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.

Rolling Stone Cartoon

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

BOWLING GREEN, Ky. –  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.

Related Image

Expand / Contract

March 20, 2105: Sen., Rand Paul, R-Ky. speaks in Manchester, N.H. (AP)

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.

Related Image

Expand / Contract

 (FNC)

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.

Related Image

Expand / Contract

The Graves-Gilbert Clinic in Bowling Green, where Sen. Rand Paul worked for many years before starting his own practice. (FNC)

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.”

Indiana Cartoon

Schiff says Al Qaeda having 'resurgence' amid Yemen chaos

California Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff said Sunday that Al Qaeda is having a “resurgence.”
"In Yemen the news is really all bad," Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, told ABC's "This Week." "Just as we feared in the chaos ... Al Qaeda has had a resurgence."
The Al Qaeda offshoot group in the Arab Peninsula has taken advantage of the turmoil in Yemen since it started several weeks ago, using the chaos and deteriorating government to expand its foothold in southwest Asia.
“It’s absolutely a safe haven,” Michael Leiter, former director of the National Counterterrorism Center, told ABC.
He also said the administration's policy is correct, compared to the alternative of a massive American occupation.

"That doesn't mean that the administration's strategy is flawless, however," he said. "And I think had we put greater emphasis and resources in trying to deal with the governance issues in Yemen, this might have been prevented."

At least 500 people have been killed in the fighting as Shiite rebels known as Houthis continue to try to overthrow the Yemen government and as neighboring Saudi Arabia leads an airstrike campaign to stop the rebels.
Last week, AQAP took advantage of the fall of Mukalla -- the capital of Yemen's largest province, Hadramawt -- by freeing about 300 inmates from the city's main prison, including scores of militants, according to security officials.
Among those freed was Saudi-born Khaled Batrafi, a senior Al Qaeda operative believed to have masterminded past attacks, officials said. Also freed were 90 death row inmates convicted for a host of criminal offences, according to activists in the city.
The administration has referred to its efforts in Yemen as a “success story” and just several days ago continued to defend its strategy.
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest told MSNBC that U.S. policy "should not be graded against the success or the stability of the Yemeni government."
He also said the strategy has been to try to bolster the government in Yemen, which has for years been in a chaotic state and the administration’s objective “has never been to try to build a Jeffersonian democracy.”
“The goal is to make sure Yemen cannot be a safe haven that extremists can use to attack the West and to attack the United States," he said.
Late last month, the administration removed U.S. personnel from the Arab country, as the situation deteriorated.
President Obama has said several times in recent years that Al Qaeda has been “decimated” or is “on the run.”
He also has submitted to Congress his Authorization of Military Force against ISIL Terrorists plan. However, neither chamber has acted on the proposal.
Schiff has drafted his own plan and says Congress has to authorize such military action and that he doesn’t want U.S. ground troops getting involved like they did for years in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Muslim groups attack Egyptian Copts over church honoring Christians killed by ISIS

Relatives of the Coptic Christians beheaded last month by jihadists in Libya – their deaths immortalized in a gory video set against the backdrop of a Mediterranean beach – are facing new extremist-Muslim violence as they seek to build a church to honor their murdered loved ones.
An angry mob in the Upper Egyptian village of Al Our – the proposed site of the church because it was home to 13 of the 21 Christians murdered in the mass “beachfront” decapitation – descended on the community’s current church after the midday Islamic prayer Friday and chanted that they’d never allow construction of the new place of worship to begin, witnesses told Egyptian activists in the U.S.

“There were already cars on fire. People had been bloodied. Stones and bricks had been thrown.”- Mina Abdelmalak, Coptic Christian

Things turned far uglier after nightfall, the witnesses said, as a smaller number of individuals threw Molotov cocktails and stones at the church, injuring several people, and setting cars ablaze, including one that belonged to a relative of one of the victims of the Libyan massacre.
“The police came, but after the attack,” said Mina Abdelmalak, a Coptic Christian living in Washington who is in close contact with the witnesses to the events in Al Our. “There were already cars on fire. People had been bloodied. Stones and bricks had been thrown.”
Some protesters also appeared at the family home of massacre victim Samuel Alham Wilson, but, in a gesture that provided some hope, were chased off by Muslim neighbors when the protesters started throwing stones.
Copts are the native Christians of Egypt, accounting for about 10 percent of the country’s 88 million people.
While they have traditionally faced varying levels of persecution in the mainly Muslim country, the Copts of Al Our -- a village on the Nile about 125 miles south of Cairo -- have additionally been in deep mourning since the Islamic State released its video Feb. 15 showing the beheading of the Christians -- 20 of them Copts, the other from Ghana.

