Only about a fifth (22%) say the bigger problem is that the teachings of some religions promote violence.

Obama’s call for tolerance and unity have been criticized by some. Trump chided Obama for the mosque visit. “He can go to lots of places. I don’t know, maybe he feels comfortable there,” Trump told Fox News. Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio also lashed out against Obama’s mosque visit, criticizing the president for “pitting people against each other.”

“He’s basically saying that America is discriminating against Muslims,” said Rubio during a town hall meeting in New Hampshire, acknowledging that there was discrimination, but radical Islam is a bigger threat.

In fact, Obama’s words, in fact, bore a close resemblance to President George W. Bush’s remarks after 9/11, when he called Islam a religion of peace and criticized discrimination and attacks against American Muslims. Why were those 2001 comments by a Republican president welcomed, while Obama’s very similar comments today were not? Part of it is surely partisanship. But Americans have also become less and less accepting of Islam. When PRRI asked the same question in 2011, for example, just 47 percent of Americans agreed that Islam was incompatible with American values, and 48 percent disagreed.

“Three weeks after 9/11, an ABC News poll found that Americans had a more favorable view of Islam than unfavorable, 47 percent to 39 percent,” notes Shibley Telhami of the Brookings Institution. “But a decade later, the picture changed dramatically. A poll I conducted in April 2011 showed that 61 percent of Americans expressed unfavorable views of Islam, while only 33 percent expressed favorable views.”

“The president’s first visit to an American mosque is a significant step in the right direction and will hopefully encourage our nation’s political and religious leaders to join him in pushing back against rising Islamophobia,” said Council on American Islamic Relations Maryland outreach manager Zainab Chaudry, who was invited to the president’s visit to the mosque.

“We welcome President Obama’s historic visit and applaud his remarks both rejecting anti-Muslim rhetoric and reminding our fellow Americans about Islam’s long history in our nation and about constitutional protections guaranteeing religious freedom,” said CAIR national executive director Nihad Awad.

The historic 45-minute speech at a large, suburban Baltimore mosque was attended by some of the country’s most prominent Muslims. In what appeared to be a counter to the rise in Islamophobia, Obama celebrated the long history of Muslim achievement in American life from sports to architecture and described Muslims as Cub Scouts, soldiers and parents, pointing out the mother of the pre-med college student who introduced him at the podium.

Obama’s visit is likely to be compared with a landmark speech to the Islamic world early in his presidency. At Cairo University, Obama in 2009 called for a “new beginning” between the Islamic world and the United States, noting shared interests on issues such as extremism but also acknowledging mistakes made over centuries by all societies in the name of culture and faith.

Marco Rubio Catapults To Center Stage After Coming In 3rd In IOW GOP Primary

The 2016 presidential nomination process officially got underway tonight, and Ted Cruz was the big winner. In first-in-the-nation caucuses in Iowa, Hawkeye State voters chose Cruz over the other leading GOP candidates, Donald Trump and Marco Rubio. Charles Krauthammer said that the Iowa caucus was a major inflection point on the Republican presidential campaign, as it punctured the aura of invincibility surrounding Donald Trump. “Had Trump won, it would have reinforced the sense of inevitability, the momentum he had,” Krauthammer explained. “This is the first time he’s encountered defeat.”

The days after the Iowa Caucus, where the front runner Trump lost to Ted Cruz and Rubio came a very close third, the Republican presidential contenders were attacking a young freshman Cuban-American senator who came away from the Iowa caucuses with a strong result that has given him momentum ahead of the New Hampshire primary on February 9. Yet they were not referring to Ted Cruz, the Texas senator, who cruised to victory on Monday, but Marco Rubio, the Florida senator, who came third.

Senators Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz – were at the No. 2 and 3 spots in the GOP nomination race nationally, albeit with a sizable gap behind the frontrunner Donald Trump. While Rubio poses a threat to Cruz and Trump, whom he almost beat in Iowa, he poses a bigger immediate obstacle to other right-of-centre establishment Republicans who are banking on a strong performance in New Hampshire to catapult their struggling campaigns into the top tier.

On the campaign stump, the 44-year old son of Cuban immigrants whose life epitomises the American dream sells himself as a “generational choice” who can beat either Hillary Clinton, 68, or Bernie Sanders, 74, in the general election.

Cruz and Rubio are Cuban Americans. Rubio’s grandfather remained in the U.S. despite a removal order and his parents arrived separately in the 1950s. Cruz’s father came to the U.S. and then moved to Canada, where Cruz was born; his mother was an American citizen. The attacks against Rubio has gtrown stronger ever since his surprise good performance in Iowa.

“This isn’t a student council election, everybody. This is an election for president of the United States. Let’s get the boy in the bubble out of the bubble,” snarked Chris Christie. He was referring to Rubio’s tendency to be rather scripted in his appearances — one New Hampshire reporter compared him to “a computer algorithm designed to cover talking points.”

Christie, pressing further — and when does Chris Christie not? — has also been saying that the speech Rubio sticks to is the same one he’s been giving since 2010. It’s true that there’s always the part about his parents, the striving Cuban immigrants. And you do get the feeling you’re supposed to vote for him because his dad and mom believed in the American dream.

As a young man, Rubio himself was not particularly hard working. In fact, in his memoir he admits he could be “insufferably demanding.” But he did sympathize with his parents’ struggles, and when his father, a bartender, went on strike in 1984, young Marco became “a committed union activist.”

According to reports, Rubio was a slow starter, education-wise, but he eventually graduated from law school, saddled with a load of student debt. This is, as he always points out, a familiar American story. The next part, where he instantly runs for office and acquires a billionaire benefactor who helps him out by underwriting low-stress jobs for Rubio and his wife, is slightly less average.

On the issues, Rubio says he has a new generation’s answers to the nation’s economic problems. The answers are mainly about reducing business taxes and regulations, but he says it in a much more youthful way. He’s anti-choice, even for victims of rape and incest. Lately, he’s taken to pointing to instances when he supported legislation that did include an exception. This is true. As long as a bill makes it harder for women to have access to abortion rights, he’s there.

He becomes one of the famous bipartisan “Gang of Eight” pushing for immigration reform. Rubio is a valuable partner for the Gang, and he makes them pay with repeated concessions, including a very strong provision for additional border security. Finally, the path-to-citizenship bill passes the Senate 68 to 32. “We are a compassionate people,” he says on the Senate floor.

In the competition with the other super-conservative Cuban-American contender, Ted Cruz, Rubio is regarded as more likable. This is not a heavy lift. He is also competing with Cruz for the affection of Christian conservatives, and while Rubio has always mentioned God in his political speeches, lately he’s been ramping things up. One of his ads in Iowa was about “the free gift of salvation offered to us by Jesus Christ.”

