Daily Archives: May 20, 2017

On May 23, 1977, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision inAbood v. Detroit Board of Education. It was a terrible decision for worker freedom, and advocates for freedom have been trying to overturn it ever since.

The controversy prompting the case started, because Michigan law allowed unions to become the exclusive representatives of state employees. These workers had to pay union dues for this representation or agency fees, even if they were not union members. The fees purportedly only covered the cost of collective bargaining, not political spending, though the unions determined what the collective bargaining costs were.

After the Michigan Public Employment Relations Act was amended in 1965, the Detroit Board of Education held an election and the Detroit Federation of Teachers won an election and agreed to a collective-bargaining contract with the board on July 1, 1969.

Two months before the agreement was to become effective, though, on November 7, 1969, Christine Warczak, aDetroit schoolteacher for seven years, and other teachers sued the board, the union, and union officials in state court. The teachers didnt want to pay agency fees and didnt want collective bargaining in the public sector. The plaintiffs urged the state court to find the agency fees invalid under state and federal law, specifically the First and 14th amendments of the United States Constitution.

The state district court, unfortunately, dismissed the case. The plaintiffs appealed to the Michigan Court of Appeals, whichupheldthe agency fees even though it recognized that the rights of the teachers were being violated. The court felt that the plaintiffs should have told the unions what spending they objected tobeforesuing in the state trial court in 1969.

The Michigan Supreme Court declined to review the case, but the U.S. Supreme Courttookthe case in 1976. In deciding the case, the Supreme Court first looked at precedent,Railway Employees Dept. v. Hanson(1956),andMachinists v. Street (1961).

InHanson, railroad employees sued to eliminate agency fees. While the Nebraska Supreme Court decided that these fees violated the First and 14th amendments, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the decision on grounds that the fees promoted labor peace. The court, however, decided that if the fees were not used for collective bargaining, that would be a different question.

The court inStreet, however,found that using fees for political purposes violated the Constitution. This case was similar toHanson, but there was actual evidence that the fees had been spent on political causes.

Because ofHanson, however, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled it could not stop the fees and returned the case to the lower court for a more limited solution. When the court took up the issue again inAboodin 1976, itquotedthe concurring opinion of Justice Douglas inStreetto explain its decision to uphold the agency fees:

The furtherance of the common cause leaves some leeway for the leadership of the group. As long as they act to promote the cause which justified bringing the group together, the individual cannot withdraw his financial support merely because he disagrees with the groups strategy. If that were allowed, we would be reversing theHansoncase,sub silentio.

The Supreme Court next explained the plaintiffs arguments. Their first argument was thatHansonandStreetshould not influence the decision here because in this case, the workers were government employees. In addition, collective bargaining in the public sector is political. Unfortunately, the court rejected both arguments, saying public employees were not very different from private workers.

The justices then said the violation of the workers First Amendment rights was not all that great, because public employees could vote, volunteer for a campaign, and express their differences of opinion from the union.

The court held that while workers should not be forced to contribute to a political organization to keep their job, the union could charge fees to pay for collective-bargaining costs.

The opinionconcludedby sending the case to the lower court and saying the court would determine if this was a good solution in a later case.

In the decades afterAbood, the Supreme Court heard several important labor cases and came to conclusions that did not seem to fit with theAbooddecision.

Then in 2013, one brave woman decided she was tired of paying agency fees to a union that spent money on political issues she disagreed with.

Rebecca Friedrichs was a public elementary school teacher in Orange County, California. She taught for more than 28 years. In a 2015Washington Postprofile, Friedrichsexplainedher teachers union, California Teachers Association (CTA), did not represent her. She believed the union protected abusive and incompetent teachers while denying opportunities for younger and better teachers.

She also said the union failed to respect her political views. She described in the article how she wasshunnedfor supporting educational choice:

My union rep right there in front of everybody called me a radical right winger for daring to not stand against vouchers. Iwas trying to follow my conscienceand I was abused for that. That whole school year I was shunned and treated like a second-class citizen.

After these experiences, she resigned from the union but still had to pay agency fees even though the union chooses to represent non-members.

