All Eyes on Mayawati After CWC Declares Rahul Gandhi as PM face

The BSP which is expected to be a part of an alliance with the Samajwadi Party and Rashtriya Lok Dal for the 2019 Lok Sabha elections has not yet officially reacted to Rahul being projected as a PM candidate.

All Eyes on Mayawati After CWC Declares Rahul Gandhi as PM face
File photo of BSP chief Mayawati. (PTI)
Lucknow: After the Congress Working Committee decided to project Rahul Gandhi as the party’s PM candidate for 2019, the ball is in BSP chief Mayawati’s court now. At a recent meet in Lucknow, the BSP had decided to project Mayawati as its prime ministerial candidate.

The BSP which is expected to be a part of an alliance with the Samajwadi Party and Rashtriya Lok Dal for the 2019 Lok Sabha elections has not yet officially reacted to Rahul being projected as a PM candidate. Speaking to News18, BSP spokesperson Sudhindra Bhadhauria said, “The matter has come to our knowledge and final decision will be taken by BSP chief Mayawati.”

This might also change equations in the alliance talks between the Congress and the BSP for the upcoming state elections in Madhya Pradesh. The CWC’s resolution on Rahul Gandhi has certainly confused both the BSP and the SP.

SP spokesperson Sunil Singh Sajan said the decision to project Rahul as PM candidate is by the CWC and not the grand alliance. “The SP hasn’t yet decided if it will tie-up with the Congress. That decision will be taken by party president Akhilesh Yadav soon. The decision to name Rahul Gandhi as PM candidate is taken by CWC. How can they decide who will be the PM face of the grand alliance?”
Sources say the reason the SP is not too keen on an alliance with the Congress because of its experience of the tie-up during the 2017 Assembly polls in UP and its projections for 2019.

The sources said many senior SP leaders feel that an alliance with the Congress will not go with the ‘political narrative’ that the SP-BSP combine want to make against the BJP. They are planning a strategy of uniting Dalits, backwards and Muslims against the upper castes, which have traditionally been seen to be with the BJP.

Also Watch

‘;
$(‘#first-watch-box’).html(response+titleHeading);
}
},
error: function(xhr, ajaxOptions, thrownError) {
console.log(‘Something went wrong..’);
}
});
}




var playWatchVideos = false;
$(window).scroll(function() {
var ividFirstScroll = $(‘.alsowatch’).offset().top – 100;
var tagsScroll = $(‘.tag’).offset().top;
var topOffsetIvid = $(window).scrollTop();
var topIviddistance = topOffsetIvid – ividFirstScroll;
var finalScrollEnd = ividFirstScroll + 650;
var holaPlayDivId = $(‘div.video-js’).attr(‘id’);
var holaPlayerObj = videojs(holaPlayDivId);
if(topOffsetIvid>ividFirstScroll && topOffsetIvidfinalScrollEnd && playWatchVideos==true) {
holaPlayerObj.pause();
playWatchVideos=false;
}

});

| Edited by: Padmaja Venkataraman

Source link

The New Yorker’s Women Cartoonists, Then and Now

From The New Yorker’s beginnings, cartoons have been an integral part of the
publication, and, from the beginning, women have been drawing them. The first New Yorker cartoon created by a woman, Ethel Plummer, appeared in the première issue, on February 21, 1925. She, like many female contributors of the time, was classically trained, having attended art school to study painting and illustration. She was also active in the suffrage movement, and one can see the feminist perspective in her cartoon of an irreverent flapper. Another cartoonist, Barbara Shermund, drew in a breezier, more modern style, but, like Plummer, her ideas had a feminist bent. Mary Petty, another cartoonist, was self-taught; her drawings often ridiculed the upper classes with their dark tone and sarcastic humor. Perhaps the most famous of the women cartoonists in those early years was Helen Hokinson, whose every stroke of the pen inexplicably seemed to carry humor.