The immigrant presidential contenders are fighting to win the Hispanic voters in the nation, which is very crucial to win the general election. Their efforts to paint the other as not tough enough on immigration showed how far to the right the discussion on immigration has shifted, to a point that the Gang of Eight immigration reform plan Rubio once supported is completely off the table, said Stella Rouse, director of the Center for American Politics and Citizenship at the University of Maryland.  “That’s not even part of the Republican discussion of what can be accomplished,” Rouse said.

Cruz called the bipartisan Gang of Eight bill, passed by the Senate in 2013 and that included a series of steps over the years that led to applying for citizenship, a “massive amnesty plan.” “He was fighting to grant amnesty and not to secure the border. I was fighting to secure the border,” Cruz said.

Cruz’s campaign chairman told a group of GOP Hispanics that Cruz wants to be the champion of legal immigration. He also told them that Cruz supports “attrition through enforcement” for people not legally in the country, a phrase that the group interpreted as self deportation. “I have never supported legalization and I do not intend to support legalization,” Cruz said in the debate.  Princeton University political scientist Ali Valenzuela said Rubio is in a better position than Cruz to take a moderate stance on immigration – as well as other issues – that might appeal to Latino voters in the general election. Rubio talked about immigration in a way that sounded “sincere” and “heartfelt” like he knew what he was talking about,” Valenzuela said.

“Immigration is not an issue that I read about in the newspaper or watch a documentary on PBS or CNN,” Rubio said in the debate. “My family are immigrants. My wife’s family are immigrants. All of my neighbors are immigrants. I see every aspect of this problem. The good the bad and the ugly,” he said.

The Republican establishment is thrilled: A moderate-sounding Gen X senator from a swing state! And one so good at spin he managed to give a victory speech in Iowa after he came in third. No wonder all the other candidates are jealous.

Pramila Jayapal Announces Congressional Bid In Washington State

Washington State Senator Pramila Jayapal has declared her intention to run for the U.S. Congress on January 21st. In her announcement, she declared that she wants to be the voice of masses left behind by the concentration of wealth in the hands of 1 percent.

Describing herself as a “bold, progressive fighter,” Jayapal announced she is running for the Democratic primary scheduled for March 26. She hopes to replace long time Congressman Jim McDermott who is vacating the District 7 seat that leans Democratic.

Jayapal faces off against at least two other Democratic aspirants who have declared so far: King County Council Chair Joe McDermott and State Rep. Brady Walkinshaw. The news outlet Seattlepi.com reported Walkinshaw already has some $300,000 in his campaign coffers and has bagged some key endorsements from leaders in the LGBT community and among environmentalists, as well as some long-time party activists.

Jayapal was elected to the state Senate in 2014, from the 37th Legislative District where she has lived for 20 years and which is one of the most racially and economically diverse districts in the state. But the U.S. Senate District 7 is an amalgam including some prosperous areas and Jayapal has her work cut out for her.

“I am a fighter not for the one percent, but for working men and women; not for austerity, but social security; not for deportations and breaking up families, but building stronger middle class families; not for prisons, but public education, college debt relief and criminal justice reform,” asserts Jayapal on her campaign website.

She is the second left-of-center politico thrown up by the Indian-American community in Washington state, the first being Seattle City Councilwoman Kshama Sawant, an avowed Socialist whom Jayapal has strongly supported in the past two years.

Jayapal notes in her speech that she stood up for Arabs, Muslims and Sikhs after 9/11 “when few people would.” She attacked Republican frontrunner in the presidential primaries, Donald Trump for “whipping up hate and fear across the country, resulting in a rise in anti-Muslim violence.” She called for protecting Planned Parenthood.

“I’ve been on picket lines and at negotiating tables with numerous labor unions for more than a decade. And I’ve helped bring movements together—labor and community, gay, women and immigrant,—so that we can expand ourselves and see our intersections,” said Jayapal.

Sounding very much like Sawant, Jayapal said, “I’m running for Congress because our system is rigged for corporations and the wealthy, but we can fight back.” Jayapal said. Her core issues are raising the minimum wage, expanding Social Security and Medicare, and ensuring debt-free college for young people across America. “I’m ready to take on the powerful, while organizing inside, outside and in-between the two,” she said.

Jayapal came to the U.S. at the age of 16, sent by her parents to study at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. “My parents took all the money they had, which was about $5,000 at the time, and used it to send me here to this country because they believed that this was the place I would get the best education and have the brightest future,” she said. After graduating, she worked on Wall Street as a financial analyst, also getting an MBA from Northwestern University. After a few years she quit the private sector to work on social justice issues advocating for women and immigrants and civil and human rights.

She is credited with leading one of the largest voter registration efforts in Washington state, which is said to have got more than 23,000 new Americans to register. Jayapal pushed for setting up the Office of Immigrant and Refugee Affairs in Seattle and was co-chair of the Seattle Police Chief Search panel.

She is the founder of OneAmerica, (previously called Hate Free Zone), Washington state’s largest immigrant advocacy organization, and lobbied hard for the passage of President Obama’s 2014 Dream Act that enabled children of illegal immigrants to find a path to legal status.

In May 2013, she was recognized by President Obama as a White House “Champion of Change.” She lives in Columbia City with her son and husband, and has another grown stepson who lives in Colorado.

Indian-American PAC Forms to Support Donald Trump

With the Republican Presidential Candidate leading the GOP polls across the nation, a group called “Indian-Americans for Trump 2016” registered with the Federal Election Commission as a political action committee, has been on January 21st. The group hopes to garner the support of Indian Americans to elect Donald Trump as the next president of the United States.

The group’s president, A.D. Amar, a business professor at Seton Hall University, told the media that discussions about the PAC first started in December. “I was surprised at the strength Trump had among the Indian professionals and Indian community,” he said. “I have never seen Indians so united behind a candidate.”

The group of Indian-Americans which believes New York billionaire Donald Trump is the answer to America’s perceived ills, both domestic and international, will work to muster funds and advocate for GOP support for the controversial Republican frontrunner to become the next President of the United States.

Among the numerous candidates in the field including former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Senator Ted Cruz, cardiologist Ben Carson, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, this group of Indian-Americans believes Trump has his finger on the pulse of the American people and a proven record that makes him the best one to lead the country.

New York-based attorney Anand Ahuja will serve as vice president and Devendra “Dave” Makkar will be treasurer, according to a press release issued by the organization. New Jersey local news publisher Sudhir Parikh will be chair of the fundraising and advisory committee.

In the press release, the PAC said, “The officers of the Indian-Americans for Trump 2016 urge all Americans to join in the effort and support Donald Trump in his endeavor to make America great again by electing him the next President of the USA.”

