Texas Weekly Online

Texas-trans-white
Menu
Menu

Author: shailender

‘I want justice’: Wife of Indian sailor who died aboard MT Celestial makes emotional appeal

‘I want justice’: Wife of Indian sailor who died aboard MT Celestial makes emotional appeal

The wife of Indian seafarer Nishanth Uirthanathan, Sarabin, urged the central government to repatriate his mortal remains and also demanded justice and career opportunities for her family. While speaking to news agency ANI, she said, ”I am requesting the Government of India to consider my husband’s death. I want to see my husband’s body. I want justice for my husband’s death. Also, I have an 8-month-old baby and a 3-year-old girl. Right now, I don’t know what to do next for both of my children’s lives. We didn’t get any official statement from the company about my husband’s death. I kindly request the government to provide a permanent career opportunity for the sake of my family.”

From Wasserman Schultz to Goldman, Democratic incumbents are fighting for survival

From Wasserman Schultz to Goldman, Democratic incumbents are fighting for survival

As Democrats seek to reclaim power in November’s midterm elections, some of the party’s long-standing progressives are in danger of losing their seats. The warning signs are flashing red in hotly contested primaries across the country, from a longtime ally of former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who is facing a challenger four decades younger, to a senior New York lawmaker seeking to fend off a Mamdani-backed opponent. Not every race has a clear ideological divide, but every challenger is running on an anti-establishment message. Some are also advocating for generational change.  NY DEM WOULDN’T BACK MAMDANI FOR MAYOR — NOW MAMDANI IS BACKING HIS CHALLENGER Though sitting lawmakers are historically difficult to defeat, a wave of anti-incumbent fever appears to be taking hold among voters. Four incumbents — including Reps. Dan Crenshaw, R-Texas, and Thomas Massie, R-Ky. — have already lost their re-election bids to primary challengers this cycle. The following are the progressive lawmakers who could be next.  Rep. Dan Goldman, D-N.Y., 50, a prominent Trump foe who served as Democrats’ lead counsel during President Donald Trump’s first impeachment trial, is running as an endangered incumbent in a Democratic-heavy district spanning Lower Manhattan and deep-blue pockets of Brooklyn. Former New York City Comptroller Brad Lander, 56, who has the backing of Mamdani and leading progressives in Congress, is mounting an insurgent campaign from Goldman’s left. Leading progressive Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and the left-wing Working Families Party are also supporting his candidacy. Goldman’s endorsements from House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., and Gov. Kathy Hochul, D-N.Y., may not be enough to secure a third House term. Recent polling of the race shows Lander carving out a significant lead despite Goldman, who is one of the wealthiest members of Congress, outspending the progressive challenger. Though Goldman has faced attacks from the left, he is a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC). He has also supported a bevy of far-left proposals, including the abolition of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Green New Deal legislation and Medicare-for-all. If Democrats retake power in November, he’s vowing to help lead a third impeachment of Trump. But Israel has become a key fault line in the contest. Lander has sharply criticized the incumbent’s ties to the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC and his votes to supply Israel with military aid. LEFT-WING ACTIVISTS HECKLE PRO-ISRAEL DEMOCRAT HALEY STEVENS AT MICHIGAN CONVENTION Lander has also labeled Israel’s war in Gaza a “genocide” — a term Goldman has distanced himself from. Both men are