Iran Cartoon

NLRB educating foreign workers on union rights, critics see shield for illegal immigrants

WASHINGTON –  Congressional investigators say they’ve uncovered another attempt by the Obama administration to aid illegal immigrants in the U.S. – this time, by teaching foreign workers lessons on union organizing.
The National Labor Relations Board has entered into agreements with Mexico, Ecuador and the Philippines to teach workers from those countries in the United States their rights when it comes to union activity.
The agreements reportedly don’t distinguish between illegal and legal immigrants. But lawmakers are worried it’s part of an effort to shield illegal immigrants specifically, by encouraging them to join a union and get protection.
NLRB spokeswoman Jessica Kahanek explained to Fox News that under the National Labor Relations Act, “employees, whether documented or undocumented, are protected from retaliation due to union or other protected concerted activity."
That means employers could be charged for dismissing an illegal immigrant worker – if the firing is determined to be tied to the worker’s union activity
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, a Republican from Virginia, argued illegal immigrant workers could soon learn to exploit the system, creating a catch-22 for businesses.
“They could instead be charged with violating the National Labor Relations Act because someone will claim that they're doing it because the individual is engaged in unionization activities," Goodlatte said.
He also claimed the Obama administration was trying to keep the NLRB union education agreements, which were originally signed in 2013 and 2014, quiet.
"This is the first we've learned of this and it's the first that news organizations have learned of this -- and they didn't learn it because the administration came out and told them,” Goodlatte told Fox News.
“They learned about it because of leaked materials, and again, that is not the kind of transparency the American people expect of their government."
An NLRB official, though, disputed the notion that the agreement was a "new development or something that was intentionally being kept out of the news."
Yet it isn’t just the NLRB that could view union activity as a shield for illegal immigrants.
In June 2011, then-Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director John Morton issued a memo saying: “ICE officers, special agents and attorneys are reminded to exercise all appropriate discretion on a case-by-case basis when making detention and enforcement decisions in the cases . . . [of] individuals engaging in a protected activity related to civil or other rights (for example, union organizing).”
While this may serve as a way to boost union membership at a time when their numbers are trending downward, one activist said it will likely hurt U.S. citizen union members in the end.
"It seems that the union is almost selling out the interests of American workers and legal immigrant workers in order to boost its membership by appealing to illegal workers and getting the assistance of other countries in doing that,” Jessica Vaughan, of the Center for Immigration Studies, told Fox News.

Colorado double standard: Bakers should not be forced to make anti-gay cakes

Bill Jack wants to make one thing perfectly clear: Bakers should not be forced to make a cake that would violate their conscience or freedom of expression.
Jack, of Castle Rock, Colo., is making national headlines over an experiment he conducted in the wake of attacks on Christian business owners who refuse to provide services for same-sex marriages.
Last year, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled that the Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood unlawfully discriminated against a gay couple who wanted a wedding cake. Jack Phillips, the owner of the cake shop, is a devout Christian, and his attorneys argued that to force him to participate in the gay wedding would violate his religious beliefs.
The Civil Rights Commission saw it differently.
CLICK HERE TO FOLLOW TODD ON FACEBOOK FOR CONSERVATIVE CONVERSATION. 
So if Christian bakers who oppose gay marriage are compelled under law to violate their beliefs – what about bakers who support gay marriage? Would they be compelled to make an anti-gay marriage cake?
Jack, who is a devout Christian, asked three bakeries to produce two cakes – each shaped like an open Bible.
On one side of one cake he requested the words, “God hates sin – Psalm 45:7.” On the other side he wanted the words, “Homosexuality is a detestable sin – Leviticus 18:22.”
On the second cake he asked them to write another Bible verse: “While we were yet sinners Christ died for us – Romans 5:8” along with the words “God loves sinners.”
And finally, Jack wanted the bakers to create an image – two grooms holding hands, with a red “X” over them – the universal symbol for “not allowed.”
Now if you read the national news accounts of Jack’s experiment – you would’ve read that he wanted gay slurs written on the cakes. But that wasn’t true.
According to the commission’s own report, there’s no mention of Jack using any gay slurs – unless you consider Bible verses to be gay slurs.
Mark Silverstein, the legal director for Colorado’s chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, accused Jack of wanting obscenities written on the cakes.
“There’s no law that says that a cake-maker has to write obscenities in the cake just because the customer wants it,” he told the Associated Press.
Does the ACLU consider the Bible to be obscene?
As you probably guessed, the bakeries rejected Jack’s request for what some would call “anti-gay” cakes.
“If he wants to hate people, he can hate them not here in my bakery,” Azucar Bakery owner Marjorie Silva told 7NEWS. She called the writing and imagery “hateful and offensive.”
So Jack filed a discrimination complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission – just as the gay couple did in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case.
Using the commission’s logic – if a Christian baker is forced to violate his beliefs, shouldn’t all bakers be forced to violate theirs, too?
Absolutely not, says the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.
It ruled that Azucar did not discriminate against Jack based on his creed. It argued that the bakery refused to make the cakes because of the “derogatory language and imagery,” The Denver Channel reported.
Jack told me it’s a double standard – pure and simple.
“I think it is hypocritical,” he said. “It’s unequal treatment before the law. The Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act is being used to coerce businesses to participate in events that violate their consciences.”
Jack said he decided to conduct his experiment to prove the Colorado law was “only being applied to Christian business people.”
“Christians need to understand that this is the state of Christianity in the United States,” he said. “We are now second-class citizens. Our free speech is being censored.”
To be clear, Jack believes the bakeries had the right to deny him service. His point was to draw attention to the hypocrisy.
“I stand for liberty for all, not liberty for some,” he said. “If we don’t have liberty for all, then we have liberty for none.”
Alliance Defending Freedom is a religious liberty law firm that represents the Masterpiece Cakeshop.
It believes the Civil Rights Commission reached the right conclusion in Jack’s case, but it blasted the commission’s inconsistencies when it came to the case involving its client.
“The commission’s inconsistent rulings mean that the owners of these three cake shops may run them according to their beliefs, while Jack cannot,” ADF attorney Jeremy Tedesco said.
“These cake artists should not be forced to violate their conscience, but clearly the commission should have done the same for Jack Phillips,” he said. “He risks losing his lifelong business altogether if he continues to run it consistent with his faith. Such blatant religious discrimination has no place in our society.”
That’s a great point. If the owner of Azucar Bakery can run her business according to her beliefs – why can’t the owner of the Masterpiece Cakeshop?