Amar cited Trump’s stances on illegal immigration and the economy as key factors for the group’s support of him. He also said that the group’s members were drawn to the fact that Trump has said he will not be taking money from PACs or special-interest groups. “Trump is going to keep the lobbies out, and he is going to focus on the general population,” Amar said.

Trump has proclaimed he does not take money from PACs. Amar said the new PAC was established to raise funds to carry out a grassroots campaign. “We will be building chapters around the country starting with Washington, D.C., California, and New York City, to get support from Americans, particularly Indian-Americans.”

What attracts Amar and the other founders of the PAC to Trump is his policies and pronouncements on illegal immigration and the economy. “In my 44 years in America, amnesty has been given to illegals two or three times, and yet the number is growing,” Amar said. “Trump is right when he says ‘You go back, apply, and we will process you” and that is the right way.”

Amar believes the perceived difference between Trump’s style and his management will translate to a change after the election. “Our election process is kind of a revolution,” Amar said. “In a revolution, these kind of statements are not unexpected. In my observation, he is going to be a different person once he’s nominated.”

A Turbaned Sikh ousted from Donald Trump’s Rally

Two protesters were removed Sunday, January 24th from a Donald Trump rally after holding up a banner that read “Stop Hate.” One of the protesters — Arish Singh, a Sikh-American man — responded to the incident on Sunday, tweeting, “I am not a Muslim. But you don’t have to be a Muslim to stand against anti-Muslim bigotry.”  Singh and another man were escorted out of the rally in Muscatine, Iowa, as members of the audience chanted, “USA!”

The turbaned Sikh man was ousted out of Donald Trump’s campaign rally in US, after he interrupted the Republican presidential frontrunner’s speech by displaying a banner that read ‘Stop Hate’, the media reported.

The man, wearing a beard and bright red turban, tried to interrupt Trump’s speech when he was addressing a rally on Sunday in Muscatine High School, Iowa, a mid-western state of the US. The incident began as Trump was raging against “radical Islamic terror”, about the 9/11 terror attacks, and the San Bernardino shooting, a common theme in his speeches.

The Sikh protestor stood up and revealed a banner reading “Stop Hate”. Security officials soon escorted him out of the rally amidst chanting of “USA, USA, USA” by Trump’s supporters, reported abcnews.

“We have radical Islamic terror going on all over the place, all over the world, and we have a president that won’t say it,” Trump was quoted as saying at the rally. As the Sikh raised his banner, Trump waved his hand and said, “Bye. Bye. Goodbye.”

“He wasn’t wearing one of those hats, was he? And he never will, and that’s OK because we got to do something folks because it’s not working,” said Trump, pointing to the crowd and referring to the protestor.

In the last few months, before Trump takes the stage an announcement is read telling Trump’s supporters to “not harm a protestor” but instead to chant “Trump, Trump, Trump,” as an alert to security that a protestor has been spotted. The crowd roared Sunday after the protestor was escorted out and shouted “USA, USA, USA”.

Trump is campaigning in Iowa ahead of the next week’s crucial caucus. Latest polls showed that he has taken a lead over his nearest Republican rival Ted Cruz. Iowa Caucus on February 1 is considered crucial as it would set the trend for the rest of the presidential primaries over the next few months.

“The United States of America is the most powerful nation on Earth,” President Obama Declares During State Of the Union Address

“The United States of America is the most powerful nation on Earth. Period. It’s not even close,” President Obama said last on January 12, 2016, while delivering his eighth and final State of the Union address to the nation on Tuesday night. The address was both a victory lap, celebrating the accomplishments of the last seven years, and a condemnation of what President Obama perceives to be alarmist rhetoric being used on the campaign trail over the last several months. He said those who argue the economy is crumbling and foreign enemies are gaining ground are “peddling fiction” and full of “hot air.”

There were plenty of policy proposals for the coming year to deal with issues like education, medicine, immigration, gun violence, gender equality, and the minimum wage. But delineating those proposals was not the point of the President’s.

He recognized “four big questions” regarding the economy, technology, security and democracy that the United States still faces and urged Americans to continue to address these concerns after his presidential term ends. Still, the president expressed confidence in his achievements and asserted that “the state of our union is strong.”

Obama strongly, although implicitly, condemned the campaign rhetoric of Republican presidential candidates, including Donald Trump, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. However, he also vowed to work to mitigate the political divisiveness of today’s culture. “It’s one of the few regrets of my presidency –  that the rancor and suspicion between the parties has gotten worse instead of better. There’s no doubt a president with the gifts of Lincoln or Roosevelt might have better bridged the divide, and I guarantee I’ll keep trying to be better so long as I hold this office,” said the president.

After explaining his vision of the future—one that is inclusive of all races and religions and free of vitriolic politics—President Obama laid out a list of everyday Americans who he says convince him that such a future is possible, from soldiers to students to young immigrants.

“That’s the America I know. That’s the country we love. Clear-eyed. Big-hearted. Optimistic that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word,” he said. “That’s what makes me so hopeful about our future. Because of you. I believe in you. That’s why I stand here confident that the State of our Union is strong.”

But there were lows, too. The most negative point occurred when President Obama conceded that al Qaeda and ISIL do pose “a direct threat” to US citizens. “[I]n today’s world, even a handful of terrorists who place no value on human life, including their own, can do a lot of damage,” he said. “They use the Internet to poison the minds of individuals inside our country; they undermine our allies.”

President’s address has drawn criticism from some. David French at the National Review argues that Obama’s reminders of the strength of the United States “inadvertently highlights one of his greatest failures.” He acknowledges that Obama’s statements that the U.S. has “the world’s strongest economy and the world’s strongest military” are true but explains that Obama is not the reason for these strengths. French says that Obama’s policies have actually led to increased threats from the Islamic State group, Libya and Iran.

President Obama emphasized the importance of unions in building a strong economy. “Middle-class families,” he declared, “are not going to feel more secure because we allowed attacks on collective bargaining to go unanswered.”  Tuesday night’s address may not have been President Obama’s most hopeful, but it may be the most representative of his presidency—a presidency of peaks and valleys in which every success has been preceded and followed by a hard fought struggle. President Obama ended his speech by stating, “I stand here, as confident as I have ever been, that the state of our Union is strong.”

What Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Pope Francis Have in Common

It’s not often you get to mention the Democratic and Republican front-runners for the 2016 presidential nominations, the sitting U.S. president, and the leader of the Catholic Church in the same sentence in a news article. Monday is an exception.

According to a new poll from Gallup, Americans have named Hillary Clinton, the presumptive 2016 Democratic presidential nominee, and President Barack Obama as their most admired woman and man in the world in 2015; Clinton polled at 13 percent, with Obama at 17 percent. What comes next, in terms of men, might come as a shock to some: Pope Francis and Donald Trump are tied for second at 5 percent.

This is the 20th time Clinton has finished first in the rankings, while Obama has received the honor for the eighth time.