In 2013, Friedrichs sued her union inFriedrichs v. California Teachers Associationto eliminate agency fees, because she disagreed with what the union bargained over andfeltthey violated her First Amendment rights:

Here in California, most public officials have been put into office by union dollars. So youve put them into office and now you come to the bargaining table. The official you put into office is one side and the union is on the other side and youre bargainingfor taxpayer money, only the taxpayer doesnt get invited to the table. Thats political, in my opinion.

On Dec. 5, 2013, however, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Californiaruled against her. The court agreed with CTA thatAboodallowed agency fees, and, therefore, the court couldnt decide on the issue.

Friedrichs then appealed the decision on July1, 2014, to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Fortunately, the Ninth Circuitupheldthe lower courts decision on Nov. 18, 2014, so that the case could be heard by the Supreme Court.

On March 29, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court, however, affirmed the Ninth Circuits ruling, because Justice Antonin Scalia unexpectedly passed away in February 2016. Without Justice Scalias vote for freedom, the court was divided, and,therefore, the Ninth Circuits ruling against Friedrichs stood.

It was ablowto worker freedom advocates, especially since they thought they would win this case after hearing the oral arguments.

Unions, however, were thrilled with the decision. On March 29, 2016, the day of the decision, several unions had a presscall. Mary Kay Henry, president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU),said, during the call:

We know the wealthy extremists who pushed this case want to limit the ability for workers to have a voice, curb voting rights and restrict opportunities for women and immigrants, and we know the way to stop them is by taking our fight to the polls in November.

Union Banditry Disappears

Why were unions celebrating aboutFriedrichs? They had seen what happened to unions in Wisconsin after Act 10 was passed.

On June 29, 2011, Gov. Scott Walker (R)signed Act 10 or the Wisconsin Budget Repair Bill into law in the Badger State. The bill limited collective bargaining for most public sector employees to base wages, and employees were no longer required to pay dues. As a result, union membershipdroppedalmost 40 percent. Within fiveyears, Wisconsin taxpayers also saved $5.24 billion.

After seeing what happened in Wisconsin and learning about theFriedrichscase, the California Teachers Association actually held a conference to discuss the possible loss of revenue, membership, and staffing and the potential financial difficulties if the Supreme Court invalidated agency fees.

Freedom Is on the Horizon for Workers

Although the unions breathed a sigh of relief afterFriedrichswas decided, they still have much to worry about because workers and their allies are still fighting for worker freedom.

On November 8, 2016, Donald Trump was elected president. President Trump has now appointed Justice Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, and on April 10, 2017, Justice Gorsuch was sworn into Justice Scalias seat.

Justice Gorsuch has an impressive background, graduating from Columbia (B.A.), Harvard (J.D.), and the University of Oxford in England (PhD). He also clerked for Supreme Court justices Byron White and Anthony Kennedy and was a partner for Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel in Washington, D.C.

On May 10, 2006, President George W. Bush nominated him as a judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in Colorado. He was unanimously confirmed by the Senate on July 20, 2006.

As a judge, Gorsuch has asimilar judicial philosophy as Justice Scalia, using the text of the Constitution to decide a case. He is most well-known for his concurring opinion on the Hobby Lobby religious freedom case, which the Supreme Court upheld on June 30, 2014.

It still remains to be seen, however, how Justice Gorsuch will rule on labor law cases, but we may get that opportunity soon.

Possible New Supreme Court Cases

Worker freedom advocates have not given up the fight to overturnAboodand get rid of mandatory agency fees.

There are several cases in the lower courts that the Supreme Court could decide the question of agency fees, possibly as early as the fall, but the two most likely cases areYohn v. CTAandJanus v. AFSCME.

Yohn v. CTAbegan on February 6, 2017, when Ryan Yohn and seven other experienced California teachers sued the California Teachers Association in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. They do not want to pay agency fees because they violate their First and 14th amendment rights.

Plaintiff Yohnexplainedhis frustrations with the agency fee system in a Center for Individual Rights press release:

My constitutional rights to free speech and association dont stop at the school entrance, said Ryan Yohn, one of the plaintiffs and a 13-year middle school teacher for the Westminster School District. Each year, public school teachers in California must pay the union to promote policies that work against many of our own political, and sometimes moral, interests.