As the cartoons became a more celebrated part of the magazine,
the styles of the artists became less traditional and more “cartoony.” During and after the Second World War, a few women cartoonists contributed work—perhaps filling spaces vacated by men who’d left to serve in the war. Roberta MacDonald drew women in the military. In the early nineteen-fifties, Doris Matthews drew cartoons to support her painting career. Still, cartooning was a male-dominated field, and the number of female contributors was always much lower than the number of men. In the middle of the century, the number dwindled for a number of years to zero.

In the nineteen-seventies, under the leadership of a new cartoon editor, Lee Lorenz, a new generation of women cartoonists began getting published in the magazine (myself among them). In an interview, Lorenz said that he was never looking for “women cartoonists”; he was looking for new ways to express humor. Nurit Karlin, who is Israeli, contributed simple, captionless line art, a quiet form that was not often seen in the magazine. Roz Chast’s naïve drawing style and quirky observations, introduced to the magazine in those years, were unlike anything New Yorker readers had seen before. When her work was first brought to the magazine’s editor, William Shawn, he said, “But how does she know they’re funny?”

The decades that followed brought us the work of Victoria Roberts and Huguette Martel, of Barbara Smaller, Marisa Acocella, Kim Warp, Carolita Johnson, and Julia Suits, among others. Today there are more women drawing cartoons for The New Yorker than ever before, and each voice has brought us something different. Inspired by this, and based on my book “Funny Ladies: The New Yorker’s Greatest Cartoonists and Their Cartoons,” I curated an exhibition of the work of the magazine’s women cartoonists, past and present, for the Society of Illustrators, in New York City. Here is a sampling.

Source link

Pelosi, DCCC says petition will block Putin’s visit, misleading donors: report

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi was caught pushing misleading claims about blocking a presumed visit of Russian President Vladimir Putin to the White House in a bid to squeeze donations from gullible donors, The Daily Caller reported.

Pelosi, in a fundraising email from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), said that with enough signatures on the petition, the Democrats will be able to block Putin’s visit, the report said.

“I will NOT allow Putin to set foot in the United States. I need 100,000 signatures to BLOCK his visit and keep our elections safe. I need you to sign before midnight,” Pelosi reportedly said in the email circulated on Sunday.

“It’s obvious to me Trump is terrified of Putin, so here’s what I’d like to know: Is Putin blackmailing Trump? Do Republicans know about it?” she continued. “I need 100,000 signatures before midnight to block Putin from EVER visiting the United States and attacking our November election.”

“It’s obvious to me Trump is terrified of Putin, so here’s what I’d like to know: Is Putin blackmailing Trump? Do Republicans know about it?”

– House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi

No petition, however, could legally force Trump to back down from the possible visit by Putin later this year, the report said.

The Sunday’s fundraising email was a similar effort launched just a day before, when a DCCC email said a petition needs 50,000 signatures to bar Putin from coming to the U.S. for a visit.

The House Democrats reportedly also sent out a covert fundraising petition on Sunday, claiming that the DCCC is nearing its goal of 1.2 million signatures to “ensure protection” for Special Counsel Robert Mueller who’s investigating the alleged collusion between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign.

PELOSI CLAIMS MUELLER WAS ‘FIRED’ IN BIZARRE EMAIL TO DONORS

This isn’t the first time the top Democrat is engaging if misleading fundraising efforts. In April, Pelosi was caught fundraising off the firing of Mueller, despite him not being fired.

The California Democrat reportedly sent out an email titled “Mueller FIRED” and asked people to donate to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) amid speculations that President Donald Trump may fire Mueller in retaliation for the FBI raid on his lawyer Michael Cohen.

Lukas Mikelionis is a reporter for FoxNews.com. Follow him on Twitter @LukasMikelionis.



Source link

Trump threatens Rouhani with ‘consequences’ few ‘have ever suffered’

President Trump responded Sunday night to some belligerent rhetoric from Iran by taking to Twitter and “yelling” in all capital letters that Iran was risking annihilation.