The contrast between the Holy Father and the billionaire businessman couldn’t be more clear. Francis traveled the world in 2015, including a well-received visit to the United States, preaching a message of charity for the poor, peaceful coexistence with Muslims, and welcoming desperate refugees from places like Syria. Trump, on the other hand, rose to the forefront of American politics by calling some Mexican immigrants rapists and drug dealers while advocating for the closure of some mosques and for forbidding Muslims from entering the United States.  It’s not clear how much the two men agree on social issues: Francis vocally opposes gay marriage and abortion, while Trump’s beliefs are difficult to discern.

In the women’s category, Clinton was followed by 2014 Nobel Peace Prize recipient Malala Yousafzai, with 5 percent. The women’s rights advocate was followed by Oprah Winfrey and first lady Michelle Obama, tied with 4 percent.

Parenting in America

Contemporary debates about parenthood often focus on parenting philosophies: Are kids better off with helicopter parents or a free-range approach? What’s more beneficial in the long run, the high expectations of a tiger mom or the nurturing environment where every child is a winner? Is overscheduling going to damage a child or help the child get into a good college? While these debates may resonate with some parents, they often overlook the more basic, fundamental challenges many parents face – particularly those with lower incomes. A broad, demographically based look at the landscape of American families reveals stark parenting divides linked less to philosophies or values and more to economic circumstances and changing family structure.

A new Pew Research Center survey conducted Sept. 15-Oct. 13, 2015, among 1,807 U.S. parents with children younger than 18 finds that for lower-income parents, financial instability can limit their children’s access to a safe environment and to the kinds of enrichment activities that affluent parents may take for granted. For example, higher-income parents are nearly twice as likely as lower-income parents to rate their neighborhood as an “excellent” or “very good” place to raise kids (78% vs. 42%). On the flip side, a third of parents with annual family incomes less than $30,000 say that their neighborhood is only a “fair” or “poor” place to raise kids; just 7% of parents with incomes in excess of $75,000 give their neighborhood similarly low ratings.

Along with more negative ratings of their neighborhoods, lower-income parents are more likely than those with higher incomes to express concerns about their children being victims of violence. At least half of parents with family incomes less than $30,000 say they worry that their child or children might be kidnapped (59%) or get beat up or attacked (55%), shares that are at least 15 percentage points higher than among parents with incomes above $75,000. And about half (47%) of these lower-income parents worry that their children might be shot at some point, more than double the share among higher-income parents.

Concerns about teenage pregnancy and legal trouble are also more prevalent among lower-income parents. Half of lower-income parents worry that their child or one of their children will get pregnant or get a girl pregnant as a teenager, compared with 43% of higher-income parents. And, by a margin of 2-to-1, more lower-income than higher-income parents (40% vs. 21%) say they worry that their children will get in trouble with the law at some point.

There are some worries, though, that are shared across income groups. At least half of all parents, regardless of income, worry that their children might be bullied or struggle with anxiety or depression at some point. For parents with annual family incomes of $75,000 or higher, these concerns trump all others tested in the survey.

The survey also finds that lower-income parents with school-age children face more challenges than those with higher incomes when it comes to finding affordable, high-quality after-school activities and programs. About half (52%) of those with annual family incomes less than $30,000 say these programs are hard to find in their community, compared with 29% of those with incomes of $75,000 or higher. And when it comes to the extracurricular activities in which their children participate after school or on weekends, far more higher-income parents than lower-income parents say their children are engaged in sports or organizations such as the scouts or take lessons in music, dance or art. For example, among high-income parents, 84% say their children have participated in sports in the 12 months prior to the survey; this compares with 59% among lower-income parents.

The dramatic changes that have taken place in family living arrangements have no doubt contributed to the growing share of children living at the economic margins. In 2014, 62% of children younger than 18 lived in a household with two married parents – a historic low, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau. The share of U.S. kids living with only one parent stood at 26% in 2014. And the share in households with two parents who are living together but not married (7%) has risen steadily in recent years.

These patterns differ sharply across racial and ethnic groups. Large majorities of white (72%) and Asian-American (82%) children are living with two married parents, as are 55% of Hispanic children. By contrast only 31% of black children are living with two married parents, while more than half (54%) are living in a single-parent household.

The economic outcomes for these different types of families vary dramatically. In 2014, 31% of children living in single-parent households were living below the poverty line, as were 21% of children living with two cohabiting parents. By contrast, only one-in-ten children living with two married parents were in this circumstance. In fact, more than half (57%) of those living with married parents were in households with incomes at least 200% above the poverty line, compared with just 21% of those living in single-parent households.

Across income groups, however, parents agree on one thing: They’re doing a fine job raising their children. Nearly identical shares of parents with incomes of $75,000 or higher (46%), $30,000 to $74,999 (44%) and less than $30,000 (46%) say they are doing a very good job as parents, and similar shares say they are doing a good job.

Though parental scorecards don’t differ by income, they do vary across other demographic divides, such as gender and generation. Among all parents, more mothers than fathers say they are doing a very good job raising their children (51% vs. 39%), and Millennial mothers are particularly inclined to rate themselves positively. Nearly six-in-ten (57%) moms ages 18 to 34 say they are doing a very good job as a parent, a higher share than Millennial dads (43%) or any other generational group.

Regardless of how they see themselves, parents care a lot about how others perceive their parenting skills. For married or cohabiting parents, the opinion of their spouse or partner matters the most: 93% of these parents say it matters a lot to them that their spouse or partner sees them as a good parent. But most single parents (56%) also say they care a lot that their child’s other parent sees them as a good parent.

About seven-in-ten (72%) parents want their own parents to think they are doing a good job raising their children, and smaller but substantive shares care a lot that their friends (52%) and people in their community (45%) see them as good parents.

Parents are nearly evenly divided about whether their children’s successes and failures are more a reflection of how they are doing as parents (46%) or of their children’s own strengths and weaknesses (42%). Parents of younger children feel more personally responsible for their children’s achievements or lack thereof, while parents of teenagers are much more likely to say that it’s their children who are mainly responsible for their own successes and failures.

There are significant differences along racial lines as well, with black and Hispanic parents much more likely than whites to say their children’s successes and failures are mainly a reflection of the job they are doing as parents.

About six-in-ten parents (62%) say they can sometimes be overprotective, while just a quarter say they tend to give their children too much freedom. More also say they criticize their kids too much than say they offer too much praise (44% vs. 33%). American parents are more divided on whether they sometimes “stick to their guns” too much or give in too quickly (43% each).

In several key ways, mothers and fathers approach parenting differently. Mothers are more likely than fathers to say that they sometimes are overprotective of their children, give in too quickly and praise their children too much.