Related Image

Expand / Contract

Feb. 15, 2015: Men in orange jumpsuits purported to be Egyptian Christians held captive by the Islamic State (IS) are marched by armed men along a beach.

The 13 from Al Our – like their fellow Christians with whom they died – had gone to Libya to seek work because their poverty-stricken home communities offered none or little that was viable.
Abdelmalak told FoxNews.com that the Al Our Copts had sought permission from Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi to build a church to honor the loss of their loved ones and the others who died with them.
Until recently, such high-level permission was necessary to carry out even minor repairs on churches in Egypt, while similar permissions are not necessary for the building of mosques.
But the Friday attacks on the Copts have driven a further wedge between the village’s Christian and Muslim communities -- and are seen as particularly insensitive in light of the losses suffered because of the massacre in Libya.
“This is a classic issue in Egypt,” said Abdelmalak. “Even after you struggle to get permission from the president to build a church, you still have to face the mob, which rejects the idea of having a church built in their neighborhood.”
A Coptic news Facebook page displays pictures of men with facial injuries it says they suffered during the attack on the church.
“I fear that the security [services] will as usual issue a report saying that the situation in the village [is so bad] that [they] will not [now] allow us to build a new church,” says the author of the entry, according to a translation from Arabic.
After receiving presidential permission for construction, the Coptic community bought some land, but local Muslims objected to its positioning at the entrance to the village, according to Daily News Egypt, which publishes in English.
A new location outside the village is now eyed following a meeting between Muslim and Coptic residents that the regional governor brokered.
“This has been effectively imposed on the Coptic residents,” Abdelmalak said. “Dictates to the Christian community are always presented as agreements.”
A report in Arabic in the al-Masry al-Youm newspaper said “tens of residents” protested against the building of the new church, despite presidential approval for the project.
“Witnesses from the village said protesters repeated chants saying, ‘Whatever you do, there won’t be a church on the ground.’”
Abdelmalak said the words in original Arabic rhymed and would have instilled fear by sounding like the aggressive chants heard in European soccer stadiums.
He added that police arrested several members of the mob, but released them a few hours later.