The plaintiffs complaintsaysthe agency fees violate the teachers First Amendment rights in two ways. First, agency fees require the teachers to contribute to collective bargaining expenses that violate the beliefs of the teachers and support other expenses. Secondly, the teachers have to opt out every year to avoid paying union dues.

Laws that potentially violate free speech have to be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest. The plaintiffs argue that agency-shop laws arent narrowly tailored and they dont serve a compelling government interest.

The complaint also points out that the agency fees mostly go to the state and national unions, not the local union that does the actual collective bargaining.

Further, the union does not bargain for certain benefits, like disability insurance (which covers maternity leave), but rather, it gives disability insurance to its members. So, non-members dont receive valuable benefits and cant bargain with the state for them. Similarly, a union can opt not to pursue a grievance that has occurred to a non-member, but the non-member cant pursue the grievance on his or her own.

The second case,Janus v. AFSCME, wasdecidedon March 21, 2017, by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

Like Michigan inAbood, Illinois has a similar law that requires non-union members who work for the government to pay agency fees. In 2015, however, Gov. Bruce Rauner (R) sued, arguing the fees violated the First Amendment rights of workers. The district court decided not to hear the case, because the governor was not paying the union fees. Two public employees, Mark Janus and Brian Trygg, however, added themselves to the case as plaintiffs, arguing they need the case to go to the Supreme Court so thatAboodcan be overturned.

Interestingly, Janus never challenged the fees before this case, but Trygg had. Trygg complained before the Illinois Labor Relations Board and then before the Illinois Appellate Court. He also argued that the law requiring the payment of fees ignored another law that said the fees could be paid to charity instead. In that case, Trygg won and was able to pay his fee to charity.

The unions, therefore, argue inJanusthat Trygg has already gotten relief in the earlier case. The federal Seventh Circuit agreed, saying he could have argued his constitutional claims before the Illinois Appellate Court.

Surprisingly, the plaintiffs actually got what they wanted in this case: a chance to possibly be heard by the Supreme Court. The plaintiffs could only get this chance if they lost at this level and appealed to the Supreme Court.

In aChicago Tribunearticle published on January 5, 2016, called Why I dont want to pay union dues Janusexplainedwhy he was suing:

I dont see my union working totally for the good of Illinois government. For years it supported candidates who put Illinois into its current budget and pension crisis. Government unions have pushed for government spending that made the states fiscal situation worse The union voice is not my voice. The unions fight is not my fight.

Interestingly, the most important constitutional claim for Abood,Friedrichs, Yohn and Janus is that the agency fees are violating the plaintiffs First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and association.Janus, however, includes paycheck protection, which would forbid the automatic deduction of fees from worker paychecks.

What would happen ifAboodwere overturned?

Public employees would gain more freedom, and unions would no longer be allowed to violate their First Amendment rights. They could join a union if they wanted or not join, just like any other group or association. In addition, private employees attempts to pass Right-to-Work would be bolstered, because private workers could argue more strongly that their rights were being violated as well by agency fees.

Perhaps in anticipation of a Trump Supreme Court deciding cases like the ones above, the SEIU announcedin a December 14, 2016, memo that it would cut its budget by one-third byJanuary 1, 2018. It would start by cutting ten percent of its $300 million budget at the beginning of 2017.

SEIU President Mary Kay Henryexplainedin a staff memo:

Because the far right will control all three branches of the federal government, we will face serious threats to the ability of working people to join together in unions. These threats require us to make tough decisions that allow us to resist these attacks and to fight forward despite dramatically reduced resources.

The group that would suffer the most ifAboodwere overturned would be Democratic politicians, who rely heavily on campaign contributions from unions. According to theWall Street Journal, which analyzed Federal Election Committee campaign-finance filings, labor unions spent almost $110 million on the 2016 election between January 2015 and August 2016. Only a couple of unions supported Trump during the election, i.e. the Fraternal Order of the Police.