Mothers also have more extensive support networks that they rely on for advice about parenting. They’re much more likely than fathers to turn to family members and friends and to take advantage of parenting resources such as books, magazines and online sources. For example, while 43% of moms say they turn to parenting websites, books or magazines at least sometimes for parenting advice, about a quarter (23%) of dads do the same. And moms are more than twice as likely as dads to say they at least occasionally turn to online message boards, listservs or social media for advice on parenting (21% vs. 9%).

In at least one key area gender does not make a difference: mothers and fathers are equally likely to say that being a parent is extremely important to their overall identity. About six-in-ten moms (58%) and dads (57%) say this, and an additional 35% and 37%, respectively, say being a parent is very important to their overall identity.

The survey findings, which touch on different aspects of parenting and family life, paint a mixed portrait of American parents when it comes to their involvement in their children’s education. About half (53%) of those with school-age children say they are satisfied with their level of engagement, but a substantial share (46%) wish they could be doing more. And while parents generally don’t think children should feel badly about getting poor grades as long as they try hard, about half (52%) say they would be very disappointed if their children were average students.

A narrow majority of parents (54%) say parents can never be too involved in their children’s education. But about four-in-ten (43%) say too much parental involvement in a child’s education can be a bad thing, a view that is particularly common among parents with more education and higher incomes. For example, while majorities of parents with a post-graduate (65%) or a bachelor’s (57%) degree say too much involvement could have negative consequences, just 38% of those with some college and 28% with no college experience say the same.

Black and Hispanic parents have a much different reaction to this question than do white parents, even after controlling for differences in educational attainment. Fully 75% of black and 67% of Hispanic parents say a parent can never be too involved in a child’s education. About half of white parents (47%) agree.

Whether or not they feel too much involvement can be a bad thing, a majority of parents are involved – at least to some extent – in their children’s education. Among parents with school-age children, 85% say they have talked to a teacher about their children’s progress in school over the 12 months leading up to the survey. Roughly two-thirds (64%) say they have attended a PTA meeting or other special school meeting. And 60% have helped out with a special project or class trip at their children’s school. Parents’ level of engagement in these activities is fairly consistent across income groups.

Reading aloud is one way parents can get involved in their children’s education even before formal schooling begins. Among parents with children under the age of 6, about half (51%) say they read aloud to their children every day, and those who have graduated from college are far more likely than those who have not to say this is the case. About seven-in-ten (71%) parents with a bachelor’s degree say they read to their young children every day, compared with 47% of those with some college and 33% of those with a high school diploma or less.

American children – including preschoolers – participate in a variety of extracurricular activities. At least half of parents with school-age children say their kids have played sports (73%), participated in religious instruction or youth groups (60%), taken lessons in music, dance or art (54%) or done volunteer work (53%) after school or on the weekends in the 12 months preceding the survey.

Among those with children younger than 6, four-in-ten say their young children have participated in sports, and about as many say they have been part of an organized play group; one-third say their children have taken music, dance or art lessons.

Parents with annual family incomes of $75,000 or higher are far more likely than those with lower incomes to say their children have participated in extracurricular activities. For parents with school-age children, the difference is particularly pronounced when it comes to doing volunteer work (a 27 percentage point difference between those with incomes of $75,000 or higher and those with incomes less than $30,000), participating in sports (25 points), and taking music, dance or art lessons (21 points). Similarly, by double-digit margins, higher-income parents with children younger than 6 are more likely than those with lower incomes to say their young children have participated in sports or taken dance, music or art lessons in the 12 months prior to the survey.

Parents with higher incomes are also more likely to say their children’s day-to-day schedules are too hectic with too many things to do. Overall, 15% of parents with children between ages 6 and 17 describe their kids’ schedules this way. Among those with incomes of $75,000 or higher, one-in-five say their children’s schedules are too hectic, compared with 8% of those who earn less than $30,000.

But if kids are busy, their parents are even busier. About three-in-ten (31%) parents say they always feel rushed, even to do the things they have to do, and an additional 53% say they sometimes feel rushed. Not surprisingly, parents who feel rushed at least sometimes are more likely than those who almost never feel rushed to see parenting as tiring and stressful and less likely to see it as enjoyable all of the time.

Parents employ many methods to discipline their children. The most popular is explaining why a child’s behavior is inappropriate: three-quarters say they do this often. About four-in-ten (43%) say they frequently take away privileges, such as time with friends or use of TV or other electronic devices, and a roughly equal share say they give a “timeout” (41% of parents with children younger than 6) as a form of discipline, while about one-in-five (22%) say they often resort to raising their voice or yelling.

Spanking is the least commonly used method of discipline – just 4% of parents say they do it often. But one-in-six parents say they spank their children at least some of the time as a way to discipline them. Black parents (32%) are more likely than white (14%) and Hispanic (19%) parents to say they sometimes spank their children and are far less likely to say they never resort to spanking (31% vs. 55% and 58%, respectively).

Spanking is also correlated with educational attainment. About one-in-five (22%) parents with a high school diploma or less say they use spanking as a method of discipline at least some of the time, as do 18% of parents with some college and 15% of parents with a bachelor’s degree. In contrast, just 8% of parents with a post-graduate degree say they often or sometimes spank their children.

Yahoo Names the Cow ‘Personality of the Year’ in India

Yahoo on Dec. 21 said the ‘cow’ beat out all other contenders in 2015 to emerge as the ‘Personality of the Year’ in India. “In an unexpected twist, the humble ‘cow’ emerged as ‘Personality of the Year’, trumping other high-profile contenders for the top spot,” Yahoo said in a statement on its “Year in Review” for India which captures the year’s top trends, happenings and events.

“It started with the Maharashtra government announcing a ban on sale of beef in the state — a move which led to massive debates online and offline, spiraling into the ‘beef controversy,'” it said.

The Dadri mob lynching, ‘award wapsi’ — eminent writers returning national awards — and numerous discussions centered on ‘intolerance’ further propelled the bovine to claim the overall top spot, the statement said.

For the fourth consecutive year, among the most searched female celebrities in showbiz, former adult movie actor Sunny Leone stood first, pushing Bollywood beauties Katrina Kaif and Deepika Padukone to the second and third spots, while Salman Khan emerged as the top male celebrity.

Though the high-profile Delhi and Bihar assembly elections created a lot of buzz in the political scene, Prime Minister Narendra Modi came first as the most searched Indian politician, the statement said.

In the most searched news events category, terrorist organization Islamic State, late former president A.P.J. Abdul Kalam and cricket’s showpiece event ICC Cricket World Cup 2015 took the top three slots, respectively.

As usual, cricketers were the most searched sportspersons in India. M.S. Dhoni claimed the first position, while tennis sensation Sania Mirza made the cut for the first time with her high-octane doubles performances partnering Swiss star Martina Hingis, the statement said. Interestingly, bilingual period film “Bahubali” was the No. 1 among the most searched movies.