2016 GOP hopefuls define themselves as they weigh in on ISIS, economy, array of key issues

Potential 2016 presidential candidates have for months test driven their foreign and domestic policy positions in interviews and speeches across the country. But the real test for many voters, as is often the situation, is how the hopefuls response to world-shaping events.
Most of the debate has been limited to the wide field of potential Republican candidates with ObamaCare and how to handle the growing threat of the Islamic State largely dominating the early part of this year.
And the Obama administration’s tentative nuclear deal last week with Iran has been no exception.
“Obama’s dangerous deal with Iran rewards an enemy, undermines our allies and threatens our safety,” said Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, an early 2016 favorite.
Like all of the potential GOP candidates, Walker has used the agreement to strike a sharp contrast with Democrats.
He also has vowed, if elected, to pull the U.S. from the international deal on “day one” of his presidency.
Jeb Bush, another top potential candidate and a former Florida governor, said the reported details of the Iran deal include significant concessions to “a nation whose leaders call for death to America and the destruction of Israel.”
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, the only major GOP candidate who has officially declared a 2016 bid, is taking a more reserved approach, saying after the framework deal was reached Thursday that he was still examining the exact details.
However, he has been far more outspoken on the issue of ObamaCare and the threat from the Islamic State and other extremist groups.
OBAMACARE
To be sure, Cruz has been among the most forceful in his opposition to ObamaCare, considering his efforts in September 2013 to “defund” President Obama’s signature health-care law forced a partial government shutdown.
Nevertheless, the effort, which angered Republicans as well as Democrats, was just one of the first-term senator’s breakout moves that put him on the national political map.
The commitment to repeal the 2010 law, which even remained strong enough last year to help Republicans win the Senate, was largely muted when the Supreme Court decided several months ago to take up the issue of federal subsidies for some ObamaCare insurance buyers.
Still, lawmakers and potential 2016 candidates such as Florida GOP Sen. Marco Rubio have moved to fill the void with a plan if the high court declares subsides in some states unconstitutional.
Rubio, set to officially announce next week whether he will run in 2016, recently outlined his plan in a FoxNew.com op-ed that offers refundable tax credits to help Americans who lose their subsidies to buy health insurance.
“After the downfall of ObamaCare  -- which I believe has been inevitable from the beginning, but may be precipitated by the Supreme Court decision later this year -- a plan such as this will restore our people’s access to quality care,” Rubio wrote.
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal told an enthusiastic crowd at the Conservative Political Action Conference in February that he still wants to repeal “every single word” of ObamaCare.
ECONOMY
Former Hewlett-Packard chief executive Carly Fiorina is trying to establish herself within the crowded potential GOP field as the candidate who best understands executive decision making, beyond the being party’s only female candidate so far.
Fiorina also recently told “Fox News Sunday” that she can appeal to voters with her “deep understanding of how the economy actually works, having started as a secretary and become the chief executive of the largest technology company in the world.”
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie has focused in part on what he considers an under-performing economy under Obama and recently in Iowa discussed a plan to fix the federal tax code, which he thinks would improve the situation for Americans.
He said the country’s 2 percent annual growth in gross domestic product shows the recovery from the recession is "the worst in modern history."
"The fact is that we tax too much in this country already, and we tax in a way that's much too complicated," he reportedly said. "We tax that money at every step along the way.”
ISIS
The rise and growth of the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq continues to be a global concern, though the re-emergence of Al Qaeda in Yemen has recently dominated headlines.
Dr. Ben Carson, another potential GOP candidate, recently told NBC: “We have to eradicate (ISIS) now. We have to use every means possible to do that."
South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and one of Capitol Hill’s most hawkish members, has suggested that coalition airstrikes alone will not stop ISIS and told CBS that 10,000 American "boots on the ground" would be needed to stop the Islamic extremist group in Iraq and Syria.
Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul says he has been mis-characterized as an isolationist and that his plan to defeat ISIS would largely be based on arming the Kurds, the disenfranchised ethnic groups in Iraq that has been successfully fighting ISIS for months.
“The only people over there that can fight and have been showing some ability to fight are the Kurds,” Paul told Yahoo News. “The president has been sending weapons to Baghdad. They’re not adequately getting to Kurdistan. I would fund them directly. I would take some of the weaponry that we have left over in Afghanistan and I would send that directly to the Kurds.”
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
The religious freedom law that recently passed in Indiana is being supported by social conservatives and potential 2016 Republican presidential candidates Bush, Carson, Jindal, Rubio and former Pennsylvania Rick Santorum.
The law prohibits the state and local governments from infringing on a person's religious beliefs without a "compelling" interest. Critics say it opens the possibility that businesses could discriminate against gays, lesbians and others.
“It's never been used for that purpose,” Santorum said Wednesday on Fox News' “Fox & Friends.” “This law is not a new law. … I voted for it, and so did almost everybody else in the Congress. We believe that the First Amendment should be in practice in America, that people should have religious liberty. ... It doesn't mean that automatically anybody who claims a religious exemption of cause wins the debate. It says it has to be considered.
A similar federal law was sign in 1993 and Arkansas lawmakers passed their version last week.