Jewish. Mamdani is also seeking to flex his political muscle in another hotly contested New York City primary that could end the career of a senior progressive lawmaker. Rep. Adriano Espaillat, D-N.Y., the chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, is facing a serious challenge from upstart candidate Darializa Avila Chevalier, a socialist and activist who joined Columbia University’s pro-Palestinian demonstrations. MAMDANI STANDS BY FELLOW SOCIALIST CANDIDATE DESPITE RESURFACED FAR-LEFT, ANTI-AMERICAN POSTS Mamdani threw a wrench into Espaillat’s re-election bid when he made the surprise decision to endorse Avila Chevalier, 32, just weeks before the primary. The move has led to fierce backlash from some of the party’s establishment, who alleged that Mamdani privately pledged to Espaillat that he would support his bid for a sixth House term, multiple outlets reported. Espaillat, 71, is seeking to fend off a challenge from his left flank despite membership in the Congressional Progressive Caucus and his support for ICE’s dismantlement. He has also touted his background as the first former illegal immigrant elected to Congress. Avila Chevalier has sparked controversy over since-deleted social media posts in which she voiced support for open borders, abolishing the police and called former President Joe Biden a “rapist,” according to CNN. The deep-blue district covering parts of Upper Manhattan and the West Bronx is a progressive stronghold that swung hard for Mamdani’s mayoral campaign last year. Espaillat notably did not endorse Mamdani’s campaign until after his primary win over former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, D-N.Y. Jeffries, who represents a neighboring Brooklyn district, has vowed to help give Espaillat a sixth House term. “Adriano Espaillat has been a tremendous leader,” Jeffries told CNN on Tuesday. “He’s leading in terms of battling Donald Trump.” Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., a junior member of House Democratic leadership, is gearing up for a tough re-election fight after Republicans carved up her deep-blue seat during redistricting earlier this year. The 11-term incumbent sparked controversy after filing to run in a plurality-Black district that has been represented by a Black lawmaker for more than three decades. She is expected to face four Black opponents ahead of the August primary, including former Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick, D-Fla., who is making a long-shot run for the seat after resigning amid an expulsion threat earlier this year. Cherfilus-McCormick is also facing a pending federal criminal indictment over alleged financial crimes that could result in more than 50 years in prison if convicted. BIG LOSS FOR DEMOCRAT WHO WANTED ‘ZIONISTS’ IN CAMPS MAY STILL SIGNAL BIG TROUBLE ON HORIZON Local Black leaders publicly urged Wasserman Schultz to run for a different seat, but she moved forward with seeking the Democratic nomination in Florida’s 20th Congressional District.  While the four Black candidates have reportedly met to discuss unifying behind one individual to take on Wasserman Schultz, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., has thus far declined to bail her out. The leading Democrat has repeatedly stopped short of offering his endorsement when asked by reporters, despite his long track record of backing incumbents. Jeffries has issued effusive praise for Wasserman Schultz’s record in Congress but signaled his concern that the incumbent’s victory could potentially decrease Black representation in Congress. “I think we all recognize the sensitivities of the moment in terms of an unprecedented Jim Crow-like assault on Black political representation that has been unleashed by the Supreme Court’s outrageous decision to gut the Voting Rights Act,” Jeffries said during a news conference earlier in June when asked