“To Iranian President Rouhani: Never ever threaten the United States again or you will suffer consequences the likes of which few throughout history have ever suffered before,” the president wrote, entirely in capital letters with the exception of the “greeting” to President Hassan Rouhani.

“We are no longer a country that will stand for your demented words of violence & death. Be cautious!” Mr. Trump concluded still in caps-lock mode, a gesture known in social media to be the equivalent of yelling in speech.

Mr. Trump was responding to reports earlier Sunday that Mr. Rouhani had addressed the U.S. president at a gathering of Iranian diplomats with threats including “the other of all wars.”

Mr. Trump, don’t play with the lion’s tail, this would only lead to regret,” the state Islamic Republic News Agency reported.

“America should know that peace with Iran is the mother of all peace, and war with Iran is the mother of all wars,” he said.

One other Middle East nation has threatened the U.S. with the “mother of all wars” before — Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

“Death to America” is a common refrain at rallies and on state-sponsored murals in Iran since the Islamic Republic was founded in 1979, and there was once a special holiday declaration of a “Death to America Day.” When Mr. Trump withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal this spring, a crude drawing of a U.S. flag was burned in the Iranian Parliament amid chants of “Death to America.”

Since one nation — Japan — already has been the object a nuclear attack and many nations have been conquered or suffered military defeats, the “consequences the likes of which few throughout history have ever suffered” might mean a nuclear war.



Source link

Elizabeth Warren: Americans would be ‘eating dirt’ without ‘rules’ to rein in ‘rich’ people

Sen. Elizabeth Warren told Americans this week that she is a staunch supporter of free markets — provided “rules” are crafted to control “the rich and powerful.”

The Massachusetts Democrat told MSNBC that low unemployment and high consumer confidence should not fool voters into thinking the economy is strong because the nation’s “lived experience” has plateaued or worsened under President Trump.

“I believe in markets right down to my toes,” she said when asked why democratic socialists are stars within the party. “But I also believe markets have to have rules. Otherwise rich and powerful just keep sucking up all the value and everybody else ends up eating dirt. … I think that big parts of this economy are not working for the American people.”

The senator then said that corporations “don’t share” with employees when they are doing well.

“The way I see this, is the lived experiences of most hard-working Americans across this country are not improving under the Trump administration,” she told anchor Stephanie Ruhle on Thursday. “What’s happening to them is they’re still stuck with flat incomes and rising core expenses. And the Trump administration is helping drive up those expenses.”

Mrs. Warren then blasted the Trump administration for enabling “for-profit colleges that cheat our young people.”

The senator declined to give credence to rumors that she might run for president in 2020. She wrapped up the segment instead by talking about her re-election campaign.

Source link

Senators push sanctions to send Putin election meddling warning

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A pair of prominent Republican U.S. senators said on Sunday that the United States must move promptly to prepare new sanctions against Russia to discourage interference in upcoming elections.

FILE PHOTOS: Republican U.S. Senators Marco Rubio (L) and Lindsey Graham are seen in this combination photo from U.S. Senate hearings on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S. on March 14, 2018 and on June 18, 2018 respectively. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts/File Photos

Senator Lindsey Graham said additional sanctions needed to be teed up before President Donald Trump holds a second meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin after the U.S. leader came under heavy criticism for failing to confront Putin about interference in the 2016 election at a summit last Monday.

“You need to work with Congress to come up with new sanctions because Putin’s not getting the message,” Graham said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” “We need new sanctions, heavy-handed sanctions, hanging over his head, and then meet with him.”

Undaunted by the backlash in his own party to his first meeting, Trump invited Putin to a White House meeting sometime this autumn. Congressional elections will take place in November.

Representative Trey Gowdy, the Republican chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, questioned the wisdom of Putin being ushered into the White House.

Talking to Putin about matters such as the civil war in Syria, Gowdy said, “is very different from issuing an invitation. Those should be reserved for, I think, our allies like Great Britain and Canada and Australia and those who are with us day in and day out.” Gowdy made his remarks during an interview on television’s “Fox News Sunday.”

