Tuesday, April 7, 2015

Rolling Stone Cartoon


From eye doctor to 2016 prospect, ‘Dr. Paul’ readies for big announcement


Still glum over the previous night's Final Four loss by the heavily favored Kentucky Wildcats, Sen. Rand Paul and fellow parishioners were given some Biblical perspective Sunday morning.
"If it weren't for Jesus, we'd all be one and done," a churchgoer at the Broadway United Methodist Church explained to nods of agreement at the start of Easter service.
When the service ended, Paul left the sanctuary, posed for one picture and shook a few hands while the other congregants quickly passed by without so much as a double take of the man in the nicely pressed suit. They were seemingly unaware that Paul, who had just worshipped with them, would in 48 hours announce his presidential ambitions in a nationally televised speech.
The Tuesday speech -- perhaps the most important of his political career -- didn't seem foremost on Paul's mind, either. Instead, it was getting behind the wheel of his American-made SUV and waiting for his wife Kelley and youngest son to emerge from the church tucked away inside an unassuming neighborhood.
The low-key family church outing (involving no aides, security or other hangers-on) is fully in line with the man Paul's Bowling Green friends describe.
"He's not the guy who makes a point of standing out in a crowd," Brian Strow explained.
In interviews with Fox News, Strow, an economics professor at Western Kentucky University, and other Paul friends talked about the man they've known for the past couple decades as simply "Rand" or "Dr. Paul" -- before he became the firebrand lawmaker known for his libertarian streak and, more recently, lofty ambitions.
"He was a good guy before he became senator," Rob Porter noted.
The Republican senator's arrival to Bowling Green, a place where people still wave to out-of-towners who pass by, has been fairly well documented. Growing up, Paul followed his parents from Pennsylvania to Texas before getting his medical degree in North Carolina with some time in Georgia, too. It was there that Paul met Kelley, but it's here in south-central Kentucky they've raised their three children.
"When I moved to Bowling Green -- [I was told if] you have a problem with your eye, you go see Dr. Paul," Travis Creed explained about his ophthalmologist friend and neighbor.
Another friend figures that Paul's early focus on his medical practice and parental responsibilities kept him from fully engaging in politics. But Paul still had his eye on shaping public policy.
In 2004, Strow was running for a spot on the city commission when he says Paul, whom he had never met, cold-called him offering assistance. Paul explained that he liked some of the positions Strow was taking -- especially on taxes -- and offered to host a fundraiser.
Strow won the race but says the measure of Paul's character shined through when the city was considering a proposal to publicly bankroll a $25 million stadium for a minor league baseball team. Paul opposed the idea. Strow voted for it anyway.
"That annoyed Rand to no end," Strow recalled with a slight chuckle. Strow then added that Paul didn't hold a personal grudge or needlessly needle his new friend about that vote. "It speaks well of him."
Similarly, Paul opposed a property tax hike Warren County Executive Mike Buchanon felt was necessary.
"I always found him direct and honest even when he disagreed with me," Buchanon said. "He's a very serious guy about the things you're supposed to be serious about."
While some were surprised about Paul's decision to run for Senate five years ago, Porter, a banker in Bowling Green, said he saw signs that Paul's political ambitions were calling.
First, Paul was regularly writing letters to newspaper editors -- usually about taxes since he founded an advocacy group dedicated to fighting increased taxation. Then in 2008, Paul's father, former Rep. Ron Paul, made a run for the White House.
"People saw in Rand, maybe, a place for him on the U.S. stage while speaking for his dad" during that campaign, Porter said.
The rap on Paul by some of his detractors is that he's out of the mainstream and in some ways an isolationist, though it's a label he denies. If he enters, as expected, on Tuesday, he'll automatically be in a race against the hawkish Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who has announced his presidential bid and is sure to challenge Paul on his national security credentials.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., another security-focused Republican weighing a bid, took a few swipes at Paul during a local Chamber of Commerce event in South Carolina on Monday, accusing his fellow senator of having a foreign policy "to the left of President Obama." It's a narrative Paul would have to confront early on in the primaries.
But if Paul were to run and win the White House, there's at least one thing about him that's in the mainstream of modern presidents: He's a golfer.
Paul has a reputation as a good player, often shooting in the 80's. He likes to walk and is chatty on the course. Before his Senate election, he frequently played at the Bowling Green Country Club -- which is more country than club -- on the outskirts of town.
Fox News is told Paul can be competitive on the course where he'll work on a swing tip he's picked up or engage in some good-natured trash talking with a member of his foursome. This is especially true if there's something at stake on the outcome of the match -- often a Diet Coke.
When the round's done, Paul isn't likely to linger too long at the course. As one friend described, "daddy duty" encourages a swift departure to take his boys to sporting events, practices or other school-related activities.
The Paul family lives in a gated community 10 minutes from downtown. Friends describe it as a tight-knit neighborhood where summer cookouts are popular.
"Kelley is very engaging and social," Porter said. "She makes you feel at home in their house."
The kitchen and a back deck, which overlooks a community pond, tend to be the gravity points for everyone to gather. It's in this setting that Porter says "[Rand]'s really become a Kentuckian," sipping bourbon with his guests.
It shouldn't be a surprise that the friends Fox News spoke with support Paul's expected presidential bid.
"I want Rand to succeed in politics," Strow said. "But if he doesn't, I'll be happy to have my eye doctor back."

