MSM Cartoon

States slam the brakes on Iran, enact tough economic sanctions

While the United States and Iran edge closer to a nuclear deal, nearly two dozen U.S. states are imposing their own sanctions against Tehran – a move some say could derail fragile talks between the two countries.
The states, though, say they aren’t budging. In fact, Kansas and Mississippi are even considering adding more sanctions.
Several states across the country have put their own measures in place to punish Iran-linked companies operating in certain sectors of its economy, directing public pension funds with billions of dollars in assets to divesting from the firms and sometimes barring them from public contracts, Reuters reported.
In more than half of those states, restrictions will only expire if all federal sanctions against Iran are lifted – an unlikely scenario.
Typically, U.S. states coordinate their measures with federal sanctions on Iran. However, the states’ divestment actions are, in fact, much more strict when it comes to foreign firms with Iran links.
Georgia, Florida and Michigan are just three states that say they have no intention of changing their policies on Iran -- even if progress is made on a federal level.
“Our investment sanctions are not tied in any way to President Obama’s negotiations with the Iranians,” Sen. Don Gaetz, R-Fla., told Reuters. “They would have to change their behavior dramatically and we would not be necessarily guided by President Obama or any other president’s opinion about the Iranians.”
Officials in New York and Oregon told Reuters they would first need to review any changes made on the national scene before they would be able to comment on how it may affect their current policies.
Even if a federal deal passes, new local legislation would have to be passed in Illinois and Connecticut before legal changes could be made to change their divestment policies.
Florida, an early adopter of divestment policies going after Iran, pulled $1.3 billion out of companies like PetroChina – a Chinese oil and gas company that has ties to Iran. Michigan divested $185 million of its pension funds from companies like HSBC and Vodafone.
The icy relationship between the U.S. and Iran has recently shown some signs of thawing, but many caution that so much discord between the state and federal government over Tehran shows signs of weakness.
On Tuesday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is expected to take up a bill that requires Obama to give Congress a say in any deal on Iran’s nuclear program. Obama has threatened to veto the bill, which he says undermines his ability to negotiate.

Jordan's King Abdullah II says airstrikes increasing inside Syria and Iraq

Jordan’s King Abdullah II said Monday that airstrikes have increased inside Syria and Iraq following the murder of a Jordanian pilot burned to death earlier this year by Islamic State terrorists.
Abdullah, who was interviewed on “Special Report with Bret Baier,” said he has not ruled out using ground troops inside Iraq.  He also talked about the possibility of taking out ISIS fighters one stronghold at a time.
"We stepped up big time. We are at the moment he only Arab country in Syria alongside the United States," Abdullah told Baier. "We are the only Arab country operating alongside the Iraqis in Iraq alongside the coalition. As the Iraqis and the coalition increase their tempo for the next operation in Iraq, so will Jordan increase their tempo inside of Iraq."
In the wide-ranging interview, Abdullah also said the Middle East's relationship with the West is undergoing an evolution.
"I think the relationships have changed. I think Arab spring was a lesson for all of us in the region on how we deal with our friends. We express our views to our Western allies. I think the difference is now is that we express them quite strongly."
He also said that America’s role in the Middle East has changed and for him it has been “a wakeup call.”
"We need to stand more on our two feet and make our own decisions and be more bullish and straightforward about it. At the end of the day, I think I know what's best for the country and for the region."
Beyond security, Abdullah told Baier one of his biggest worries is the economy. Jordan’s economy has been fairly resilient in the past but new political pressures are testing its strength.
Energy security has been hit hard by volatility in the region as well as a growing unemployment rate that currently sits at 13 percent.
"There are 1.5 million Syrian refugees in our country, that's almost 20 to 21 percent of our population," Abdullah said. "This year only 28 to 29 percent of the refugee budget is being covered by the whole international community and the rest we have to cover. That's pretty depressing quite honestly."

Rubio announces 2016 GOP presidential campaign, vows to restore, reinvent American Dream

Florida GOP Sen. Marco Rubio on Monday announced his 2016 presidential candidacy, asking for the chance to create a new American Dream and to be part of a new generation of leaders.
"My parents achieved what came to be known as the American Dream,” said Rubio, a first-generation Cuban-American, at his official announcement. “But now, too many Americans are starting to doubt whether achieving that dream is still possible. … Yesterday is over, and we are never going back.”
Rubio becomes the third Republican senator to officially launch a 2016 White House bid.
“I announce my candidacy for president of the United States,” Rubio said in his announcement in Miami, one day after Hillary Clinton made public her campaign, officially establishing herself as the Democratic front runner for the White House next year.
Rubio had hinted for days that he would announce his candidacy this week and pre-empted himself early Monday by saying he feels “uniquely qualified” to talk about the future.

More on this...