Unions also organized their members to knock on doors, make phone calls, and participate in rallies in 2016. For example, on October 15, 2016, hundreds of union membersknockedon more than 5,000 doors in Philadelphia for Clinton. Union members also rallied in West Philadelphia, where the presidents of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) and AFSCME spoke to them.

According to the Center for Union Facts, there are 14.3 million union members in America. The amount unionsreceivefrom those members is more than $8.5 billion annually, and union assets total more than $9 billion.

If Aboodwere overturned, it would be especially devastating to Democrats in battleground states, like Colorado, Michigan, and Minnesota. Because of Act 10, for example, Trump won Wisconsin by 1 percentage point, and Trump even won Michigan by 1.3 percentage points due in part to its labor reforms.

The United States was founded on the belief that all citizens have the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Unions and politicians have eroded the liberty of workers for many decades. But maybe not for much longer.

Read more from the original source:

Freedom is Aboodiful Thing - American Spectator

The false claim that Trump conspired with Russia to engineer the 2016 election has reached the height of absurdity. The media and Democrats are trying to bamboozle the country by conflating several isolated incidents. They have no evidence but have created a story that combines the allegations about the Russians and the firing of FBI Director James Comey.

Claim 1: Trump conspired with Russia to interfere with the election

The first bogus allegation by the radical media and carried forward by many Democrats is that Trump somehow participated with Russia to influence the 2016 election. The advocates of this disinformation hit this off-tune piano key early and often. But Obama-era Director of National Intelligence James Clapper testified under oath that there was no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians.

The FBI and two congressional committees continue to investigate the extent of Russian activities. Unlike those who keep throwing wet wood on a match and producing smoke where there is no fire, I am content to wait for the outcome of those investigations and not jump to unwarranted and unsubstantiated conclusions.

Claim 2: Trump disclosed confidential information to Russian diplomats

The media and Democrats, sensing that people are not buying their first false Russian claim, have turned to an unnamed source who cites an unseen memo to make their second false claim. They allege that Trump disclosed confidential information to high-level Russian officials. No independent evidence to date corroborates the assertions.

Unlike the Washington Post, CNN, New York Times, and other outlets using unnamed sources, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster, who were actually in the meeting, publicly deny the reports.

The media have buried the lede. The real problem here is that either there was a criminal leak by someone in attendance at the meeting that jeopardizes national security and stature, or the media has once again grabbed a false story in its zeal to delegitimize the Trump presidency.

Claim 3: The firing of FBI Director James Comey and his memo

The Washington Post was the first to try and get the fire started, but was joined by radical members of the media. Here is a line from a CNN piece: "Comey wrote, quoting Trump in the document, which CNN has not viewed but which was described by the sources."

Democrats keep fanning the wet wood, producing only smoke. In their effort to delegitimize Trump and encourage a never-will-happen impeachment proceeding, they claim that the as-yet-unseen Comey memo is evidence of obstruction of justice.

Oddly enough, the unobservant media failed to acknowledge that an actual witness testified under oath before the Senate. In a recent hearing, Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe said, "There has been no effort to impede our investigation today." That's right the FBI testified under oath that there has been no obstruction of the investigation.

If Comey believed that his conversation with Trump constituted obstruction, he was obligated to report the offense to his superior (See 18 U.S.C. Section 4).

Democrats looked the other way when 30,000 emails were deleted from Hillary Clinton's server. They do not care that the alleged Russian interference with our election occurred under Obama's administration. The media's double standard for the Trump administration is unseemly. Simply put, the media and the Left have become unhinged over unsourced accusations.

The American people can clearly see there is an unprecedented, orchestrated effort to undermine Trump, in an attempt to subvert the will of the American people. I have never seen this level of fervor in American politics where anonymous sources dictate talks of impeachment, special counsels, investigations and obstruction of justice.

In spite of this incredible divisiveness, Trump has been productive. In the first four months of his administration, he has saved taxpayers billions of dollars by repealing government regulations, aided a rapid rise in economic growth, enforced our nation's immigration laws to help lower illegal border crossings and given us Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch. He has an ambitious agenda, and I believe that he will receive more successful outcomes in the future as he works to keep his promises.