Unions battle for survival in key strongholds as court cases challenge forced dues


The future of public and private unions in two big labor-friendly states may be at stake as foes mount aggressive legal challenges over the long-controversial practice of mandatory dues.
The court cases in Illinois and California revolve around so-called "fair share" payments, or the dues unions extract from workers whose jobs stand to benefit from collective bargaining -- whether or not the workers are technically union members. Unions argue workers should have to pay their "fair share" of the costs of negotiating and administering a union contract, so they’re not getting a free ride from the union’s efforts.
But workers are often surprised to see money taken from their paychecks, without their consent.
“I really found out about it when I got my first paycheck and there was the fair share that was pulled out,” said Mark Janus, who works as a child support specialist with the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services.  
The fees taken out of Janus’ check amounted to about $46 a month, every month, for the eight years he’s been on the job. “I figured I’d paid over $4,000 so far,” he said. The money Janus unintentionally paid went to the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, also known as AFSCME, which represents employees in his office.
Janus is now one of three plaintiffs who have joined with Republican Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner in a lawsuit to overturn the state's so-called fair share law.
“I don't feel that the union represents me 100 percent in what I believe and what I like to do,” Janus explained. “And nobody asked me if I wanted to join the union, they just said 'here's a job, you're in the union.'"
The intention of the lawsuit is to get a federal judge in Chicago, and ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court, to declare the fee for non-member dues unconstitutional.
In addition, Rauner issued an executive order with the same purpose.
“This is a fundamental issue protecting employees’ rights, their freedom of speech, and their rights as employees,” Rauner said.
But Tim Drea, the Illinois AFL-CIO secretary treasurer, said “all state employees benefit from what the unions do on wages and bargaining ... health care and pension benefits.”
While the fair share law requires that no money raised from the fees be used by the unions for political purposes, Rauner said that’s not possible when it comes to a state employees union.
“By their very nature government political activities are political. They’re inside the government and advocating with politicians, so by definition it’s all political,” Rauner told Fox News.
On the West Coast, a similar battle is taking place that some claim could put an end to the teachers' union.
In Friedrich v. California Teachers’ Association, 10 teachers filed suit over a state law requiring dues to the union they don’t support. The teachers said the law violates their constitutional rights.
The fair-share labor law was formed as a result of a 1977 court case called Abood v. The Detroit Board of Education. In that case, public school teachers in Detroit sought to overturn a requirement that they pay dues to the teachers' union on the grounds they didn’t support the union activities or collective bargaining.  
The court sided with the unions and determined that non-members can be charged fees, though the money from fees could not be used for political purposes.  
Since that decision came down, about half the states in the U.S. -- the ones that are not right-to-work states -- require workers in union-backed jobs who don’t want to join a union to pay their “fair share.”  
In the Midwest, where auto workers, Teamsters and other unions have had a stronghold for years, the right-to-work plan has been met with massive protests and multiple court battles -- yet right-to-work laws have passed in Michigan, Wisconsin and Indiana.
Now that battle lines are being draw in Illinois, the Land of Lincoln state may become the last stand in America’s heartland for the unions. Without a policy of mandatory dues, unions anywhere stand to lose revenue and members.
“In half the other states in the U.S., government workers have a right to choose whether they will give money to a union. In Illinois, government workers don't have the right to make that choice,” said Jacob Huebert, an attorney for the Liberty Justice Center, which is representing plaintiffs in the Illinois lawsuit.
Huebert said he’s encouraged to test the issue because of the court’s response to another challenge to the union dues requirement by an Illinois woman named Pam Harris.
Harris didn’t want to have to pay dues to a state workers union just because she’d taken on a job as home health care worker for her mentally and physically disabled son. The Supreme Court ruled that Harris was not a state employee and therefore didn’t have to pay dues.
As part of its opinion in the Harris case, the court stated that the Abood decision may not withstand a challenge. The Liberty Justice Center was inspired to mount that challenge.
Labor leaders, who plan to “mount a vigorous defense” to the lawsuits, claim opponents are just trying to weaken and choke off unions in general, especially in Illinois where negotiations for a new contract are taking place.
Drea said he feels confident the court will rule in favor of the fair-share decision, but he worries the continuous battle resulting in right-to-work states “is just a further continuation of the race to the bottom” for Americans.
Drea also warned that a blow to the unions would be a blow to middle-class America. “We believe the unions built the middle class and we're going to do everything we can to make sure the middle class survives,” he said.
The Supreme Court may decide before summer whether to take on the California case.  
As for the Illinois case, a federal judge in Chicago will decide on it first, though the plaintiffs hope it eventually makes it to the high court as well.   