• Exclusive: Marco Rubio's pitch for 2016 GOP nomination

• Exclusive: Marco Rubio on America's role on the world stage

• Can Rubio stand out from the 2016 GOP pack?

• Presidential race 2016: Rand on Hillary, Rubio

• Sen. Marco Rubio announces presidential bid

The 43-year-old senator chose to make his candidacy speech at the Freedom Tower -- the Miami landmark that was the first stop for tens of thousands of fleeing Cuban exiles during the 1960s and 1970s, for his announcement speech.
“It is truly a symbol of our nation’s identity,” said Rubio, who gained speaking momentum throughout his roughly 15-minute speech.
With aspirations of turning his relative youth into a benefit, Rubio promised to move politics beyond the past, a jab at Clinton and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush -- a likely GOP presidential candidate and his one-time political mentor.
"In many countries, the highest office in the land is reserved for the rich and powerful,” he told hundreds packed inside the venue as the temperature outside climbed to 87 degrees. “But I live in an exceptional country where even the son of a bartender and a maid can have the same dreams and the same future as those who come from power and privilege.”
He also said the dream is slipping away for too many families and that young Americans face unequal opportunities to succeed.
Rubio is hoping to make inroads with groups that have long eluded Republicans -- including young people, minorities and the less affluent.
He spoke briefly in Spanish during his speech, honoring his late father.
He appeared to see an opportunity to cast the presidential contest as one between a fresh face representing a new generation of leadership and familiar faces harking back decades -- namely, the 62-year-old Bush and the 67-year-old Clinton.
"Too many of our leaders and their ideas are stuck in the 20th century," he said. "The time has come for our generation to lead the way toward a new American century."
The swipe at Bush was implied; with Clinton, he was more direct.
"Just yesterday, we heard from a leader who wants to take us back to yesterday, but I feel that this country has always been about tomorrow," he said.
Democrats began criticizing Rubio hours before his official announcement.
"He's a follower, peddling the same tired Republican playbook," said Democratic National Committee Chairwoman and Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz. "Marco Rubio has pandered to the Republican base throughout his whole career."
The first-term senator has in recent months outlined specific policy proposals on foreign and domestic issues.
On Monday, he repeated the call to repeal ObamaCare, backed school choice, vowed to protect the lives of the unborn, re-establish America’s support for Israel and called out Cuba and Venezuela for human rights violations.
Rubio is set to return Tuesday to Washington to join a Senate hearing on a proposed deal with Iran on its nuclear ambitions.
Rubio faces steep challenges to the nomination, including a well-funded one that Bush is expected to offer. The son of one president and brother of another, Jeb Bush was governor while Rubio was speaker of the Florida House. The two formed a close bond, but a presidential campaign would be certain to test the strength of their friendship.
Another challenge is whether he can win over conservatives, upset with his early support of comprehensive immigration-reform legislation passed two years ago by the Senate. Conservatives and other critics said the plan was tantamount to providing “amnesty” to the millions of people who have entered the United States illegally.

Senate panel votes Tuesday on Iran bill that gives Congress say on nuclear deal

How much say Congress has on a possible nuclear deal with Iran will be tested Tuesday as a controversial bill goes up for a vote in the Senate Foreign Relations committee.
The Obama administration has been very critical of legislation that would give Congress a final say in approving or rejecting a deal.
In an interview with The New York Times, Obama said the newly agreed on framework of a nuclear deal with Iran represents a “once in a lifetime opportunity” to prevent Tehran from getting a nuclear weapon and to move toward stabilizing the Middle East.
On Monday, the administration stepped up its lobbying campaign on Capitol Hill.
"The way the legislation is currently written is something that we strongly oppose," White House press secretary Josh Earnest said. "But, again, we continue to have extensive conversations with members of Congress on Capitol Hill."
Secretary of State John Kerry postponed a foreign trip to meet with members of the House to discuss the negotiations. Kerry, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew and senior officials in the intelligence community were holding classified briefings Monday and Tuesday with members of the House and Senate.
Earnest said some Republicans are "rigidly partisan" and will reject any deal just because Obama supports it. He said that while there is some Democratic opposition, administration officials will continue to talk with members of his party. So far, the president and other senior administration officials have made more than 130 telephone calls to members of Congress to discuss the negotiations.
"I think there are some Democrats who will listen to this pitch," Earnest said. "I don't know if it will convince them all, but there is a strong case to make and it's one that we intend to continue making."
At the White House, Obama met with Jewish leaders. While Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is intensely skeptical that international negotiators can reach a verifiable deal with Iran, which has threatened to destroy Israel, some American Jewish groups have backed the international negotiations.
Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., told reporters that he spoke with Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, earlier in the day. McCarthy said he told Corker that if the Senate approves the bill, the House will vote on it.
"It's my intention to bring it to the floor of the House and move it," McCarthy said at a news conference as Congress was returning from a two-week spring break.
Republicans and Democrats maintain that Congress should have a say on an international deal with Tehran to curb its nuclear program and have lined up behind legislation. The White House has pushed back, threatening a presidential veto while warning that the bill could scuttle the delicate talks involving the United States, Iran and five world powers.
"Lines in the sands have moved back," McCarthy said, claiming the U.S. has back-tracked on some of the demands it had at the beginning of the talks. "A lot of the questions will be why have they moved back and will Iran ever be able to have the capability of having a nuclear weapon? That's a key question."
Under the bill, Obama could unilaterally lift or ease any sanctions that were imposed on Iran through presidential executive means. But the bill would prohibit him for 60 days from suspending, waiving or otherwise easing any sanctions that Congress levied on Iran. During that 60-day period, Congress could hold hearings and approve, disapprove or take no action on any final nuclear agreement with Iran.
If Congress passed a joint resolution approving a final deal -- or took no action -- Obama could move ahead to ease sanctions levied by Congress. But if Congress passed a joint resolution disapproving it, Obama would be blocked from providing Iran with any relief from congressional sanctions.
Iran says its program is for civilian purposes, but the U.S. and its partners negotiating with Tehran suspect Tehran is keen to become a nuclear-armed powerhouse in the Middle East, where it already holds much sway.
The bill has led to a political tug of war on Capitol Hill, with Republicans trying to raise the bar so high that a final deal might be impossible, and Democrats aiming to give the White House more room to negotiate with Tehran.
Senators of both parties are considering more than 50 amendments to the measure introduced by Corker and Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J.

