Liberal Democrat Cartoons

Recently convicted Texas Democrat now facing divorce

The wife of Texas state Sen. Carlos Uresti, D-San Antonio, filed divorce papers one week after his conviction on corruption charges, a report said.

Troubles continue to mount for a Texas Democrat who was recently convicted on 11 federal counts of money laundering and wires and securities fraud. On Friday the wife of state Sen. Carlos Uresti filed for divorce.

Margaret “Lleanna” Uresti submitted legal papers in Bexar County District Court, the San Antonio Express-News reported. The couple have been married for six years.

Uresti, 54, served as her lawyer during her 2008 divorce from her previous husband, the newspaper reported. Margaret Uresti is 12 years the senator’s junior, the report said.
The Urestis’ marital trouble comes as the San Antonio lawmaker faces pressure to resign from his seat in the Texas Senate, and as his license to practice law is in jeopardy.
In addition, he could face as much as 20 years in prison, plus restitution, when he is sentenced in June.
During Uresti’s corruption trial, prosecutors said he and a co-defendant lied to investors to make money for a fracking sand company that went bankrupt in 2015.
Meanwhile, the Daily Beast recently reported that Uresti faces a separate bribery trial in May, and also faces accusations of sexual harassment from several women.
Those women include a reporter who claimed Uresti groped her and “put his tongue down my throat,” and a data director at the state Democratic Party who said he ogled her.
“We were being introduced and when we shook hands, he spun me around and said something like, ‘Damn, girl -- you’re trouble,’” Jenn Cervella told the Daily Beast.
Another woman claimed that Uresti asked her in the middle of a staircase at the state Capitol whether she was wearing a polka-dot thong. Uresti had denied a number of allegations to the Daily Beast when some women came forward in December, but did not respond to the outlet for comment on the latest claims against him.
Uresti could not be reached Friday for comment about his wife’s divorce petition, the Express-News reported.

PBS to launch conservative talk show April 13

Amy Holmes and Michael Gerson will co-host "In Principle," which PBS says will be a conservative-oriented talk show.

PBS, the public television network long accused of having a liberal bias, plans to launch a weekly conservative-oriented talk show April 13.

“In Principle” will feature hosts Michael Gerson and Amy Holmes, who plan to interview two guests each Friday on topics including race, gun control and whether conservatism is the right message for the working class.

“I find when I go around the country that there is actually a hunger for serious, civil dialogue as an alternative to the bitterness of our civic discourse," said Gerson, a columnist who has been a frequent guest on “PBS NewsHour.”
"We need a place where we can have thoughtful, reasonable, in-depth conversations about politics, policy, culture — you name it — where we're really talking to each other instead of shouting at each other," said Holmes, who has appeared on Fox News Channel and worked for Glenn Beck’s “The Blaze.”
While Gerson has often found himself at odds with President Donald Trump, he said Holmes more often takes the president's side, or acts as the "anti-anti-Trump."
"I think the Trump era has been a very difficult time for traditional conservative discourse," he said. "I think a lot of institutions and places have been co-opted in this era. I view conservatism not only as a belief but a state of mind, a respect for tradition but also a respect for facts."

"I view conservatism not only as a belief but a state of mind, a respect for tradition but also a respect for facts."

- Michael Gerson, co-host of "In Principle," on PBS

“In Principle” arrives just weeks after the White House unveiled a 2019 federal budget proposal that would eliminate all federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which distributes allocations to PBS and NPR.
The Trump administration contends that the broadcasters’ “non-federal” funding sources make public subsidies unnecessary, Fox News reported.
“In Principle” will originate from PBS’s WETA-TV studio outside Washington. The chief programming executive at WETA, Dalton Delan, will be executive producer.

Supreme Court needs to clarify gun rights under the Second Amendment

The debate about how to deal with guns in our country rages on in the wake of the shooting deaths of 14 students and three adults at a Florida high school Feb. 14.

We are again confronting the challenge of remaining faithful to the unalienable right to life articulated in the Declaration of Independence – a challenge that the Constitution demands we protect from two angles.