Tea Party rivalry brewing between Cruz, Paul in 2016

Republican Sens. Ted Cruz and Rand Paul both tapped into the powerful Tea Party movement, fueled by frustration with big government and overspending, to win their seats in Congress.
Now, the two freshman senators find themselves competing directly for that same constituency as they seek the party nomination in the 2016 presidential race. And the Tea Party wave -- which Paul rode in 2010, followed by Cruz two years later -- may only be big enough for one of them this time around.
Paul, on Tuesday, formally announced his presidential bid, vowing to "take America back" and wielding a "message of liberty." In a fiery speech tapping into the same kind of Beltway frustration that boosted Republicans in 2010, Paul blamed both parties for Washington's dysfunction.
He and Cruz are now the only two announced candidates on the field. Though neither has come out brawling, an evident Paul-Cruz rivalry has simmered in recent months and is sure to grow as primary season gets underway.
The two so far have politely sparred, with Paul, of Kentucky, recently questioning whether Cruz’s message is broad enough to win.
"I guess what makes us different is probably our approach as to how we would make the party bigger," Paul told Fox News after Cruz, of Texas, officially announced his bid in late March. “Ted Cruz is a conservative, but it also goes to win-ability. And people will have to make a decision, which is the Republican who can not only excite the base but also bring new people into the party without giving up their principles."
On Tuesday, Cruz was cordial, saying he respects Paul's "talent" and "passion."
Cruz and Paul unsurprisingly agree on most issues -- from overhauling the federal tax code to repealing ObamaCare.
But the point where they diverge appears to be at the water’s edge of American politics.
"I'm a big fan of Rand Paul,” Cruz, considered more hawkish than Paul, recently told ABC News. “He and I are good friends [but] I don't agree with him on foreign policy."
To be sure, they clearly disagree on President Obama’s decision last year to restore diplomatic relations with Cuba.
At a recent summit in California sponsored by the Koch brothers-backed Freedom Partners, Paul argued that a half-century of economic embargoes have failed to remove leaders Fidel and Raul Castro.
But Cruz, a Cuban-American, said at the time: “The Castro brothers are brutal dictators.”
They have also disagreed on the tentative nuclear deal signed last week with Iran, though Paul now appears to align himself more with fellow Senate Republicans.
“This is the worst negotiation ever in the history of mankind,” Cruz said at the California summit (held before the deal was announced), warning of an Iranian nuclear strike in Tel Aviv, New York or Los Angeles.
Paul urged Cruz to have patience, asking, “Are you ready to send ground troops to Iran?”
However, Paul later joined Cruz and 44 other Republican senators in signing Arkansas GOP Sen. Tom Cotton’s letter to Iranian leaders saying a final deal must have congressional approval and suggesting one with Obama could end when he leaves office in January 2017.
And while Cruz and Paul differ on some foreign policy issues, they are surprisingly close on others including support of increased defense spending, which Paul formerly opposed, and arming Kurdish forces in the fight against the Islamic State, instead of sending U.S. ground troops to Iraq or Syria.
“The only people over there that can fight and have been showing some ability to fight are the Kurds,” Paul, who says he has been mischaracterized as an isolationist, recently told Yahoo News. “I would fund them directly.”
If Paul has an advantage within the party base, it is most obviously with the libertarian wing of the party, considering he continues to champion the ideals of individual liberty and less government put forth by his father, former presidential candidate and retired Texas GOP Rep. Ron Paul.
"Cruz and Paul must both appeal to the conservative wing of the GOP," David Payne, a Republican strategist and a senior vice president at Washington, D.C.-based Vox Global, said Monday. "But Paul also relies on a lot of excited primary voters who don’t call themselves 'conservative Republicans.' Consider all the libertarians or isolationists or younger political activists he can rally to his cause. This is his advantage over Cruz. .... Rand Paul is positioned to talk with the conservative GOP base while also expanding upon it more easily."
Paul supporters do not appear concerned that he could lose such backing in an effort to appeal to more primary voters.
“Rand Paul and his father each attract new people to the party in their own unique ways, yet they both share a deep passion for liberty,” Rand Paul Victory Committee spokesman Sergio Gor recently told The Washington Post. “Among the thousands of people Sen. Paul meets every month, the most enthused and energetic are usually those individuals who supported his father. The same individuals continue to stand with Rand.”
Cruz, a Southern Baptist and the son of preacher, has made faith a big part of his personal and political life and is clearly focused on winning the evangelical vote.
“God's blessing has been on America from the very beginning of this nation, and I believe God isn't done with America yet,” Cruz said on March 23 in announcing his candidacy for president, at the Christian college Liberty University, in Lynchburg, Va. “I believe in you. I believe in the power of millions of courageous conservatives rising up to re-ignite the promise of America.”
He also chose Easter weekend to run his first ad of the 2016 presidential election cycle.
“Were it not for the transformative love of Jesus Christ, I would have been raised by a single mom without my father in the household," Cruz says in the 30-second ad. “This is our fight, and that is why I’m running for president.”