Republicans in Congress can keep our promises to the American public by maintaining focus on our agenda to repeal Obamacare, reform tax structure for every American, build the border wall and facilitate creation of jobs and economic growth by reducing additional regulations. I look forward to working with my colleagues and the White House to these ends.

Andy Biggs (@RepAndyBiggsAZ) represents Arizona's fifth district in the U.S. Congress.

Thinking of submitting an op-ed to the Washington Examiner? Be sure to read ourguidelines on submissions.

See the article here:

Freedom Caucus member Andy Biggs: False claims against Trump are reaching the height of absurdity - Washington Examiner

Tea Party activists and their supporters will rally at the Capitol Sunday to mark Tax Freedom Day, the day the average Connecticut resident has earned enough to pay their federal, state and local taxes.

Connecticut's Tax Freedom Day is the latest in the nation, a sign that taxes here remain too high, organizers said.

The rally is scheduled to begin at 1 p.m. on the Capitol steps. A slate of speakers includes conservative commentators and two Republicans in the state legislature, Reps. Craig Fishbein of Wallingford and Anne Dauphinais of Killingly.

Grappling with projected deficits in excess of $1 billion for each of the next two fiscal years, neither Republicans, Democrats or Gov. Dannel P. Malloy have shown an appetite to further increase taxes. Budgets released this week by legislators and Malloy rely on deep cuts and concessions from state employee unions to tackle the deficits.

After income tax increases in 2011 and 2015, rally organizers said a third income tax increase is not the answer.

"Our speakers will tell the truth about Connecticut's addiction to taxation and the damage it has done our state economy," said Bob MacGuffie, one of the founders of the Tea Party in Connecticut.

John Slater, a Republican from Bridgeport and one of the organizers of the Tax Freedom Day rally, said state legislators "have to find a way to promote growth in our state."

"We need to incentivize job creators to hire the next employee and create the next idea and send it into the production line," he said. Further tax increases will drive businesses and high-income earners out of Connecticut, Slater said.

Ty Seymour, who graduates from Southern Connecticut State University next year, said many of his peers want to stay in the state but have trouble finding work, or don't make enough to live on their own and wind up back home with their parents.

"One of the main things that can be done to help end that cycle ... is encourage businesses to provide opportunities to stay in Connecticut" by lowering their tax burden, said Seymour, who is active in a statewide organization of college Republicans and is one of the rally's speakers.

The state with the lowest tax burden, according to the Tax Foundation, which compiles the Tax Freedom Day rankings, is Mississippi, where Tax Freedom Day is marked on April 5.

Joining Connecticut in the top five states for cumulative tax burden are other Northeastern states including New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts and California.

Connecticut began collecting an income tax in 1991.

Read more here:

Celebration Of 'Tax Freedom Day' Sunday At The Capitol - Hartford ... - Hartford Courant

Affluent Millennials are prioritizing enjoying life now and saving to keep living that way, even if it means working for the rest of their lives, suggests a new study by Bank of America Merrill Edge.

The survey finds that more than half (63%) of Millennials are saving forfinancial freedomor the ability to fund living the lifestyle they desire; meanwhile, 55% of Generation Xers and Baby Boomers are saving to leave the workforce.

Merrill Edge notes that Millennials are significantly more likely" to focus onworking their dream job (42%, compared to 23%) and traveling the world (37%, compared to 21%) than their older counterparts. Millennials are also less likely to prioritize getting married (43%, compared to 51%) and being a parent.

It seems several young people are striving more to have enough money to live in the now than prepare for traditional life milestones like having a family. Merrill Edge finds many are spending now on traveling (81%), dining out (65%) and exercising (55%). The firm notes that the main driver of these spending habits is a Fear of Missing out (FOMO).

However, this is not to say Millennials are deficient in proper savings habits. Even though only 8% of all respondents said they believeMillennials are doing a good job at saving, this generation is saving 36% more of their annual salary than their generational counterparts.

This springs report shows us even more differences between how Millennials and their parents view and save for the future, says Aron Levine, head of Merrill Edge. Young adults tell us they are willing to do whatever it takes to achieve freedom and flexibility, even if it means working for the rest of their lives. To ensure success, its increasingly important these younger generations take a hands-on, goals-based approach to their long-term finances and prioritize saving in the short term.