Republican Senator Marco Rubio wants a vote on a bill called DETER that would impose new sanctions if U.S. intelligence officials determine Russia meddled in U.S. elections. Rubio co-authored the legislation with Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen, a bipartisan effort revived by the fallout of last week’s summit.

“What I think is indisputable is that they did interfere and they will do so in the future,” Rubio said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

Last Thursday, Rubio and Van Hollen, noting the “urgency of the challenge before our nation,” wrote to the chairmen of the Senate Banking and Foreign Relations committees pressing them to hold hearings on the legislation before the start of an early August recess.

‘DETER’ ACT

Putin has denied that Russia tried to influence the 2016 presidential election after the U.S. intelligence community concluded Russia interfered through cyber attacks and social media in a bid to boost Trump’s candidacy.

Under pressure from Congress, which last year passed a tough sanctions law targeting Russia, the U.S. Treasury in April imposed sanctions on Russian officials and oligarchs for election meddling and “malign” activities.

The DETER Act would make sanctions more automatic and aim to punish Russia’s finance, energy, defense and other sectors.

The U.S. director of national intelligence would be required to conclude if any foreign nations interfered in elections one month after Americans cast their votes, triggering strict sanctions within 10 days if interference was detected.

Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell last week identified the bill as a potential step Congress could take to push back against Russia as Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer called for sanctions and other deterrents.

But the U.S. oil and gas industry is lobbying against the bill because of worries that heightened sanctions could affect U.S. investments in Russia, congressional sources said.

U.S. businesses could face an uphill battle, however, if they aim to block or defang the legislation.

“The sanctions are only implemented if Russia is deemed to have interfered in our election. Pretty hard to say: ‘C’mon guys, don’t take that too seriously.’ I mean, what representative of any industry could credibly make that argument? That’s pretty tough,” Democratic Senator Chris Coons said in a hallway interview late last week with Reuters.

Reporting by Pete Schroeder; Writing by Amanda Becker and Richard Cowan; Editing by Mary Milliken and Peter Cooney

Source link

Trump Stands His Ground on Putin

“Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Under the Constitution, these are the offenses for which presidents can be impeached.

And to hear our elites, Donald Trump is guilty of them all.

Trump’s refusal to challenge Vladimir Putin’s claim at Helsinki — that his GRU boys did not hack Hillary Clinton’s campaign — has been called treason, a refusal to do his sworn duty to protect and defend the United States, by a former director of the CIA.

Famed journalists and former high officials of the U.S. government have called Russia’s hacking of the DNC “an act of war” comparable to Pearl Harbor.

The New York Times ran a story on how many are now charging Trump with treason. Others suggest Putin is blackmailing Trump, or has him on his payroll, or compromised Trump a long time ago.

Wailed Congressman Steve Cohen: “Where is our military folks? The Commander in Chief is in the hands of our enemy!”

Apparently, some on the left believe we need a military coup to save our democracy.

Not since Robert Welch of the John Birch Society called Dwight Eisenhower a “conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy,” have such charges been hurled at a president. But while the Birchers were a bit outside the mainstream, today it is the establishment itself bawling “Treason!”

What explains the hysteria?

The worst-case scenario would be that the establishment actually believes the nonsense it is spouting. But that is hard to credit. Like the boy who cried “Wolf!” the establishment has cried “Fascist!” too many times to be taken seriously.

A month ago, the never-Trumpers were comparing the separation of immigrant kids from detained adults, who brought them to the U.S. illegally, to FDR’s concentration camps for Japanese-Americans.

Some commentators equated the separations to what the Nazis did at Auschwitz.

If the establishment truly believed this nonsense, it would be an unacceptable security risk to let them near the levers of power ever again.

Using Occam’s razor, the real explanation for this behavior is the simplest one: America’s elites have been driven over the edge by Trump’s successes and their failure to block him.