Netanyahu urges US to seek 'better deal' with Iran over its nuclear program

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu urged the U.S. and other world powers to seek a firmer deal with Iran Sunday over that country's nuclear program and said that he’s "not trying to kill any deal,” just a “bad deal.”
"I think the alternatives are not either this bad deal or war. I think there's a third alternative. And that is standing firm, ratcheting up the pressure, until you get a better deal," the Israeli Prime Minister told CNN's "State of the Union". "A better deal would roll back Iran's vast nuclear infrastructure and require Iran to stop its aggression in the region, its terror worldwide, and its calls and actions to annihilate the state of Israel."
On Thursday, the United States and five other world powers reached agreement with Iranian officials on the framework of a deal to limit Tehran’s nuclear enrichment program. The deadline for a final agreement is June 30.
The deal aims to cut significantly into Iran's bomb-making technology while giving Tehran relief from international sanctions. The commitments, if implemented, would substantially pare down Iranian nuclear assets for a decade and restrict others for an additional five years.
On Sunday, the Associated Press reported that it had obtained a document drawn up by experts in Netanyahu's office that gives a glimpse of the arguments the Israeli leader plans to raise, targeting vague language in the system of inspections and its failure to address issues beyond the nuclear program.
Appearing on NBC's "Meet the Press," Netanyahu said the agreement outline "could be a historic bad deal because it leaves the preeminent terrorist state of our time a vast nuclear infrastructure ...  Thousands of centrifuges will be left, not a singular facility, including underground facilities will be shut down."
Netanyahu added that the framework leaves Iran with “the capacity to produce material for many nuclear bombs.”
On ABC's "This Week", Netanyahu also warned that a deal could “spark a nuclear arms race among the Sunni countries in the Middle East.”
On CNN’s “State of the Union,” Netanyahu said “restrictions placed on Iran are temporary, after a few years, Iran will have unlimited access.”
According to a U.S. document summarizing last week's agreement, Tehran is ready to reduce its number of centrifuges, the machines that can spin uranium gas to levels used in nuclear warheads, and submit to aggressive monitoring and inspections of its nuclear facilities.
But the Israeli analysis claims the system of inspections is not as thorough as proclaimed because it does not explicitly force the Iranians to open their sites "anywhere, anytime."
It also claims the agreement is vague about what happens to Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium, a key ingredient in producing nuclear bombs, or how sanctions might be re-imposed if Iran violates the deal.
While Iran is not supposed to enrich uranium with its advanced centrifuges for 10 years, the deal permits limited "research and development" of the advanced centrifuges, according to the U.S. document. Israeli officials say this means that Iran could immediately put these centrifuges into action after the deal expires or breaks down.
Netanyahu said Sunday that Iran has “cheated in the past on this, in this case, with this deal, what’s been illegitimate is being legitimized not only the ability to maintain but in a few years to increase it, that’s very dangerous.”
However, President Obama staunchly defended the framework of the nuclear agreement with Iran as a “once-in-a-lifetime opportunity” to prevent a bomb and bring longer-term stability to the Middle East.
"It's been a hard period," Obama said in an interview with New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman published Sunday. He added that it is "personally difficult" for him to hear his administration accused of not looking out for Israel's interests.
He insisted 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.
Obama argued that successful negotiations presented the most effective way to keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, but insisted he would keep all options on the table if Tehran were to violate the terms.
"I've been very clear that Iran will not get a nuclear weapon on my watch, and I think they should understand that we mean it," Obama said. "But I say that hoping that we can conclude this diplomatic arrangement — and that it ushers a new era in U.S.-Iranian relations — and, just as importantly, over time, a new era in Iranian relations with its neighbors."
Obama said there are many details that still need to be worked out with the Iranians and cautioned that there would be "real political difficulties" in implementing an agreement in both countries. He reiterated his opposition to a 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."
The White House plans an aggressive campaign to sell the deal to Congress, as well as to Israel and skeptical Arab allies who worry about Iran's destabilizing activity in the region. The president has invited leaders of six Gulf nations to Washington this spring and said he wanted to "formalize" U.S. assistance.