By seeking to “insure domestic tranquility,” the government has an obligation to protect us from violence. But by acknowledging “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” it also recognizes the need for individuals to protect themselves by means of self-defense.
We must have a conversation about how to navigate the tension between these two realities. It should involve everyone in our society and within our government. President Trump is talking about it. Congress is talking about it. The media, educators and citizens are talking about it.
But one potential participant remains conspicuously silent: the United States Supreme Court. On Feb. 20, the Supreme Court refused to hear the 9^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals case Silvester v. Becerra. That case concerned a California law requiring a 10-day waiting period before purchasing a firearm.
The challenge to the law said it should not apply to people who previously had gone through the background check process and now sought to buy an additional gun. The 9^th Circuit Court upheld the 10-day waiting period.
Regardless of this case’s particular merits, the high court’s denial represents a larger pattern. For nearly a decade, the court has refused to rule on the constitutionality of gun regulations in a systematic fashion.
The justices’ reticence is both strange and problematic. It is strange in light of prior decisions. A decade ago, in the 2008 case of D.C. v. Heller, the Supreme Court interpreted the Second Amendment to the Constitution for the first time as protecting the right of an individual to own a gun. But far from making this right absolute, the court declared that limits existed to gun ownership.
What exactly were those limits? The court didn’t really say.
Beyond affirming that “longstanding prohibitions” could continue, Justice Antonin Scalia refused to give details when the Heller decision was announced. No need to do so, he said, “since this case represents this Court’s first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment, one should not expect it to clarify the entire field … there will be time enough to expound upon the historical justifications for the exceptions we have mentioned if and when those exceptions come before us.”
It seemed that the court, having established the baseline of an individual right, expected a series of future cases to draw the lines for how to balance gun safety and gun rights. The court ruled in 2010 that the Second Amendment applied to the states in McDonald v. City of Chicago. 
However, the decision in the McDonald case didn’t break much new ground on the content of the right itself. Instead, it merely kicked the can of further definition down the road. After that case, when given numerous options to further delineate the Second Amendment, the court has refused – again and again.
The Supreme Court’s failure to define the scope of gun rights is problematic because it leaves too much unsettled. The Heller and McDonald decisions opened up myriad questions about gun rights and their regulation without settling on a standard by which to judge gun laws.
This means that, absent further precedent, lower courts possess little guidance in how to rule on competing claims, which in turn has given rise to confusion.
As Justice Clarence Thomas pointed out when objecting to the latest court refusal to hear the Silvester case, there is a great disparity in the standards exercised by lower courts in gun cases. While some judges seek to impose a more stringent standard on gun laws, others – like many on the 9^th Circuit Court – adopt a “deferential analysis” that accepts as valid nearly any regulation.
The Supreme Court once argued that “liberty finds no refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt.” That remains true for gun owners, who are subject to the accident of whatever lower court judge’s jurisdiction they happen to live in.
It is also true for legislators, who are left without guidelines to follow when crafting legislation. But it is especially true for the victims of gun violence.
Liberty does not find a refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt, and neither does life. The Supreme Court cannot and should not try to settle every detail of gun policy. But it should begin to fulfill the promise made in the Heller case.
The nation’s highest court should seek to further describe what it believes the Second Amendment protects regarding gun ownership and what the amendment allows for gun regulations. The high court should also police lower courts to hold them accountable to those standards.
In so doing, the Supreme Court can make its own needed contribution to the present conversation. It can bring the Constitution to bear in its own way in the gun debate.
Above all, the Supreme Court can play a part in furthering the right that proponents of gun regulation and of gun protection both seek – a right that has been so desecrated by our seemingly endless school shootings: the unalienable right to life.

The incredible Trump agenda -- What most Americans don't know about the war the president has waged

President Trump’s style has dismayed many on the right as well as the left. But when it comes to actions, conservatives find much too delight them.