Nuclear Cartoon

Right to Bear Arms? Gun grabbing sweeping the nation

Cherished family heirlooms were among the 21 firearms Michael Roberts surrendered to the Torrance Police Department in 2010, after his doctor filed a restraining order against him.
The court order was the result of a dispute Roberts had with a member of the doctor’s staff and, after Roberts pleaded no contest, the matter was resolved. Yet, even though he filed the proper Law Enforcement Gun Release paperwork on four separate occasions, obtained clearance from the California Department of Justice and had two court orders commanding the return of his guns, police refused to hand them over.
With the backing of the National Rifle Association and California Rifle and Pistol Association, Roberts filed a federal lawsuit in May 2014, over the $15,500 worth of firearms. In the end he got the money, but not the guns. The police had had them destroyed.
Second Amendment lawyers say his case is not rare.
“NRA and CRPA constantly get calls from law abiding people having problems getting their guns back,” said Chuck Michel of Long Beach based Michel & Associates, who represented Roberts in the case. “The state Department of Justice wrongly tells police not to give guns back unless the person can document ownership of the gun and it is registered in the state DOJ’s database. But the law doesn’t require this.”
Gun owners can’t comply anyway, Michel said, because police themselves routinely fail to enter the firearms into the DOJ’s database, and most people don’t have receipts for the guns they own.
While Americans have the constitutional rights to keep and bear arms – and protect their property from government’s unlawful seizure – it is not just in California where guns are seized and destroyed illegally, attorneys charge.
"This kind of below-the-radar bureaucratic gun confiscation is a growing Second Amendment and property rights violation problem, particularly in strict gun control states like California, New Jersey and Massachusetts,” said Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation. “People can't afford to spend tens of thousands of dollars on legal fees to get back a $500 firearm."
The Second Amendment Foundation’s most recent case involves Rick Bailey, a 56-year-old Navy veteran from Glendale, Ariz., whose entire collection of 28 firearms valued at $25,000 was seized by authorities because of an ongoing dispute with a neighbor.
After Bailey complained over several months to the city of Glendale that his neighbor frequently parked his landscaping company’s dump trucks in front of Bailey’s home -- and toxic chemical odors were coming from his neighbor’s property -- the neighbor obtained a harassment order against Bailey. Police showed up and seized Bailey’s gun collection.
 “Mr. Bailey is devastated by this situation. We seem to live in an environment when someone’s life can be turned upside down on an allegation that should have been thoroughly investigated before any action was ordered by a court,” Gottlieb said. “We’re helping Bailey in his appeal of the judge’s order so he can not only reclaim his valuable firearms, but also some of his dignity as well.”
Probably the most notorious gun confiscation case happened after Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans in 2005 when the city’s then-mayor, Ray Nagin, ordered all legally owned firearms seized. The Second Amendment Foundation successfully sued on behalf of thousands of law abiding gun owners to stop, or reverse, the confiscations. But hundreds more gun owners without legal representation or ownership paperwork had to abandon their guns. Those firearms still have not been destroyed, Gottlieb said.