Happy Easter

Cracks appear in Democratic-Jewish alliance in wake of Iran agreement

Many U.S. Jewish leaders are unnerved both by the new Iran nuclear agreement and the public falling out between President Barack Obama and his Israeli counterpart, developments that are creating a rift in the durable alliance between Jews and the Democratic Party in the run-up to the 2016 elections.
Worried that Iran might still develop a nuclear weapon despite the accord announced Thursday, the Jewish leaders say they feel torn between an Obama administration that has pressed hard for a deal and an Israeli government that has repeatedly warned that Iran is a grave threat to the Jewish state and can’t be trusted to abandon its nuclear ambitions.
A group of Jewish Democratic House members met with White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough in his office last week and cautioned that for them to help “sell a very unpopular [Iran nuclear] deal to our constituents,” Mr. Obama must “increase his popularity with our constituents,” said a Democratic congressman involved in the meeting.
Republicans have begun making moves to try to capitalize on this unease, hoping to peel away Jewish votes and campaign contributions that have historically skewed Democratic.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that he and his cabinet strongly oppose the current deal to regulate Iran's nuclear program.
Republican congressional leaders have been critical of the proposed Iran deal, and the GOP’s likely 2016 presidential contenders have largely opposed it. It isn’t clear congressional Republicans have a way to block any final deal, and experts warn that even if a Republican wins the White House in 2016, it won’t be as easy to wipe off the books an international agreement as campaign rhetoric may suggest.
Hillary Clinton, the presumed Democratic front-runner, has voiced guarded support for the Iran deal, casting it as “an important step toward a comprehensive agreement that would prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.” Many Jewish leaders have said that if Mrs. Clinton, who enjoys strong ties to the Jewish community, becomes the party’s nominee, that would help salve the discontent with the White House.
The lawmakers who met with Mr. McDonough last week also urged that Mr. Obama soften his tone toward Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and avoid “getting into a daily argument with” him, one participant said.

Gretchen's Take: Still stunned at stupidity of email scandal

You get one shot at trying to become president. Alright. Maybe two.  But if you're doing it for a second time you're actually under more scrutiny the second time around than the first. That's why I still remain stunned at the stupidity of Hillary Clinton's email scandal. She had to have known it would be a big problem. The big question now is -- how much will it affect her likely candidacy down the road?
After the news first came out, polls showed Clinton hadn't been hurt by the revelations. People who liked her before still did -- and people who didn't -- didn't. But now the new swing state polls should make Hillary Clinton’s advisors nervous.  As we discussed, in the key swing states like Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania .. her numbers have dropped in favorability.  But as any pollster will tell you, it’s the negative numbers that can matter the most.  And when you look at just Florida alone, Clinton’s unfavorable scores rose from 39 percent in February to 46 percent in march.
It appears one press conference didn't do the trick to change voters' minds. And this story may be far from over. 

'I was born, I blinked, and it was over': Florida grandmother's self-penned obituary goes viral

When Emily Phillips was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in February, she knew she didn’t have long to live.
So she decided to give the world a farewell in her own words.
The Florida grandmother’s self-penned obituary has taken the Internet by storm since she passed away last week, and has received more than 5,100 “likes” on Facebook since it was shared by The Florida Times-Union on Tuesday.
“It pains me to admit it, but apparently, I have passed away,” Phillips, 69, writes in the obituary’s opening. “Everyone told me it would happen one day, but that’s simply not something I wanted to hear, much less experience.”

Related Image

Expand / Contract

 (Courtesy of Bonnie Upright)

From there, Phillips, a longtime public school teacher who lived in Orange Park, takes the reader on a journey through her life. Her recollections of walking to Hazelwood Elementary School in Hazelwood, N.C. Her father calling square dances. Performing skits for the 4-H Club in fifth grade. Being a beauty pageant competitor. Leading the high school band down King Street in New Orleans for Mardi Gras when she was head majorette.
The obituary’s tone shifts between humorous and sentimental, and Phillips pauses to reflect on the little moments of her journey and takes a stab at some of life’s more existential questions.
“So many things in my life seemed of little significance at the time they happened, but then took on a greater importance as I got older,” Phillips says. “The memories I’m taking with me now are so precious and have more value than all the gold and silver in my jewelry box.”
Phillips began writing the obituary soon after she was diagnosed with the terminal illness in February, her daughter, Bonnie Upright, told FoxNews.com on Friday. At first, Upright says, the family was resistant, but listened when her mother insisted they hear her read it.
“We laughed where we were supposed to laugh, cried where we were supposed to cry, and looking back at it now … it really was one of the most special moments in my entire life,” Upright said, adding that the warm response to the obituary has soothed the family’s heartbreak.
“Being able to smile through the tears on my face has been an incredible experience, and an incredible gift that mom left us,” she said.