While the 2016 presidential elections were underway, policy analysts at The Heritage Foundation (my employer and one of the nation’s leading think tanks) compiled a six-volume series of conservative, research-based policy recommendations for the next president.

The recommendations were calculated to help the incoming president and Congress jumpstart the economy, strengthen national security and halt the increasing centralization of power in the federal government.
At the end of 2017, we reviewed all 334 recommendations presented in our “Mandate for Leadership” series and found that the Trump administration had embraced fully 64 percent of them. That’s nearly two out of three – and that’s very good indeed.

From pulling America out of the unaffordable and unworkable Paris Protocol on Climate Change to ending the damaging Obama era regulations on net neutrality, the Trump administration has advanced a broad conservative agenda on dozens more fronts in 2017.

Most Americans are already familiar with some of the conservative agenda items adopted in the last year.
The once-in-a-generation tax reform passed in December, for example, reflected the fundamental changes we recommended to transform the tax code from one that penalized economic growth to one that promotes it. Already, the American people have begun to reap the benefits: higher take-home pay, tax cut-fueled bonuses and a burgeoning job market.
And many are aware of how Congress acted on another key recommendations to exercise its authority under the long-ignored Congressional Review Act (CRA) to overturn ill-considered rules implemented by regulatory agencies. During the first few months of its session, Congress used CRA resolutions to eliminate 14 major rules finalized by the Obama administration in its waning days.
But relatively few Americans are aware that the president has waged his own war on over-regulation. For example, President Trump has lifted the Obama-era moratorium on coal leases on federal lands. And he has instructed executive branch agencies to review and reconsider pending rules, with a goal of eliminating two regulations for every new one implemented.
By year’s end, the Trump administration had withdrawn or delayed 1,500 proposed regulations. It has made a difference. On Dec. 14, the administration reported that the regulatory rollback had saved the American economy $8.1 billion, and would save another $9.8 billion in fiscal 2019.
Conservatives cheered the nomination and confirmation of Neil Gorsuch, a strong constitutionalist, to the U.S. Supreme Court. And President Trump followed this up with many other outstanding judicial appointments.
By the end of 2017, the Senate had confirmed 12 circuit court of appeals judges – the largest number of appellate judges confirmed during the first year of any president in history. Why does that matter? Because most federal cases stop at the appellate level. Only one of every 700 cases heard by these courts goes on to the Supreme Court.
President Trump has eschewed President Obama’s practice of filling these slots with activist judges who interpret the laws as what they think the laws should say, rather than as they are actually written. It’s a huge change – and a tremendous boost for the rule of law.
From pulling America out of the unaffordable and unworkable Paris Protocol on Climate Change to ending the damaging Obama era regulations on net neutrality, the Trump administration has advanced a broad conservative agenda on dozens more fronts in 2017.
Yes, there is much more work to do. The Senate badly fumbled ObamaCare repeal last year, leaving millions of Americans saddled with increasingly unaffordable health coverage. Welfare reform remains a major challenge, and restoring some sense of fiscal responsibility to Washington seems as elusive as ever.
But make no mistake, 2017 was a banner year for conservative policy victories. On that score, President Trump can confidently stack his record right up there next to President Reagan’s first year.
The politicians and pundits of the left would lead you to believe that the administration has been just as distracted and discombobulated by the president’s tweets as they have been. But the scores of principled conservatives President Trump has brought into the executive branch have very much kept their eye on the ball. The conservative agenda is marching forward.
Thomas Binion is the director of congressional and executive branch relations for The Heritage Foundation.

Union Liberal Worker Cartoons

Marc Thiessen: It's time to protect public workers from unions who want them to finance their liberal agenda

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) is ostensibly a public worker union. In truth, it is nothing more than an appendage of the Democratic Party. One hundred percent of its political contributions go to Democrats, and it works tirelessly to increase government spending and stop Republicans who want to reform state government.

Should AFSCME be able to force public workers who disagree with its liberal agenda to pay union dues and support it? That was the question before the Supreme Court this week, when justices heard oral arguments in Janus v. AFSCME, a case brought by Illinois child-support specialist Mark Janus, who argues that forcing him to contribute to union coffers violates his First Amendment rights by compelling him to support speech with which he disagrees.