Obama administration claims Iran deal a ‘forever agreement,’ despite expiration dates


The Obama administration mounted a new argument Monday for why skeptical lawmakers and U.S. allies should back the preliminary nuclear agreement with Iran, calling it a “forever agreement” that would block all pathways to a nuclear weapon and set up tough international inspections with no end date.
Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, in a rare appearance at the White House press briefing, used that term in defending the deal he helped strike in Switzerland.
“I want to say this is not an agreement for 10 years or 15 years or 20 years. It is a long-term agreement with a whole set of phases,” he said. “And if Iran earns over this time period trust and confidence in their peaceful objectives, well then over time the constraints will, in phases, ease up, but never get lower than the additional protocol and all of the access that it provides.
“So that's the way we’re thinking about it. It's not a fixed-year agreement. It's a forever agreement in a certain sense, with different stages.”
Yet, as Moniz acknowledged, the fact-sheet circulated by the White House last week includes a series of expiration dates for key components of the deal.
This includes:
  • A commitment by Iran to reduce its centrifuges by two-thirds and enrich uranium with only 5,060 of them for 10 years. 
  • A commitment by Iran not to enrich uranium at the Fordo facility for at least 15 years. 
  • A commitment by Iran not to build any new facilities to enrich uranium for 15 years. 
Asked Monday how this could be considered “forever,” White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said they were referring to how Iran would have to submit to a new set of intrusive nuclear inspections, as part of provisions that have “no end date.”
Moniz likewise pointed to these comprehensive inspections – part of what he called “unprecedented” access and transparency -- in calling this a “forever agreement.” (Some of those inspection requirements still have end-dates on them, though much further out than 10 or 15 years.)
Moniz, a nuclear physicist, spoke at the White House as the Obama administration ramped up its campaign for a framework deal with Iran that has drawn criticism from congressional Republicans, the Israeli government and skeptical Arab allies of the U.S.
Under the agreement, Moniz said, all plutonium created as a byproduct of Iran's nuclear power production would be sent out of the country so it couldn't be used to make weapons. And international inspectors would watch over all stages to ensure Tehran sticks to the agreement. "This is not built upon trust, this is built upon hard-nosed requirements," Moniz said.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been among the most vocal critics in airing concerns about how certain terms of the deal last for just 10 years.
For the near term, though, the Obama administration is perhaps most concerned about selling this deal to Congress, where lawmakers are set to soon consider bipartisan legislation giving Congress a say on any Iran deal.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., on Monday reiterated some of his concerns with the deal, citing the timeline spelled out in the framework unveiled last week.
“The parameters of the interim deal, in essence, establish an internationally recognized, 10-year nuclear research and development program. Until we know more about Iran's previous research, no nation can be sure of what Iran may have developed covertly already,” he said in a statement. McConnell vowed that the Senate would “respond legislatively” with the congressional review bill, which is set for a committee vote next week.
House Speaker John Boehner, meanwhile, linked from his Twitter page to a first-hand account of his call last week with Obama on the agreement.
“It would be naïve to suggest the Iranian regime will not continue to use its nuclear program, and any economic relief, to further destabilize the region,” Boehner said. “In the weeks ahead, Republicans and Democrats in Congress will continue to press this administration on the details of these parameters and the tough questions that remain unanswered. We will stand strong on behalf of the American people and everyone in the Middle East who values freedom, security, and peace.”
Obama continues to staunchly defend the framework agreement worked out with other world powers as a "once-in-a-lifetime opportunity" to prevent an Iranian bomb and bring longer-term stability to the Middle East. He insists the U.S. would stand by Israel if it were to come under attack, but acknowledged that his pursuit of diplomacy with Tehran has caused strain with the close ally.
"It's been a hard period," Obama said in an interview with New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman. He added that it is "personally difficult" for him to hear his administration accused of not looking out for Israel's interests.
The framework reached with Iran last week clears the way for negotiators to hammer out technical details ahead of a June 30 deadline for a final deal.
He reiterated his opposition to the legislation that would give the U.S. Congress final say in approving or rejecting a deal, but said he hoped to find a path to allow Congress to "express itself."
Earnest on Monday urged Congress to at least wait until June to pass judgment on the plan, while still opposing any up-or-down vote in Congress.