Related Image

Expand / Contract

 (Courtesy of Bonnie Upright)

Phillips is survived by her husband, Charles; her daughter Bonnie and her son, Scott; and five grandchildren: Sydney, 18; Jake, 15; Emma, 9; William, 9; and Charlie, 4.
“So ... I was born; I blinked; and it was over. No buildings named after me; no monuments erected in my honor. But I DID have the chance to know and love each and every friend as well as all my family members. How much more blessed can a person be?” Phillips writes. “So in the end, remember ... do your best, follow your arrow, and make something amazing out of your life. Oh, and never stop smiling.”

Tehran would be able to return to its nuclear activities if the West withdraws from an agreement that is expected to be finalized in June, Iran’s foreign minister said Saturday.
Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said in an interview on state-run TV that Iran has the power to take “corresponding action” and “will be able to return” its nuclear program to the same level if the other side does not honor the pact.
"All parties to the agreement can stop their actions (fulfillment of their commitments) in case of violation of the agreement by the other party," Zarif said.
Iran’s chief negotiator said the framework of the deal announced by Iran and six world powers on Thursday in Switzerland was not binding until it is finalized June 30.
Zarif said Iran is “committed” to implementing its part of any final agreement providing Western countries fulfill their promises. He said Iran wants to have a “moderate, constructive and proud presence” in the world.
If the deal is finalized, it would cut significantly into Iran’s bomb-capable nuclear technology while giving Tehran quick access to bank accounts, oil markets and other financial assets blocked by international sanctions.
Despite the criticism by hardliners, the deal has been overwhelmingly backed by Iran's establishment, including President Hassan Rouhani who pledged in a speech to the nation on Friday that Iran will abide by its commitments under the nuclear deal.
Zarif received a hero's welcome upon his return to Tehran on Friday Crowds of cheering supporters surrounded Zarif's vehicle and chanted slogans supporting him and Rouhani.
Zarif said in the interview he “objected” to Secretary of State Kerry using the world “suspension” rather than “termination” regarding the sanctions against Iran.
Zarif attributed Kerry's action as being aimed at addressing rifts between the Obama administration and Congress over the deal. Republicans are almost universally opposed to President Barack Obama's diplomatic effort; Democrats are divided.
He said the deal if finalized by June would nullify all U.N. Security Council resolutions against Iran's nuclear program and lead to the lifting of U.S. and European Union sanctions.
Zarif said the Switzerland agreement showed that the West cannot halt Iran's nuclear program, which Tehran insists is for peaceful purposes such as power generation and cancer treatment. Western countries suspect that Iran's nuclear program has a military dimension.
Without naming any country, Zarif assured Iran's neighbors such as Saudi Arabia which are concerned about Iran's nuclear ambitions that Tehran is not after regional domination.
"We are not after a nuclear bomb. We are also not after hegemony in the region, too," Zarif said.  "Security of our neighbors is our security, too."
Saudi Arabia has expressed concern about growing Iranian influence in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon which have large Shiite Muslim populations. A Saudi-led military coalition is now carrying out airstrikes in Yemen against Shiite Houthi rebels who are supported by Iran.

Top US public employee union AFSCME gave $65M in 2014, mostly to Democrats, progressive groups

American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees -- the country’s largest trade union for public employees -- gave more than $65 million last year to politicians, lobbyists and activist groups, according to 2014 federal reports obtained by Watchdog.org.
AFSCME is funded by roughly 1.4 million members and mandatory fees taken from 125,255 nonmembers. Critics argue AFSCME gets its revenue from taxpayers so its donations are essentially indirect support for Democratic politicians, political activist groups and bigger government.
AFSCME’s 2014 report to the Labor Department showed $64,585,115 in Political Activities and Lobbying spending.
The union also reported more than $1 million in donations to political nonprofits as Contributions, Gifts and Grants, with $126,500 going to MSNBC host Al Sharpton’s National Action Network.
AFSCME’s direct campaign contributions and super PAC expenditures last year helped Democrats in Wisconsin, Illinois, Florida and elsewhere.
The union’s largest donation of 2014 was a $4.3 million contribution to the Democratic Governors Association.
But the vast campaign AFSCME spending, the federal reports show, was overshadowed by tens of millions of dollars in contributions to progressive advocacy groups including Planned Parenthood Action Fund, the Center for American Progress and National Council of La Raza, the Illegal immigrant advocacy group.
Click here to read more from Watchdog.org.