Public worker unions cannot compel nonmembers to directly pay for political activities, but in states that have not passed "right to work" laws, they can force public employees to pay an "agency fee" to support the union's collective bargaining efforts. Of course, the union gets to decide what spending is political, and the fees are usually between 80 and 100 percent of union dues. Moreover, to stop paying for the union's political activities, workers must proactively object -- and then get a partial refund of what the union claims is the extent of its political spending.
This is a scam. The unions know that if they cannot compel workers to pay union dues, most will choose not to do so. In Indiana, when then-Gov. Mitch Daniels (R) signed a "paycheck protection" law barring forced collection of union dues, only 5 percent of state employees chose to continue paying -- and public worker union membership dropped from 16,408 in 2005 to just 1,490 in 2011. In Wisconsin, when Gov. Scott Walker (R) passed Act 10, which included paycheck protection, AFSCME membership fell by more than half -- from 62,818 in 2011 to 28,745 the following year. Other public worker unions faced similar losses in membership. And those losses have been sustained. According to a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel analysis, by 2016 Wisconsin had "132,000 fewer union members, mostly teachers and other public workers -- enough to fill Lambeau Field and Miller Park, with thousands more tailgating outside." (Disclosure: I have co- written a book with Walker.)
Apparently, when you don't force workers to stay in a union, many choose to leave.
Janus wants the same freedom to choose. He argues that all spending by public-sector unions is political spending. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. seemed sympathetic to this type of argument in a similar case that deadlocked two years ago after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, noting that even negotiations over wages affect the state budget. "The amount of money that's going to be allocated to public education as opposed to public housing, welfare benefits, that's always a public policy issue," he said.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy got to the heart of the matter this week, when he asked AFSCME lawyer David Frederick, "If you do not prevail in this case, the unions will have less political influence?" Frederick admitted they would. "Isn't that the end of this case?" Kennedy asked. Yes, it is. As Kennedy put it, the question before the court is whether states can "mandate people that object to certain union policies to pay for the implementation of those policies against their First Amendment interests."
Liberals say conservatives are trying to use the court to break the power of public-sector unions. But if the only way they can maintain their political power is through coercion, then they don't deserve that power in the first place. The reason so many workers quit when given the chance is because they know the unions use their power not to benefit workers but to enrich themselves. In Wisconsin, the teachers unions used collective bargaining to force school districts to buy health plans from union-affiliated insurers at inflated prices, when they could have gotten much cheaper insurance on the open market. Once the unions' coercive power was broken and school districts were able to open their health insurance to competitive bidding, they saved $404.8 million over five years -- money they were able to put into merit pay increases for teachers, and other classroom improvements.
Public union bosses want that money for themselves. They want to dictate spending decisions to state and local governments, and collect compulsory union dues to perpetuate their political power and line their coffers. The Supreme Court can end this unconstitutional coercion. The only way unions will be hurt by this is if the workers they claim to represent reject them. arc Thiessen is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). Thiessen served as chief speechwriter to President George W. Bush and to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Suspect in 'white powder' letter to Trump Jr. donated to Dems, posted anti-Trump rants on Facebook

Daniel Frisiello, of Beverly, Mass., is accused of sending five letters with white powder, including to Donald Trump Jr., in early February.  (Facebook)

The Massachusetts man who allegedly mailed a white powder to Donald Trump Jr. has previously donated to a Democratic political action committee and shared anti-Trump posts on social media, including comparing President Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler.

Daniel Frisiello, 24, was arrested Thursday after authorities tracked him down following the examination of a “glitter bomb” letter sent to Stanford University law professor Michele Dauber. Investigators matched the text font from the letter to other threats sent to those seen on the letters of the white-powder envelopes.