State GOP lawmakers working to roll back gun restrictions after midterm wins


Conservatives emboldened by election victories are working to roll back gun restrictions in several states, while those on the other side of the debate are claiming success elsewhere in passing initiatives related to gun background checks.
On the pro-gun spectrum, for example, Kansas Governor Sam Brownback last week signed a bill to allow Kansans to carry concealed weapons in the state without training or a permit.
Second Amendment Foundation founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb told Fox News, "I think the voters spoke pretty loud and clear in November and elected a pretty pro-gun rights Congress as well as many statehouses across the country and we're seeing now lots of bills being sponsored...".
On the other side, Shannon Watts, founder of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, said her group is focused on initiatives it can win with voters, rather than legislators.
"In 2013, we helped close the background check loophole in six states," Watts  said. "In 2014, we helped pass laws in red and blue states to keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers."
Watts also pointed to the overwhelming passage of Initiative 594 by voters in Washington state last fall. That law expands the federal background check requirement for gun sales to private dealers, such as those now found at gun shows.
"The gun lobby has been so insidious in this country in taking away the responsibilities that go along with gun rights," Watts said. She added in an interview with Fox News that the National Rifle Association (NRA) has an annual budget of $350 million.
The NRA said that while its operating budget is close to that figure, a "small fraction" -- approximately $20 million -- goes toward what it calls 'political activity,' with the bulk spent on safety and training programs.
Moms Demand Action works with Everytown for Gun Safety, which is bankrolled by former New York City mayor and billionaire, Michael Bloomberg.
Chris W. Cox, executive director of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA), told Fox News, "Billionaire Michael Bloomberg's tactics may be new, but the fight is the same. The NRA and our five million members stand ready to defend the Second Amendment wherever the battlefield. The majority of Americans do not want more gun control and we will fight tooth and nail to expose Bloomberg's lies and defeat his extreme gun control agenda. "
Prior to those comments, Watts explained her group's mission is about education." We're not anti-gun, we're not against the Second Amendment. We're about responsibilities that come along with gun rights and that includes things like background checks and keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people," she said.
Gottleib, who lives in Washington state where the Second Amendment Foundation is based, acknowledged he is aware of Everytown's tactics for voter initiatives, adding "...our big concern is buying ballot measures."
Part of the reason so much action is currently being seen at the state level is the sheer immobility on Capitol Hill. Currently, four national reciprocity bills, three in the House, one in the Senate, are before Congress. Passage of any of them would treat conceal carry permits much like driver's licenses - no matter the state in which it was issued, it would be valid nationwide.
But the NRA says right now it is looking more toward 2016 than this year's congressional session. These pieces of legislation need to garner a veto-proof majority because, "We have a president that hates the Second Amendment", said Jennifer Baker, a spokeswoman for the NRA.
Watts compared the battle over gun rights to a marathon, not a sprint. "We're not going to find a law to fix every single problem in this country, right. Not every law stops every crime. But what we can do is put more laws in place to ensure things like background checks are happening," she said.
And as the NRA holds its annual meeting later this week in Nashville, where several presidential contenders are expected to speak, the opposition has its sights set on the future as well. "We're feeling a huge amount of momentum," Watts said. "Momentum around gun safety in this country and we believe that will continue into 2016 and beyond.”

CartoonsTrashyDemsRinos