NCAA Mens Final Four 2015- National Anthem

Obama Cartoon

A false choice and a flawed deal

The deal that the United States has negotiated with Iran poses a grave threat to American security at home and abroad.
U.S. officials know that Iran has had a long-term plan to gain a nuclear weapon and destabilize the region through its support of terrorist organizations. And it is known that President Rouhani has never agreed to full and unfettered United Nations inspections of Iran’s nuclear facilities.
The Iranian government has repeatedly, flagrantly violated sanctions put in place by the United Nations. We know that they have flat-out lied about every nuclear facility they have built over the last three decades.
This is not the behavior of a potential ally or of a partner. These are the actions of a country trying to bluff its way into persuading the United Nations, the United States, and its allies to allow it the freedom to develop a nuclear weapon for military purposes.
Because of these facts, we cannot trust anything they sign. Until Iran is prepared to (and opens its nuclear facilities to) full and unfettered UN-sanctioned inspections and demonstrates that they are willing to halt uranium enrichment, we cannot place any trust in any deal that is made.

This is not an agreement which will make Americans proud.

The message we have sent by making this deal is simple: Take our diplomats hostage for 444 days. Kill our soldiers. Cheat, lie, and be a menace to our allies in the Middle East. Raise the cost of international security, threaten your neighbors in the Persian Gulf, and support terrorist groups. Assassinate dissidents abroad and kill young Iranians who are fed up with your tyranny. Do all of that and we will reward you. We will treat you like a partner, like an ally, and we will place our trust in you.
This message has been received by Iran and by our allies, all of whom will view this deal as a capitulation by Washington. We were once viewed as an international leader that our allies could rely upon. We demonstrated our strength and capabilities, protected human rights, and led the fight to stamp out terrorism. We are sending a message to the world now that rogue governments can quash free speech, sponsor terrorism and denigrate our way of life, all with the tacit consent of the United States government.
The Iranian government has requested untenable concessions to legitimize their earlier violations of international law -- and this administration has given in to these requests. The U.N. Security Council has repeatedly called for Iran to stop its uranium enrichment efforts, but this deal recognizes Iran’s right to enrich uranium. Iran secretly built numerous uranium enrichment facilities in violation of its Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty commitments. This deal would legitimize those facilities.
This is not an agreement which will make Americans proud. It is not a deal that demonstrates our strength and resolve at home and abroad. Our allies will not point to this as a signal of our continued support.
It is a sad chapter of American history when President Obama and Secretaries Kerry and Clinton are more concerned with their legacy than they are with our national security. Unfortunately, this behavior is no longer unexpected; it continues six years of alienating our allies, weakening our international stature, and negotiating with states who have demonstrated that they cannot be trusted.
Too often, this administration has presented the American people with a choice: follow our flawed national security strategy that destabilizes regions and undermines our allies or commits thousands of American ground troops to a protracted war. This is a false choice. There are other options -- and a bi-partisan Congress should insist on voicing their opposition to this deal. We have many other options that have been left unexplored or underutilized. We should start by providing the support our Jordanian, Egyptian, Kurdish, Saudi, and Emirati allies have asked for.
We cannot let this agreement with Iran follow the disastrous Russian “reset” orchestrated by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. We cannot make concessions to a government which will then take advantage of our trust. We must meet these governments with strength.
This type of foreign policy cannot continue. We must stand up for our allies and for our American interests. We must re-assert American leadership and strength abroad. The world is a more dangerous and tragic place when America is not leading. For these reasons, we cannot and must not accept this deal with Iran.
Lt. General Michael T. Flynn served as the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, commander of the Joint Functional Component Command for Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance, and chair of the Military Intelligence Board from 2012 to 2014

Arson threat targeting Christian pizzeria just a 'mean tweet,' says Indiana news exec

The news director for an Indiana TV station was taking heat Friday for downplaying a high school coach's alleged Twitter threat to "burn down" a controversial pizzeria as merely a “mean tweet.”
WBND-TV news boss Aaron Ramey used the arguably mild characterization to describe a Tweet attributed to Jess Dooley, head coach of the girl’s golf team at Concord High School in Elkhart, that called for people to help her set fire to Memories Pizza in Walkerton.
“Who’s going to Walkerton, IN to burn down #memoriespizza w me?” Dooley tweeted after Crystal O’Connor told Ramey’s South Bend station Wednesday that her family’s pizzeria would not cater to gay weddings because of their Christian beliefs. .
The threatening tweet from Dooley prompted a police investigation, a referral to prosecutors and Dooley's suspension. While police, Dooley's school and the family that owns the restaurant took the Twitter threat seriously, Ramey did not, according to critics.
“Teacher suspended for mean tweet about pizza place who won't cater gay weddings,” Ramey said in a tweet Wednesday that has since been deleted.