Authorities said the letter included a threatening note that read: “You are an awful, awful person. I am surprised that your father lets you speak on TV. You the family idiot. Eric looks smart."
Trump Jr.’s wife, Vanessa Trump, opened the letter in the couple’s New York City apartment Feb. 12 and reported feeling nauseous and coughing. President Trump’s daughter-in-law and two other people were taken to a hospital in the incident.
The letter was postmarked in Boston on Feb. 7, had an American flag stamp and no return address. The powder was ultimately determined to be corn starch, the Associated Press reported.
Frisiello is accused of sending a total of five letters filled with white powder and faces charges of mailing a threat to injure the person of another and false information and hoaxes.
MAN ARRESTED FOR SENDING WHITE POWDER TO DONALD TRUMP JR.’S NYC APARTMENT
Frisiello’s Facebook account and other public information suggest strong hostility toward the Trump family and Republicans and sympathy toward Democratic causes, prompting him to even donate despite being reportedly unemployed.

Daniel Frisiello compares President Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler.  (Facebook)

In April 2016, he contributed $75 to ActBlue, a political action committee that works to raise money online for Democratic candidates and committees, according to the Federal Election Commission (FEC). The address on the contribution matches Frisiello’s home address. The donation lists him as “not employed.”
On social media, the man – registered as a Democrat – compared President Trump, whom he also branded as the “Dark Lord, at least twice to Adolf Hitler, sharing photos from hyper-partisan left-wing Facebook pages. In another instance, he called Trump an “Adolf Hitler wannabe.”

Daniel Frisiello, a registered Democrat, made a series of inflammatory Facebook posts.  (Facebook)

Another shared photo shows a Ku Klux Klan rally in Washington, D.C., in the 1920s, but is captioned “a sneak peek of Trump’s inauguration.”
Frisiello also takes an indirect shot at first lady Melania Trump, sharing a British newspaper article claiming Trump is a “mentally ill narcissist” and noting that this “Explains his kids and the women he chooses.”
On Dec. 16, 2016, the accused man also speculated that the unsealing of the Clinton email probe search warrant would show that “Russia, [then-FBI Director] Comey and Trump were in on this horrific act.”
But Frisiello also has posted bizarre rants against his own party. He criticized Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., after she said was disappointed that a father was prevented from punching Larry Nassar, the disgraced sports doctor accused of molesting more than 260 women and girls.
Stabenow was reportedly an addressee of one of the white powder letters.
“Good god now the democrats are going off the rails,” Frisiello wrote Feb. 8. “This is not the democratic means and I am embarrassed to be in part of the same party as her, because I am not her. I would be offended if anyone I know in the democratic party has the dame[sic] feelings and thoughts of this imbecile of a senator!”
Many social media users mocked Frisiello after it appeared that he shared a news story Feb. 12 about a his alleged crime of sending a threatening letter to Trump Jr. filled with white powder.
“Dude you actually posted about your own crime? Get help you,” one person commented yesterday below Frisiello post.
“Darwin Award,” wrote another person, referring to a tongue-in-cheek award recognizing people who have contributed to human evolution by selecting themselves out of the gene pool by their own actions.

Dow plummets 420 points after Trump announces steel tariffs

Stocks plunged Thursday after President Trump announced plans to slap tariffs on steel and aluminum imports.

The Dow closed more than 420 points down after the announcement. Trump said the tariffs will level the playing field for American companies and help them expand after plant closings in recent years.

Trump made the dramatic announcement after participating in a listening session with 15 representatives from the steel and aluminum industry. Following the comments, the Dow Jones industrial average dropped as much as 500 points Thursday.
"You will have protection for the first time in a long while and you are going to regrow your industries," Trump told the executives. "That's all I'm asking. You have to regrow your industries."

The president said he decided on tariffs of 25 percent for steel and 10 percent for aluminum.
“So steel and aluminum will see a lot of good things happen,” Trump told reporters at the White House. “We're going to have new jobs popping up."
TRUMP SAYS HE WILL ORDER TARIFFS ON STEEL, ALUMINUM IMPORTS NEXT WEEK

“I remember when I was growing up, U.S. Steel -- that was the ultimate company. And today you have so many closed plants.”