Yahoo also listed the top 10 positions for the most searched gadgets, epic selfies of 2015, bike launches, best Instagram account, top Bollywood moments and top fashion trends of 2015.

Sikh Broncos Fans Banned from Stadium Because of Turbans

Three Sikh Americans were allegedly harassed by security staff and denied entry to watch an NFL game in San Diego, Calif., Dec. 6 because they were wearing turbans. The three Indian American Denver Broncos fans, along with two other friends, were hoping to get into Qualcomm Stadium to watch the Broncos take on the Chargers, a game in which the Broncos won 17-3.

One of the men denied entry was Verinder Malhi, who explained to a guard at the stadium that his religion prohibited him and his friends from removing their headgear, according to an ABC10 news report published Dec. 11.

Malhi, who was not wearing a turban, was with a group of five, three of whom were wearing turbans. The guard, however, told the men that they would only be allowed inside if they were to do as they were told, the ABC10 article added. The guard ultimately relented and allowed the men inside still wearing their turbans.

However, on their way out, the group’s car was subjected to a search by a bomb squad after a call to police claimed the men were putting a bag in the trunk suspiciously. “Everybody is kind of confusing us with the turbans, because what you see on TV is mostly the terrorists, they wear turbans,” said Malhi in the ABC10 article.

The incident comes after Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump called for the banning of all Muslims from the U.S. in the wake of the San Bernardino, Calif., attack that killed 14. “But our turbans (are) different, our faith is different, our beliefs are different,” Malhi added in the article. Malhi said the whole incident is embarrassing, adding, “We are Americans at the end of the day.” The group drove seven hours from Fresno to San Diego, and, despite being let in Dec. 6, the guard said they would not be allowed back in the future if they wore the turbans.

New Yorkers Voice Disgust Against Trump For Anti-Muslim Remarks

Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump got a taste of the disgust and anger of New Yorkers for his invective against Muslims last week when members of the City Council, led by Council’s Democratic speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito rallied against the Republican frontrunner on the steps of City Hall Dec. 9. The rally was also joined by a group of interfaith leaders.

Chanting “enough is enough” and “dump Trump,” council members took part in the rally condemning Trump’s comments in which he called a “total and complete shutdown” of Muslims entering the United States.

According to a POLITICO New York report, Mark-Viverito who has criticized Trump for his comments about Latinos, immigrants and women — warned about the danger of Trump’s inflammatory language, adding that bias attacks in the city would not be tolerated. “We will not let Trump’s xenophobic rhetoric go unchecked and unchallenged. There’s nothing left to say about Donald Trump, except that he is a disgusting, racist demagogue who has no business running for president, period.”

Mark-Viverito — who has criticized Trump in the past for his comments about Latinos, immigrants and women — warned about the danger of Trump’s inflammatory language, adding that bias attacks in the city would not be tolerated.

“What Donald Trump has called for — banning Muslims from entering our nation — is xenophobic, racist, Islamophobic, and his fear-mongering is fanning hate,” Mark-Viverito was quoted as saying. “We will not let Trump’s xenophobic rhetoric go unchecked and unchallenged. There’s nothing left to say about Donald Trump, except that he is a disgusting, racist demagogue who has no business running for president, period.”

Trump reacted to the rally as well. In an emailed statement responding to the rally, Trump told POLITICO New York that perhaps Mark-Viverito should focus on the “filthy conditions of New York city.” A few days before the rally and the charges against him, responded to criticism from Mayor Bill de Blasio by calling him the “worst mayor in the United States” and criticizing “the dirty streets, the homeless and crime.”

Imam Khalid Latif, the executive director for the Islamic Center at New York University, said the anti-Muslim sentiment fueled by Trump’s remarks is “arguably worse” than what Muslims experienced in the days and months after the Sept. 11attacks, according to the report.

“The disparaging comments Donald Trump had made over the course of his campaign against minorities of all kinds — including Muslims, Latinos, African Americans, those with special needs and others — are but symptoms of a deeper and ever-going bigotry that our nation must confront,” Latif was quoted as saying.

Rabbi Bob Kaplan of the Jewish Communities Relations Council said in a statement that when someone has a faith and when someone is a Muslim (to say)that they simply should not be allowed to come to our country, our world, our democracy, is simply unacceptable. “I am asking all of our fellow Americans to take the scales off of their eyes and recognize that hatred can only lead to war,” said the Rev. Que English of the Bronx Christian Fellowship, according to a Tasnim news agency release.

At one point, a heckler tried to defend Trump, but her shouts were drowned out by chants of “enough is enough,” CBS News was quoted as saying by Tasnim.

400 Richest People in America are Worth $2.34 Trillion

John Kapoor, Romesh T. Wadhwani, Bharat Desai and Kavitark Ram Shriram slid into the 194th, 234th, 268th and 358th slots, respectively on Forbes’ list of the richest people on the planet with a net worth of $2.34 Trillion. The 2015 Forbes 400 list was released Sept. 29.

Kapoor, 72, who is the chairman and majority owner of drug companies Akorn and Insys Therapeutics, is worth a total of $3.3 billion. The Bombay University and SUNY Buffalo graduate ranked No. 261 on the list a year ago, making a 67-slot jump to his position in 2015.

The serial entrepreneur came to the United States from India in 1964. After getting his doctorate in pharmaceutical sciences, he worked at LyphoMed and eventually bought it out from his bosses in 1983. He sold it in 1990 and netted $100 million. The Phoenix, Arizona, resident, in addition to the drug companies, owns a small chain of Indian restaurants in Arizona as well as Japanese eateries in Chicago, San Francisco and Scottsdale, Ariz.

Wadhwani, 68, a resident of Palo Alto, Calif., resident, is the chairman and CEO of Symphony Technology Group and has a net worth of $2.8 billion. He jumped up 15 spots from No. 249 in 2014. After getting his bachelor’s at IIT Mumbai, Wadhwani earned his master’s and doctorate degrees at Carnegie Mellon University. The entrepreneur founded Aspect Development and later sold it for $9.3 billion in 2000. He founded Symphony Technology in 2002.

Desai, at No. 268, fell 19 spots from No. 249 in 2014. The Fisher Island, Fla., resident and co-founder of Syntel has a net worth of $2.5 billion. Desai and his wife Neerja Sethi founded Syntel in 1980 in their apartment in Troy, Mich., after investing $2,000 to get it started. It now generates $900 million in revenue with employees across the world. Desai, 62, is a graduate of IIT in Mumbai and earned his M.B.A. from Stephen M. Ross School of Business.

Shriram, 58, is worth $1.9 billion. The venture capitalist fell 18 spots from No. 340 in 2014. He currently resides in Menlo Park, Calif. The University of Madras graduate bet early on Google, and it paid off for him. He has been on the board since the company’s inception in 1998.