Federal judge denies request to lift hold on Obama immigration action

A federal judge in Texas denied a Justice Department request Tuesday to lift his temporary hold on President Obama's executive action preventing the deportation of millions of illegal immigrants.
U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen refused to stay his Feb. 16 decision that granted a preliminary injunction requested by 26 states. The U.S. government wants the injunction lifted -- allowing Obama's action to proceed -- while it appeals Hanen's ruling to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court in New Orleans.
 In his order Tuesday denying the government's request, Hanen said the government hasn't "shown any credible reason for why this Directive necessitates immediate implementation."
There was no immediate comment from the White House.
The Justice Department has already asked the 5th Circuit to lift the injunction. The appeals court was scheduled to hear arguments on whether the injunction should be lifted on April 17.
The coalition of states has filed a lawsuit to overturn Obama's executive actions, which would prevent as many as 5 million people who are in the U.S. illegally from being deported. The states, led by Texas, argue that the action is unconstitutional and would force them to invest more in law enforcement, health care and education. The injunction is intended to stall Obama's actions while the lawsuit progresses through the courts.
"The Obama Administration’s blatant misrepresentations to the court about its implementation of expanded work permits for illegal immigrants under the President’s lawless amnesty plan reflects a pattern of disrespect for the rule of law in America," Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said in a statement. "As the judge has affirmed, once put into effect, President Obama’s executive amnesty program will be virtually impossible to reverse."
Justice Department attorneys argue that keeping the temporary hold harms "the interests of the public and of third parties who will be deprived of significant law enforcement and humanitarian benefits of prompt implementation" of the president's immigration action.
Obama announced the executive orders in November, saying a lack of action by Congress forced him to make sweeping changes to immigration rules on his own.
Before ruling on the injunction, Hanen said he first wanted to hear from federal prosecutors about allegations that the U.S. government had misled him about the implementation of part of the immigration plan.
The first of Obama's orders -- to expand a program that protects young immigrants from deportation if they were brought to the U.S. illegally as children -- had been set to take effect Feb. 18. The other major part would extend deportation protections to parents of U.S. citizens and permanent residents who have been in the country for several years. That provision was slated to begin on May 19.
Hanen issued his initial injunction believing that neither of those orders had taken effect. About a month later, the Justice Department confirmed that more than 108,000 people had already received three-year reprieves from deportation and work permits, but DOJ attorneys insisted the moves were made under 2012 guidelines that weren't blocked by the injunction. The DOJ apologized for any confusion, but Hanen seemed unconvinced during a hearing last month and threatened to sanction the attorneys.
He wrote Tuesday that while the federal government had been "misleading" on the subject, he would not immediately apply sanctions against the government, saying to do so would not be "in the interests of justice or in the best interest of this country" because the issue was of national importance and the outcome will affect millions of people.
"The parties' arguments should be decided on their relative merits according to the law, not clouded by outside allegations that may or may not bear on the ultimate issues in this lawsuit," Hanen wrote.
In a separate order Hanen, told the government it has until April 21 to file to the court and plaintiffs detailed information about its March advisory about the 108,000 three-year reprieves.
The order asks the government to produce "any and all drafts" of the advisory, including information on when each draft was written, edited or revised. Hanen also asked for a list of each person who knew about the advisory.