These 11 upcoming Supreme Court decisions could make or break Trump’s second term agenda

These 11 upcoming Supreme Court decisions could make or break Trump’s second term agenda

As the Supreme Court enters the final stretch of its term, a flood of closely watched decisions could determine not only the fate of several of President Donald Trump’s key policy priorities but also the scope of presidential authority for years to come. Around the marbled halls and chambers, the final weeks of June are often known as “flood season,” the annual rush to complete opinions before the justices leave Washington for their summer recess. The nine justices and their law clerks are on tight, self-imposed deadlines to write and circulate final drafts of opinions in cases big and small. This year, 23 cases remain unresolved after the court heard arguments in nearly 60 disputes during the term. Among them are four appeals involving executive actions by Trump, two election-related disputes and separate questions involving gun rights and transgender rights. Several of the remaining disputes share a common thread: how much power a president can exercise over federal policy and the executive branch. The rulings could significantly affect Trump’s ability to advance his second-term agenda, particularly on immigration and government oversight, while further defining the boundaries between the White House, Congress and the courts. TRUMP’S PRESIDENCY FACES CRUCIAL TESTS AS SUPREME COURT BEGINS PIVOTAL TERM The court’s last day before its traditional summer recess is still unknown, even to its nine members, but they hope to finish up by month’s end. However, given the divided court’s compressed workload, that is no guarantee. Here are 11 remaining opinions that we are closely watching. Arguably the most closely watched Supreme Court case remaining to be decided, this challenge centers on President Trump’s Executive Order 14160, an effort to limit automatic citizenship for children born to parents who entered the country illegally. The case could define the limits of presidential power by determining whether a president can change a longstanding interpretation of citizenship law without Congress. Trump made history by personally attending oral arguments in March, becoming the first sitting president to do so — but that did not seem to matter. The Supreme Court openly pushed back against the administration’s sweeping efforts to restrict who can be called an American, expressing varying levels of skepticism about the claim a citizenship “privilege” has been historically abused and wrongly granted to those whose parents were in the country illegally or temporarily. A ruling against Trump would affirm the longstanding legal, political and social consensus supporting the idea of granting automatic citizenship to all babies born in the country, regardless of their parents’ immigration or temporary visitor status. INSIDE SUPREME COURT: HOW TRUMP HEARD BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP ARGUMENTS Immigration-related executive power is also at the center of Mullin v. Doe, Dahlia and Trump v. Miot, cases involving the administration’s effort to terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) protections from certain Haitian and Syrian migrants living in the U.S. The TPS program currently covers roughly 1.3 million people fleeing war and natural disasters from 17 countries and allows them to live and work in the country for a limited time. CHECKS AND BALANCES: TRUMP, SUPPORTERS SEEK TO PUSH BACK AGAINST ‘ACTIVIST’ JUDGES The administration argues the Department of Homeland Security has broad discretion to end some Temporary Protected Status protections for migrants from certain countries, arguing protections are intended to be temporary. Migrant advocates counter that federal law requires specific procedures and allows courts to review those decisions. The conservative court majority has signaled its support for the Homeland Security secretary’s discretionary power to revoke deportation protections for 13 countries on the TPS list. SUPREME COURT PREPARES FOR MAJOR TEST OF PRESIDENTIAL POWER IN TRUMP EFFORTS TO FIRE FEDERAL RESERVE GOVERNOR In Trump v. Cook, the justices are weighing whether Trump can dismiss Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. Based on January’s oral arguments, the court appears ready to give President Trump one of his biggest legal setbacks in office, offering strong support for Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook remaining in her leadership position — at least for now. The questions of presidential power deal with whether Trump has broad unilateral executive authority to fire someone from the central bank, despite its special status as a stand-alone federal agency. In arguments, most on the court seemed skeptical of Trump’s actions. “That’s your position that there’s no judicial review, no process required, no remedy available?” Justice Brett Kavanaugh told the Justice Department’s Solicitor General D. John Sauer. “Very low bar for ’cause’ that the president alone determines? I mean, that would weaken, if not shatter, the independence of the Federal Reserve.” But a separate case involving presidential firing authority, Trump v. Slaughter, could have even broader implications. Former Federal Trade Commission Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter is challenging her removal from the agency, setting up a direct test of a 1935 Supreme Court precedent set in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States that limits a president’s ability to fire members of independent regulatory commissions except only for “cause.” A ruling favoring the administration could strengthen presidential control over agencies that regulate everything from communications and consumer safety to labor policy and financial markets, and a ruling in Slaughter’s favor could greatly restrict the president’s powers. SUPREME COURT SHOWDOWN: TRUMP’S STRATEGY TO TEST LIMITS OF HIS POWER COULD SPELL DOOM FOR ADMINISTRATIVE STATE The stakes could be enormous for how the federal government is run. Independent regulatory agencies and boards help manage almost every aspect of American life — from transportation safety, labor relations and the environment to Social Security and finance. Agencies include the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Reserve. At issue is a federal law that caps coordinated spending between political parties and candidates running for Congress and the White House. The high court in recent years, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, has tossed aside congressionally enacted federal campaign spending limits. THE BIGGEST SUPREME COURT DECISIONS OF 2024: FROM PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY TO OVERTURNING THE CHEVRON DOCTRINE And the six conservative justices appear ready to do so again, and could upend a nearly quarter-century opinion

Party Poopers’ Fight Card: Jane Fonda, ‘No Kings,’ communists roll out rival spectacle to Trump’s 250th

Party Poopers’ Fight Card: Jane Fonda, ‘No Kings,’ communists roll out rival spectacle to Trump’s 250th