Lesbian Jess Dooley, head coach of the girl’s golf team

 

More on this...

• Mainstream media attack Indiana pizza shop

Related Image

Expand / Contract

The school district suspended Dooley from her coaching duties pending further investigation. She deleted her Twitter account.
The Elkhart Truth said Dooley was a paraprofessional at Concord, not a teacher. Her employer is the Elkhart County Special Education Cooperative, which did not return calls for comment from the paper.
Walkerton Police Department investigated Dooley’s tweet and referred the case to local prosecutors for possible charges of harassment, intimidation and threats, Fox 28 reported Wednesday.
Ramey and his station’s general manager Jeff Guy, did not respond to requests for comment from FoxNews.com Friday.
Ramey’s “mean” characterization drew a fierce reaction on Twitter.

Related Image

Expand / Contract

“When you threaten to burn down #Memories Pizza that is not a mean tweet. ITS TERRORISM!” one Twitter user said. “@adramey, @ABC57News burning someones establishment down is a mean tweet? Ae you for real?” another said.
“’Mean Tweet.’ She asked who wanted to come with her to burn the place down,” still another tweeted.
WBND’s report on Memories Pizza became targets of gay marriage proponents after the story went viral and got picked up by national media outlets. Hackers attacked pizzeria's website with gay porn.
The firestorm prompted O’Connor and her father to go into hiding and temporarily shut down their business.
A crowd-funding effort on behalf of Memories Pizza has taken in over $530,000 from 18,000 people in just two days.

Gov’t program would fly in Central American children to join parents in US

Images of unaccompanied children flooding across the U.S.-Mexico border defined the immigration crisis last summer.
Now, the federal government is intervening so these children won’t have to make that trek -– they’ll get to fly into the U.S. instead. For free.
A new State Department and Department of Homeland Security program seeks to stop the surge of immigrant children from Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador at the southern border by giving their U.S.-based parents the option to apply to have their kids picked up and put on a plane, without paying a penny.
The parents are eligible as long as they have some sort of legal status. As first reported in The Daily Caller, this would include permanent residents and even illegal immigrants given a work permit and deportation reprieve under President Obama’s recent executive actions, though much of that is on hold due to a pending court case. Of them, those with children under 21 and living in El Salvador, Guatemala or Honduras reportedly could apply.
"I think many Americans are going to be surprised to learn that illegal aliens here in the United States are getting the Obama administration to go and get their children and fetch them," Tom Fitton, president of the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch, told Fox News. "And all at our expense."
In a November memo, the State Department explained that reuniting families this way is "a safe, legal, and orderly alternative to the dangerous journey that some children are currently undertaking to the United States."
So far, the State Department has not provided a cost for the plane tickets, or the benefits that follow upon their arrival in America. Asked Friday about the issue, spokeswoman Marie Harf said: “The price tag? I don't know.”
"Under this program, they would be quote 'refugees,' and refugees have access to government benefits that other illegal aliens don't," Fitton said.
Judicial Watch lists "free education, food stamps, medical care, and living expenses," as some of those complimentary benefits.
But not everybody believes this program will be a drain for taxpayers.
"I think it's good for the tax base," said Democratic strategist Chuck Rocha. "Every year, 13 billion dollars are put into the Social Security Trust Fund from undocumented immigrants. So if you have immigrants here who are working, who are doing the jobs that need to be done, that's money going into our tax system. People will say that it's free health care, that it's free education. Nothing in this town is free."
Still, critics are concerned this new policy sets a dangerous precedent, ignoring the long line of people waiting to get into this country through more traditional immigration channels.
"My gosh, what does the rule of law mean if you break the law to get here, and then you get the government to help bring the rest of your family?" Fitton asked.