Trump also said his decision to impose tariffs is because "we need great steel makers, great aluminum makers for defense.”
Trump said he hoped it will lead to more “vibrant companies,” though told the executives “the rest is going to be up to management to make them truly great.”
“I remember when I was growing up, U.S. Steel -- that was the ultimate company,” Trump said. “And today you have so many closed plants.”
The announcement, though, faced pushback from some Republicans, including usual allies.
“Tariffs on steel and aluminum are a tax hike the American people don’t need and can’t afford,” Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said. “I encourage the president to carefully consider all of the implications of raising the cost of steel and aluminum on American manufacturers and consumers.”
Increased foreign production, especially by China, has driven down prices and hurt American producers. The Commerce Department calls the situation a national security threat.
However, any action to impose tariffs is likely to escalate simmering tensions with China and other U.S. trading partners. Critics of such a move fear that other countries will retaliate or use national security as a pretext to impose trade penalties of their own. They also argue that sanctions on imports will drive up prices and hurt U.S. automakers and other companies that use steel or aluminum.
But Trump claims he's looking out for American jobs.
He said he's taking action because the North American Free Trade Agreement and the World Trade Organization has been “a disaster for this country.”
“It has been great for China and terrible for the United States,” he said.
Trump has been facing a pair of April deadlines to make a decision on the imports. Administration officials gave mixed signals earlier Thursday about what the president would decide.
Trump, though, gave a window into his thinking when he tweeted about the industries Thursday morning.
“Our Steel and Aluminum industries (and many others) have been decimated by decades of unfair trade and bad policy with countries from around the world. We must not let our country, companies and workers be taken advantage of any longer. We want free, fair and SMART TRADE!” he wrote.
Participants in Thursday’s closed-door meeting, arranged by Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, represented industry companies Arcelor Mittal, U.S. Steel Corporation, Nucor, Evraz, JW Aluminum, Century Aluminum, Chester Roush, Timken Steel, United Aluminum and AK Steel.
The Commerce Department has recommended tariffs on all steel and aluminum imports, higher tariffs on imports from specific countries or a quota on imports.
Trump last year ordered an investigation into whether aluminum and steel imports posed a threat to national defense.
The rocky day on Wall Street extended a weeks-long run in which the stock indexes have whipsawed, leaving investors flumoxed.
Industrial companies were hardest hit by the developments. Heavy equipment maker Caterpillar fell 2 percent and aerospace giant Boeing gave back 4 percent.
Big exporters like Apple and drugmaker Pfizer, which would suffer if trade tensions picked up, also fell.

Trump, Pence 'don't want gun control,' NRA's chief lobbyist says after meeting

Just one day after putting the NRA on the defensive with stunning televised comments, President Trump has signaled in an Oval Office meeting that he doesn't want gun control, according to the NRA's top lobbyist. 

Chris Cox, the executive director of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action, tweeted late Thursday that "POTUS & VPOTUS support the Second Amendment, support strong due process and don’t want gun control."

About an hour later, Trump appeared to endorse Cox's version of events with a tweet of his own: "Good (Great) meeting in the Oval Office tonight with the NRA!"
On Wednesday, Trump shocked observers during a televised discussion with bipartisan lawmakers by appearing to endorse extreme gun control measures.
“Take the guns first. Go through due process second,” Trump said. “I like taking the guns early.”
JUDGE NAP: TRUMP'S COMMENTS ON DUE PROCESS ARE WHAT GUN OWNERS, NRA FEAR THE MOST
Trump, who has publicly changed his mind on other key issues, also urged Republican lawmakers not to be "afraid" of the powerful gun lobby and openly entertained more gun restrictions.
The NRA had reacted quickly to Trump's comments, even before Thursday's meeting.
NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch said Wednesdsay that Trump’s meeting with lawmakers “made for good TV” but “bad policy.”
She said the organization is “in lock step” with the president on protecting children, but wants to “respect due process.”