As President Donald Trump prepares to celebrate America’s 250th anniversary today with a UFC event at the White House, a national network of angry activists has assembled its own fight card: a celebrity concert headlined by Jane Fonda, hundreds of “watch parties,” local organizing events including a “RAGE AGAINST THE CAGE!” protest and a coordinated operation aimed at fighting Trump “through the midterm elections and beyond.” About 400 organizations in the “No Kings” coalition with combined annual revenues of about $3 billion have organized Sunday’s nationwide protest operation. Internal planning documents obtained by Fox News Digital show organizers’ plan to using the concerts, watch parties and local gatherings to build momentum for a political organizing network. At 4 p.m., in one of day’s many planned sideshows, “Refuse Fascism,” a pro-communism group, plans its “RAGE AGAINST THE CAGE!” protest at McPherson Square near the White House. UFC fighter Sean Strickland released a video on social media, saying he had booked a ticket to protest at the White House for allegedly being cut from the main event for criticizing the state of Israel and the war in Iran. “Ill bring a bullhorn,” he wrote in his social media post. Meanwhile, the Women’s March, a multi-millon-dollar nonprofit enterprise, has rented portable toilets that its staffers are setting up from noon to 6 p.m. at Farragut Square, blocks from the White House, for a protest dubbed “Dump on Trump.” A 16-page “No Kings Event Host Toolkit” describes June 14 as an opportunity to convert mass demonstrations into local political infrastructure. Organizers frame the event as a counter to Trump’s hosting of the White House UFC event, saying “we will be doing the real work of democracy.” The materials describe watch parties as “strategic community gatherings designed to build deep local connections and lay the grassroots infrastructure we need to defend our rights through the midterm elections and beyond.” Indivisible, a Democratic nonprofit funded by mega-donor George Soros, handed the headline role to the 88-year-old Fonda’s “Committee for the First Amendment,” which is hosting the day’s premiere counter-event in New York City at a 90-minute concert, “Rise Up, Sing Out: A Concert for the First Amendment,” starting at 7:30 pm. at a theater called “The Town Hall” on 43rd Street. This weekend, tickets in the orchestra section sold for $330.15. JANE FONDA SLAMMED DEMOCRATIC LEADERS AS ‘NOT GOOD ENOUGH’ IN FIGHT AGAINST TRUMP The “Committee for the First Amendment” describes itself as “a large collective of artists, storytellers, and cultural leaders” launched in October 2025 with about 500 leading figures from the entertainment industry. They invoked the name of a group established in 1947 by Hollywood celebrities, including Lauren Bacall, Frank Sinatra, Lucille Ball and Groucho Marx, to challenge Sen. Joe McCarthy’s investigations into the spread of communism in the U.S. and Hollywood. Later, some members of the original “Committee for the First Amendment” were identified as communist, and original members of the group wrote that they were duped into joining the effort. Ronald Reagan, then an actor, reportedly called committee member “suckers.” Actor Humphrey Bogart even published a politically frank column, headlined, “I’m No Communist,” urging fellow celebrities not to be “used as dupes by Commie organizations.” Fast forward to today, and the anti-Trump concert will feature left-wing activists including Fonda, whose controversial 1972 trip to communist North Vietnam earned her the nickname “Hanoi Jane” and sparked backlash from critics who accused her of aligning with the North Vietnamese communist regime during the Vietnam War. She’s scheduled to be joined in New York City by 1970s “godmother of punk” Patti Smith, actress Bette Midler, singer Rufus Wainwright, singer Sasha Allen, former MSNBC host Joy Reid and actor Wilson Cruz. JANE FONDA WARNS AMERICA FACES ‘EXISTENTIAL’ CRISIS AS SHE URGES TURNOUT AT ‘NO KINGS’ PROTESTS Organizers describe the event as “an uplifting evening of song, solidarity, and action” celebrating freedoms of “speech, religion, press, assembly, and protest.” But the internal planning documents reviewed by Fox News Digital show the concert is the public-facing component of a much broader anti-Trump organizing effort designed to be a funneling agent for “the midterm elections and beyond.” The day’s messaging guidance casts the June 14 showdown as an alternative political narrative of “people power.” “The lead-up to America’s 250th is a test of who we are,” the guidance goes. “President Trump is choosing self-promotion. We’re choosing community, participation and people power.” Organizers repeatedly frame the effort as direct counterprogramming to Trump’s event. One suggested message prepared for supporters states: “On June 14, President Trump hosts a UFC cage fight at the White House. The main event will be in our living rooms.” The “No Kings” coalition’s internal materials outline an extensive organizing apparatus. Host toolkits instruct local organizers to recruit co-hosts, appoint “greeters” and safety leads, collect attendee contact information, identify future organizers and schedule follow-up organizing meetings after the concert. One host guide tells organizers their goal is to “bring people in and move them to ongoing participation.” Another instructs hosts to determine “who might help you with organizing moving forward.” Before attendees leave, organizers are directed to create “a clearly defined plan” and schedule another organizing meeting within two weeks. Taken together, the documents show an effort focused not merely on a single day of protest but on building durable activist networks after June 14. The coalition’s messaging guidance makes that objective explicit. One recommended talking point states: “He wants attention. We’re building a movement.” At the same time, organizers stress legal compliance and message discipline. The protests include a “reimbursement” program, and the material explicitly states that it’s administered through Indivisible Civics, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit. In a departure from the clearly partisan nature of “No Kings” protests that have as an underlying theme that Trump is “a king,” the guidance for today states that events “cannot include lobbying or partisan political activity.” The reimbursement material reveals for the first time that participating groups may receive up to $500 in reimbursements for watch parties connected to