Trump is deregulating the economy, cutting taxes, appointing record numbers of federal judges, reshaping the Supreme Court, and using tariffs to cut trade deficits and the bully pulpit to castigate freeloading allies.

Worst of all, Trump clearly intends to carry out his campaign pledge to improve relations with Russia and get along with Vladimir Putin.

“Over our dead bodies!” the Beltway elite seems to be shouting.

Hence the rhetorical WMDs hurled at Trump: Liar, dictator, authoritarian, Putin’s poodle, fascist, demagogue, traitor, Nazi.

Such language approaches incitement to violence. One wonders if the haters are considering the impact of the words they are so casually using. Some of us yet recall how Dallas was charged with complicity in the death of JFK for slurs far less toxic than this.

The post-Helsinki hysteria reveals not merely the mindset of the president’s enemies, but the depth of their determination to destroy him.

They intend to break Trump and bring him down, to see him impeached, removed, indicted and prosecuted, and the agenda on which he ran and was nominated and elected dumped onto the ash heap of history.

Thursday, Trump indicated that he knows exactly what is afoot, and threw down the gauntlet of defiance:

“The Fake News Media wants so badly to see a major confrontation with Russia, even a confrontation that could lead to war. They are pushing so recklessly hard and hate the fact that I’ll probably have a good relationship with Putin.”

Spot on. Trump is saying: I am going to call off this Cold War II before it breaks out into the hot war that nine U.S. presidents avoided, despite Soviet provocations far graver than Putin’s pilfering of DNC emails showing how Debbie Wasserman Schultz stuck it to Bernie Sanders.

Then the White House suggested Vlad may be coming to dinner this fall.

Trump is edging toward the defining battle of his presidency: a reshaping of U.S. foreign policy to avoid clashes and conflicts with Russia, and the shedding of Cold War commitments no longer rooted in the national interests of this country.

Yet, should he attempt to carry out his agenda — to get out of Syria, pull troops out of Germany, take a second look at NATO’s Article 5 commitment to go to war for 29 nations, some of which, like Montenegro, most Americans have never heard of — he is headed for the most brutal battle of his presidency.

This Helsinki hysteria is but a taste.

By cheering Brexit, dissing the EU, suggesting NATO is obsolete, departing Syria, trying to get on with Putin, Trump is threatening the entire U.S. foreign policy establishment with what it fears most — irrelevance.

For if there is no war on, no war imminent, and no war wanted, what does a War Party do?

COPYRIGHT 2018 CREATORS.COM

Source link

The Latest: Trump again calls Russia commotion ‘a big hoax’

The Latest on President Donald Trump and the probe of possible Russian interference in the 2016 elections. (all times local):

9:05 p.m.

President Donald Trump has returned to referring to the commotion over Russia as “a big hoax” after a week of drama, back tracking and a double negative about his attitude toward Russian election interference. In a Sunday tweet, the president diminished at least the significance, if not the existence, of the interference and the U.S. investigation into Russia’s actions.

Trump spent days trying to reassure the country that he accepts that the longtime foe interfered in the 2016 election after his public undermining of U.S. intelligence agencies in Helsinki while standing alongside Russian President Vladimir Putin. But on Sunday, Trump cast doubts once again, diminishing at least the significance, if not the existence, of the interference and the U.S. investigation into Russia’s actions.

“So President Obama knew about Russia before the Election,” Trump tweeted Sunday that President Barack Obama knew about Russia before the election bu questioned: “Why didn’t he do something about it? Because it is all a big hoax, that’s why.”

———

6:37 p.m.

President Donald Trump has asserted without evidence that newly released documents relating to the wiretapping of his onetime campaign adviser Carter Page “confirm with little doubt” that intelligence agencies misled the court that approved the warrant.

But lawmakers from both political parties said that the documents don’t show wrongdoing and that they even appear to undermine some previous claims by top Republicans on the basis for obtaining a warrant against Page.