But when it comes to retirement, the majority of respondents across all age groups (56%) believes people should be required to save on their own for this milestone. Because it seems many Millennials arent prioritizing saving for retirement, plan sponsors and their advisers can benefit from leveraging targeted strategies to help this cohort save for goals beyond living a desired lifestyle, such as saving for unexpected emergencies and health care expenses. A good place to meet them where they are may be through technology. But while Millennials are often cited as the tech-savvy generation, Merrill Edge finds that digitals impact spans generations.

Overall, two in five Americanssay they make and manage their investments through an online or mobile portal. One in eight are currently using a robo-adviser or would consider doing so in the next year. This figure jumps to 22% among Millennials. Across generations, respondents also said investing via mobile makes them feel knowledgeable (51%), empowered (31%) and savvy (14%). These findings may suggest advisers can benefit from utilizing financial technology as a tool to help clients feel more in control of their finances.

Were at a pivotal moment in time, when our physical and digital worlds are intersecting more than they ever have before, says Levine. This growing shift is driving our high-tech and high-touch approach to innovation, and the beauty is that consumers are recognizing that planning for their later years is not a one-size-fits-all process. With new technologies, customers have the flexibility to be hands-on with their investment decisions, while still consulting an adviser to help navigate complexities as their lives change.

And it seems most people, regardless of age, expect technology to become an even bigger part of their financial lives down the road.When asked about predictions about the next decade of investing, Americans believe emerging technologies will allow more people to invest (41%), most investments will be automated (34%), and the 401(k) account will no longer be the gold standard (29%).

Merrill Edges survey was conducted between March 21 and April 5 by market research company Convergys. Itconsisted of 1,023 mass affluent respondents throughout the U.S. Respondents in the study were defined as aged 18 to 34 (millennials) with investable assets between $50,000 and $250,000 or those aged 18 to 34 who have investable assets between $20,000 and $50,000 with an annual income of at least $50,000; or aged 35-plus with investable assets between $50,000 and $250,000.

The full report can be found atMerrillEdge.com.

See the article here:

Millennials Saving More for Financial Freedom - Planadviser.com

Freedom Caf

43 St Marys Avenue, Greyville

Phone: 031 309 4453

Open: Tuesday to Sunday 7am to 4pm (breakfast and lunch)

You wont stumble upon Freedom Caf, tucked away as this out-the-box-in-the-box (an expanded container) eatery in the courtyard of The Concierge boutique hotel in Greyville. You have to know about it. Or consult Google.

It was a rainy Saturday that I recently met a friend there for lunch. Being rainy, the tables on the deck area under the trees were not an option. Not a problem. There is a lot of glass and greenery so most tables give a sense of inside-outside dining.

Freedom Caf is known for its fresh ingredients, flavourful food and creative menu. The vibe is always relaxed and chatty.

We shared a table (everyone being inside). This is the norm in some countries where you dont ask. Just sit down, say hello, then get on with your life. In my humble opinion we should make it the norm here. It doesnt mean you involve yourself with others at the table. It is just practical, friendly, and makes sense.

Had it been earlier than the 11am cut-off, I might have tried one of the six Benedicts (R65 R79) on the breakfast/brunch menu, or the avo with biltong dust on toast (R50).

But we were there for the lunch menu and started with to share the tapas trio: (a rich and robust) red pepper dip, (fresh and yoghurty) tsatsiki, (very good) smoked olives (and excellent chewy Glenwood Bakery) rye toast (R65); and the (waitron recommended) zucchini fries with housemade mayo (R40). The crispy batter encasing the melt-in-the-mouth creamy zucchini made for a lovely texture contrast. The mayo was too overwhelmingly lemony for my taste .

I would like to go back on a day when nothing is planned to indulge in the Wheel Out the Gin Trolley domestic and imported gin selection from the Boozed part of the menu that offers creative cocktails and wines by the glass or bottle. But we both had early evening plans, so chose the green (spinach-based) and red (beetroot-based) from the Robot juices (R26).

