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.”