In addition to Google, Shriram has made investments in early-stage startups including Zazzle, Paperless Post and Datafox. Prior to Google, when Shriram arrived in the U.S. from India, he worked for Netscape. Later he became president of Junglee. When Amazon bought out Junglee, Shriram served as Amazon’s vice president of business development. He has given away the bulk of his Google stock.

Bill Gates, of Microsoft fame, topped the list of America’s richest with a net value of $76 billion. It’s his 22nd straight year atop the list. Rounding out the top five are Warren Buffett of Berkshire Hathaway, Larry Ellison of Oracle, Jeff Bezos of Amazon.com and Charles Koch, who diversified funds, with values of $62 billion, $47.5 billion, $47 billion and $41 billion respectively.

Other notables on the list include Mark Zuckerberg, of Facebook, at No. 7 with a value of $40.3 billion; Larry Page, of Google, at No. 10 worth $33.3 billion; and GOP presidential hopeful Donald Trump at No. 121 with a net value of $4.5 billion. Combined, the 400 richest people in America are worth $2.34 trillion, up from $2.29 trillion a year ago. On average, the members of the list are worth $5.8 billion, the highest value to date.

Nikki Haley Says She Will Consider Vice Presidential Ticket

Indian American Nikki Haley has said she will consider a vice presidential ticket next year if given a chance but is currently focused on her job as governor of the South Carolina. “If there is a time where a presidential nominee wants to sit down and talk, of course I will sit down and talk. But, you know, I am very aware you have 16 really great candidates, and that means you’re going to have 15 very good potential vice presidential candidates,” Haley, 43, told members of the National Press Club at a luncheon meeting here. Haley said she did not want to waste her time thinking about this now.

“I really don’t think about that. I want to keep my promise to the people of South Carolina, which is to make every day better than the day before it. If a nominee asks me to sit down, of course I’ll talk to them, and then we’ll go from there,” she said. “I’m going to let all of this play out. That’s what I care about. That’s what’s important to me. If there’s a time and place to think about it, we’ll do it then. But I’m not going to waste any energy on that now,” Haley said.

She said the people of the country are extremely frustrated right now with both Republicans and Democrats, because they have gotten so used to shouting and yelling that they have forgotten to listen. “All the people of this country want is action. That’s not too much to ask for. That’s what we were sent to our offices to do,” she said, adding that there is no accountability on any members of Congress or Senate to have to do anything.

“I think, as a public, we have to demand action. We can’t demand yelling. We can’t demand great speeches. We can’t demand quotes in the paper. We have to demand action, and you either deliver or you don’t,” she added. Responding to a question, Haley described Donald Trump – a frontrunner Republican presidential candidate – as a friend and a smart businessman.

“He’s been a supporter of mine, and I consider him a friend… He’s a smart businessman. He’s accomplished a lot during his career. It accomplishes nothing to get mad at anybody that criticizes you. So every time someone criticizes him, he goes and makes a political attack back. That’s not who we are as Republicans. That’s not what we do. That’s not what I want my South Carolinians to do. That’s not what I want us to do going toward,” Haley said.

“What Americans want to hear is policy. They won’t want to hear how someone offended you. They want to know they’re sending someone up to the White House that’s going to be calm and cool-tempered and not get mad at someone just because they criticize them. We would really have a world war if that happened,” she said.

The Post and Courier adds: One member of the media at the Press Club lunch that was high on Haley’s chances was syndicated conservative political columnist George Will. The positives he listed were that Haley isn’t really needed to win the South, since the region will go overwhelmingly Republican in 2016. Instead, he said, “she blunts the war on women” argument that Democrats have been tossing at Republicans. Also, “She’s fluent and articulate,” he said.

Haley broke little new ground in her hour-long appearance where she was introduced as an Indian American, 43 years old and the first minority and female governor in the state.

She told the audience about the state coming together after the Emanuel AME Church mass slaying and how the shooting of black motorist Walter Scott by a white North Charleston policeman didn’t lead to rioting like it did in Baltimore and Ferguson, Mo.

“Today there truly is a New South,” she said in her prepared speech. “It is different in many ways, perhaps most especially in its attitudes toward race. We are still far from perfect. We still have our problems. There’s still a lot more to do. But the New South, in many ways, is a place to look toward, rather than to look away from, when it comes to race relations and racial advancement.”

Vini Samuel Could Be First Indian American Female Mayor

Vini Samuel, Montesano, Washington mayoral candidate aced a primary election and is on her way to becoming the nation’s first Indian American female mayor. The tiny town of Montesano in northwest Washington state has approximately 2,300 registered voters; about half voted in the primaries. Samuel garnered 47 percent of the vote, trumping incumbent Mayor Ken Estes, who received 27 percent, and Montesano city councilman Tyler Trimble, who won 25 percent. Samuel will face off against Estes in the Nov. 3 election.

The candidate believes she has clinched the race. “I just need to keep my head down and stay out of trouble,” Samuel laughingly toldIndia-West in a telephone interview. If elected, Samuel will also be Montesano’s first female mayor and its first minority mayor.

Vini SamuelSamuel, who was born in Quilon, Kerala, and raised in Juneau, Alaska, characterized the tiny town of Montesano as “a little piece of Americana.” “The kids still bike on the streets and go fishing. You enter a different reality,” she said, comparing it to the mythical town of Mayberry, RFD, which was the setting for the popular 1960s television sitcom, “The Andy Griffith Show.”

“I want to preserve this place. You really don’t have pockets like this anymore,” stated Samuel, who has lived in Montesano for 18 years with her husband, Guy Bergstrom, who works for the Democratic Caucus in the Washington state House of Representatives, and their son, Thomas, 13. Samuel’s parents, Pona Samuel and Samuel Thomas, also live nearby.

Montesano – about 50 miles away from Olympic National Forest – features three lakes. The town is also the county seat for Grays Harbor County. Samuel, who has previously served on Montesano’s city council, said she was campaigning on the issue of transparency in city politics. She questioned the recent sale of a parcel of waterfront property which sold well under market for about $20,000. The sale was approved by the city council with the stipulation that an easement would be built to allow residents to have waterfront access at the property.

Instead, the property was developed without the easement, disallowing public access to the waterfront, she said. Speculation about a backroom deal between Estes and the developer has been rife. Samuel also sounded off against Estes’ interactions with a deaf city councilwoman, Marisa Salzer, who had requested an interpreter during city council meetings. A confrontation on the issue became more divisive when the city attorney asked Salzer for copies of her private e-mail, alleging the councilwoman used her official and private accounts interchangeably. Salzer has since resigned and wrote in her resignation letter: “I can no longer tolerate the unfair working conditions of discrimination and harassment against me for requesting accommodations from the city for my hearing disability.”