'This kind of below-the-radar bureaucratic gun confiscation is a growing Second Amendment and property rights violation problem.'- Alan Gottlieb, Second Amendment Foundation

In Massachusetts, residents who had their guns taken because of restraining orders or other reasons must pay a fee to a private storage company when their legal issues are resolved, regardless of their own culpability. The fees can run in the thousands of dollars, often exceeding the value of the guns. Instead of paying the fee, they often forfeit the firearms and the company auctions them off, Gottlieb said.
In Kentucky, a law passed in 2014 that allows law enforcement to take firearms from those accused – not convicted – of domestic violence crimes. Similar laws are in place in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Louisiana.
In Lakewood, Ohio, in August 2011, police seized 13 firearms valued at $15,000 from U.S. Army veteran Francesca Rice while she wasn’t home, according to Cleveland Scene. Police reportedly had an employee of the condominium complex let them in.
The firearms collection of Rice, who served her country in Iraq, included handguns, shotguns, a vintage Chinese SKS M21 semi-automatic carbine and a semi-automatic rifle.
The seizure was based on a “situation involving the gun owner's absence from a VA hospital where she had been receiving treatment…. However, no charges were ever filed, and a year later, Rice's requests to have her guns returned had gone unanswered,” the Ohio-based Buckeye Institute reported, noting after the lawsuit was settled, the police were ordered to return her firearms.
These tactics are a way for police departments or the government to make it more costly to own guns, said John Lott, an economist, leading expert on guns, and author at the Crime Prevention Research Center. Lott believes the illegal policies most hurt poor gun owners, who not only are less likely to afford to get their property back, but also typically live in neighborhoods where they are more vulnerable to crime.
Seizing legally owned guns can also be a way for law enforcement agencies to boost their revenue if, as in some cases, they sell the firearms rather than destroying them, Lott said.
In the Roberts’ case in California, police blamed a letter from the California Department of Justice that required gun owners to produce documentation showing it was their firearm that was seized and ordered them to register all firearms that previously had been exempt.
The receipt the police department issued when confiscating the firearms wasn’t sufficient proof, the DOJ said, and most firearms owners don’t have other proof of purchase, especially for firearms passed down from generation to generation.
The case was settled for $30,000 and the department changed its policy, but Roberts suffered through three years of aggravation and lost family heirlooms as a result of the department’s actions.
In 2012, California civil rights attorney Donald Kilmer represented the Second Amendment Foundation and CalGuns Foundation in the first legal challenge in California for wrongful retention of firearms and won, leading San Francisco and Oakland to change their policies.

Related Image

Expand / Contract

Attorney Donald Kilmer speaking at a March 2015 conference. Kilmer represented the Second Amendment Foundation and CalGuns Foundation in the first legal challenge in California for wrongful retention of firearms

But remarkably, the situation in California in some respects is getting worse.
“The legislature has never met a gun regulation they didn’t like and the state is populated with millions of people who want to exercise their Second Amendment rights,” said Kilmer.
The problem now is that the State Bureau of Firearms is issuing letters that misstate the law with regard to what documentation gun owners must produce to get their property back, Kilmer said.
In the past, if firearms were seized in California from a home because of psychiatric issues, domestic violence allegations, restraining orders or other issues, the firearms were returned after the case was resolved through a court order.
However, under a new law, Kilmer said a background check is required to ensure the property is not stolen, the owner has to prove ownership, and then the owners get a letter clearing them to pick up their property.
“It makes sense on its face, but it is taking longer to issue letters,” Kilmer said, adding most gun owners can’t meet other requirements because they don’t have paperwork to show title, many legally owned guns are not registered, the federal government is forbidden from keeping firearms ownership records with the exception of for specialty guns, and California just started its database in 1996 exclusively for handguns.
“People keep forgetting the right to keep and bear arms, the Second Amendment, is protected by the U.S. constitution, and private property is protected under the Fifth Amendment,” Kilmer said. “Government cannot take property without just compensation and due process. The great thing is that when it comes to guns, you get protection under both amendments.”

The Hillary Clinton Juggernaut: What she'll need to win White House

After Hillary Clinton left the State Department in early 2013, her favorable rating was 64% and her unfavorable rating 31% in an April 14 Gallup poll. In a March 4, 2015, Gallup poll, respondents were 50% favorable, 39% unfavorable. That’s not a good trend.
Nevertheless, the Hillary Juggernaut rolls on. She has no significant challenger for the 2016 presidential nomination—though 66% of Democrats in a March 24 CBS poll wanted Mrs. Clinton to face one.
Her campaign strengths are clear. Raising money, at least from bundlers and events, will be easy. President Obama is in her corner—he needs her to win to protect his legacy. And finally there’s her team. It consists of mostly battle-hardened veterans with a take-no-prisoners toughness, a mix of Obama operatives, key State Department advisers, members of her 2008 campaign apparatus, and some of her husband’s old hands from the 1990s.
Yet each one of these strengths is also a potential weakness.