Visible portions of the heavily redacted documents, released Saturday under the Freedom of Information Act, show the FBI telling the court that Page “has been collaborating and conspiring with the Russian government.” The agency also told the court that “the FBI believes Page has been the subject of targeted recruitment by the Russian government.”

Source link

Carter Page denies being a Russian agent as lawmakers urge President Trump to act tougher toward Kremlin

By Elise Viebeck and David Fahrenthold

WASHINGTON – Former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page on Sunday denied he was an intelligence agent for Russia, after the release of usually secret documents showed federal investigators believed he was engaged in “clandestine intelligence activities” on behalf of Russia.

Page’s denial, on CNN’s “State of the Nation,” was his first public response to the release on Saturday of secret applications for federal wiretaps on him.

The documents – still heavily redacted – showed that federal investigators were looking into Page’s possible connections with Russia as early as 2013, long before Trump named him as an adviser to his presidential campaign in March 2016.

On Sunday, Page said that it was “ridiculous” and a “complete joke” to believe he had been an agent of the Russian government.

“I’ve never been an agent of a foreign power by any stretch of the imagination,” Page said on CNN. That echoed President Trump’s own statements on the documents – issued via Twitter from Trump’s golf club in New Jersey – that the wiretap on Page was part of politically motivated spying on Trump’s presidential campaign.

Page himself ducked questions about what, exactly, his connections to Russia had been.

When CNN’s Jake Tapper noted that Page had once called himself an “informal advisor” to the Kremlin, Page responded: “You know, informal, having some conversations with people. I mean, this is really nothing.”

“I’ve never been anywhere near what’s being described here” in the released documents, Page said. “There was nothing in terms of nefarious behavior.”

Also Sunday, Republican senators Marco Rubio of Florida and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina urged Trump to take a harder line against Russian President Vladimir Putin, a few days after Trump seemed deferential to Putin after a summit meeting in Helsinki.

On CBS, Graham – a sometime Trump ally – seemed to be speaking directly to Trump, telling him to impose “new sanctions, heavy-handed sanctions” on Russia before Putin visits Washington.

Source link

Carter Page denies being a Russian agent as lawmakers urge President Trump to act tougher toward Kremlin

By Elise Viebeck and David Fahrenthold

WASHINGTON – Former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page on Sunday denied he was an intelligence agent for Russia, after the release of usually secret documents showed federal investigators believed he was engaged in “clandestine intelligence activities” on behalf of Russia.

Page’s denial, on CNN’s “State of the Nation,” was his first public response to the release on Saturday of secret applications for federal wiretaps on him.

The documents – still heavily redacted – showed that federal investigators were looking into Page’s possible connections with Russia as early as 2013, long before Trump named him as an adviser to his presidential campaign in March 2016.

On Sunday, Page said that it was “ridiculous” and a “complete joke” to believe he had been an agent of the Russian government.

“I’ve never been an agent of a foreign power by any stretch of the imagination,” Page said on CNN. That echoed President Trump’s own statements on the documents – issued via Twitter from Trump’s golf club in New Jersey – that the wiretap on Page was part of politically motivated spying on Trump’s presidential campaign.

Page himself ducked questions about what, exactly, his connections to Russia had been.

When CNN’s Jake Tapper noted that Page had once called himself an “informal advisor” to the Kremlin, Page responded: “You know, informal, having some conversations with people. I mean, this is really nothing.”

“I’ve never been anywhere near what’s being described here” in the released documents, Page said. “There was nothing in terms of nefarious behavior.”

Also Sunday, Republican senators Marco Rubio of Florida and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina urged Trump to take a harder line against Russian President Vladimir Putin, a few days after Trump seemed deferential to Putin after a summit meeting in Helsinki.

On CBS, Graham – a sometime Trump ally – seemed to be speaking directly to Trump, telling him to impose “new sanctions, heavy-handed sanctions” on Russia before Putin visits Washington.

Source link