Samuel said she also wants to leverage limited resources for the town’s three elementary schools. Washington state provides insufficient funding and the tax base of the small town cannot meet the schools’ budgetary needs. “But the community here is amazing. I have never seen them say no to anything related to kids,” she told the media.

Samuel regards Wi-Fi as basic infrastructure and said she wants to have free Wi-Fi access throughout the downtown area. Washington’s baby boomers are increasingly moving into Montesano, attracted by lower housing prices in a scenic location. The candidate said more services need to be in place for the town’s aging population.

Samuel attended Western Washington University, where she received a B.A. in history and English literature; she obtained her law degree from Seattle University.

New Jerseyans increasingly support a pathway to citizenship

As the immigration debate rages on in the race to 2016, New Jerseyans increasingly support a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants currently working in the United States, according to the latest Rutgers-Eagleton Poll. Sixty-four percent of residents now believe undocumented immigrants should be allowed to stay and apply for U.S. citizenship, an increase of 12 points since last asked by the Rutgers-Eagleton Poll in 2012. Another 15 percent say they should be allowed to stay as temporary guest workers but not be able to apply, down seven points. Eighteen percent think they should be required to leave the country, a decline of four points.

“Last night, Donald Trump claimed no one was talking about immigration until he did, but here in New Jersey, immigration – both legal and not – has been a hot topic for years,” said Ashley Koning, assistant director of the Eagleton Center for Public Interest Polling at Rutgers University. “In Rutgers-Eagleton polls in the past two decades, New Jerseyans have solidly supported legal status and then citizenship for immigrants. This is not surprising, given that New Jersey is one of the most diverse states and that one in five residents is an immigrant.”

The personal importance of immigration to New Jerseyans has increased over time as well: 14 percent now say it is the most important issue to them, up nine points since 2012, and another 29 percent say it is one of a few very important issues. Thirty-nine percent say it is somewhat important (down seven points), and 17 percent say it is not important to them at all (down three points).

More New Jersey residents also have a positive opinion of immigrants’ impact on everyday life today than they did in 2012.  But even with these increases, 41 percent say the number of immigrants in the Garden State is too high, up five points since 2012; another 44 percent say it is just right. Moreover, immigration remains a partisan issue, with notable differences between the two parties and even among Republicans, specifically among Donald Trump supporters compared to the GOP as a whole.

Results are from a statewide poll of 867 adults contacted by live callers on both landlines and cell phones from July 25 to August 1. The sample has a margin of error of +/-3.9 percentage points. Interviews were done in English and, when requested, Spanish.

Immigration is an especially personal issue within certain demographics. Three-quarters of residents who identify as Hispanic support citizenship, compared to 61 percent of non-Hispanics. Similar patterns exist for those not born in the United States and those whose parents immigrated to this country.

These same groups are also more likely, by double digits, to say immigration is personally important to them: 40 percent of Hispanics, 30 percent of foreign-born residents and 21 percent of those with foreign-born parents say it is the most important issue, with the majority of each group saying the issue is at least one of a few of their top concerns.

Interaction with immigrants in daily life also has an impact: support for citizenship and personal importance increases along with frequency of interaction. Over seven in 10 who say immigrants make their neighborhood, workplace, or the state a better place also favor citizenship.

Younger generations are much more supportive of citizenship – though not more likely to say the issue is important – than older ones, as support steadily declines with age.

Importance of immigration does not necessarily imply support of citizenship, however. Among supporters, 15 percent say it is the most important issue for them, and another 25 percent say it is one of few. But those who favor deportation also feel strongly about it, with 16 percent saying immigration is their top issue and another 38 percent saying it is one of the most important.

Partisans of all stripes support a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants in the United States, though to varying degrees: Democrats at 78 percent, independents at 57 percent and even Republicans at 51 percent. But Republicans and independents are also more likely to say undocumented immigrants should be forced to leave the country, at 28 percent and 21 percent respectively, while just 10 percent of Democrats say the same.

Those favorable toward former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton resemble Democrats in general, with 72 percent supporting citizenship. Those who like Gov. Chris Christie likewise resemble Republicans in general. But Donald Trump supporters are notably more negative about welcoming immigrants: 46 percent favor citizenship, 17 percent prefer legal status, and 35 percent choose deportation – the highest of any demographic.

“Republicans as a whole have come a long way on the issue since we last polled this in 2012, when they were mostly split over citizenship, with 37 percent expressing support and another 33 percent favoring deportation,” said Koning. “The double-digit increase to majority support in two years is remarkable. But of course, there are many different views about immigration reform on the national stage right now – especially among contenders on the Republican side like Donald Trump. And we see these differences play out when we specifically look at Trump supporters’ attitudes on citizenship, which are more conservative than the rest of the party.”

Republicans are slightly more negative regarding other aspects of the immigration issue. While there are minimal party differences in personal importance, just over half of Republicans feel the number of immigrants in the Garden State is too high, compared to 35 percent of Democrats and 39 percent of independents. Those in Trump’s corner are especially likely to say the number of immigrants in the state is too high, at 58 percent, compared to Christie supporters or the GOP as a whole.

Republicans are also less likely to say that immigrants have a positive impact on different parts of daily life. Nineteen percent say immigrants make their neighborhood better, compared to 39 percent of Democrats and 31 percent of independents. GOPers feel somewhat similarly about the workplace, with about a quarter believing immigrants make it better, versus almost four in 10 of other partisans. As for New Jersey itself, 29 percent of Republicans view immigrants’ influence positively, compared to 40 percent of independents and 49 percent of Democrats. Republicans say they interact with immigrants on a daily basis to a lesser extent than other partisans – at 52 percent, versus 59 percent of Democrats and 64 percent of independents.

The overall increase in support for immigration and importance of the issue among New Jerseyans may stem from their frequent interaction with immigrants and their increased belief that immigrants have a positive effect on society. Six in 10 say they interact with someone from another country every day; another two in 10 say a few times a week. The remaining two in 10 interact with immigrants a few times a month or less.

Thirty-two percent feel people born outside the U.S. have made the quality of life in their neighborhoods better (up six points), while 49 percent say immigrants have not had much of an impact (down 12 points); another 13 percent say immigrants have actually made their neighborhoods worse (up three points). New Jerseyans feel similarly about their place of work, with 36 percent saying immigrants have made it better, a 10-point increase since 2012. Another 43 percent say they have had no effect here (down 11 points), and just nine percent say they have made the workplace worse.

Forty-one percent of residents believe immigrants have made New Jersey as a whole better, a nine-point increase. Twenty-nine percent say they do not have an impact on the state (down six points), and 21 percent say immigrants make the state worse, a drop of four points.

-+=