The chilly weather called for comfort food. The Sri Lankan lamb bowl (tender lean chunks) with coconut rice, pico di gallo and tomato chilli jam (R120) was mildly spiced, tasty and light.

The pulled pork (R88) slow-cooked (in Coca Cola, the waitron said when asked about the cola mentioned on the menu and the distinctive sweetish flavour) was succulent and lovely in combination with the fresh avo, black beans and wild brown rice. In both dishes the tomato chilli jam gave a contrast that my taste buds applauded. And a plus for the pea-sprout greenery added.

I hadnt had kimchi for ages so we shared a kimchi and mayo beef burger (R85). This was served as burgers should be, but rarely are. A plump, juicy meat patty (in this case with the contrast of spicy chewy kimchi) and a minimalist bun. (As distinct from a great big mediocre bun overwhelming the rest.)

We shared a dessert from the Affogato Bar part of the menu (where there are five options). Who could resist something called Paradise? And sure enough, the (Era) vanilla ice cream, the (little bubbly bursts of) chia seeds, (contrasting bite of) granadilla and pour of bitter espresso (R55) was paradise enough to end with.

We had a rather indulge yourself feast. Will be back soon for some of the snacky things on the menu when not too hungry.

Food: 4

Ambiance: 3

Service: 3

The Independent on Saturday

Continued here:

The Secret diner: Box clever to find Freedom in a container - Independent Online

ISLAMABAD The America-loving Pakistani doctor who helped the CIA pinpoint Usama Bin Laden in advance of the raid that killed the worlds most wanted man could be on the cusp of freedom.

Dr. Shakil Afridi, whose vaccination ruse helped the U.S. determine Bin Laden was holed up in an Abbottabad, Pakistan, compound before the May 2, 2011 raid by SEAL Team 6 members and CIA agents, has been imprisoned for nearly six years in the majority Muslim nation. But with Trump set to meet Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif on his current Middle East trip, new hope has arisen that Afridi could be released on or around May 24, when he is due to appear in court.

"It is evident that negotiations had started between the Pakistan and U.S. officials to release Dr. Afridi and we expect a good news at the May 24 hearing, said Qamar Nadim, Afridis attorney. The allegations against Dr. Afridi will be likely ruled out."

"It is evident that negotiations had started between the Pakistan and U.S. officials to release Dr. Afridi and we expect a good news at the May 24 hearing.

During his successful campaign, Trump pledged to get Afridi released in two minutes if elected, saying he would use the threat of revoking foreign aid as leverage. Pakistans interior minister responded in a statement, saying Contrary to Mr. Trumps misconception, Pakistan is not a colony of the United States of America.

THE WEEK IN PICTURES

This week, a senior official at the U.S. State Department told Fox News the Trump administration has and will continue to press the case for releasing Afridi.

Usama bin Laden, shown here in a 2001 video, was living in Pakistan when SEAL Team Six killed him. (Associated Press)

We believe Dr. Afridi has been unjustly imprisoned and have clearly communicated our position to Pakistan on Dr. Afridi's case, both in public and in private, the official said. We continue to raise this issue at the highest levels during discussions with Pakistan's leadership.

Although the State Department official said Pakistan has offered assurances Afridi is being treated humanely and is in good health, a sit-down between Trump and Sharif, expected to take place in Riyadh in the next few days, would offer a chance for Trump to put pressure face-to-face on his counterpart.

In this May 5, 2011 file photo, local residents and media are seen outside the house where Al Qaeda leader Usama bin Laden was caught and killed in Abbottabad, Pakistan. (AP)

Afridi was hailed as a hero by U.S. officials for posing as a vaccination manager in the operation, obtaining DNA samples of bin Laden relatives and establishing his presence in the compound. But officials, including then-CIA Director Leon Panetta, made Afridis role public before the doctor and his family could get out of Pakistan, and he was quickly arrested.

In a 2012 exclusive interview from his prison cell, Afridi told Fox News he was proud to have helped America get Bin Laden.

I have a lot of respect and love for your people, he said, adding that he was proud to work with the CIA.

Afridis case has been bogged down by endless appeals and court delays at a tribunal in Peshawar. While viewed as a hero to the United States, where he once lived, Afridi is seen by some in Pakistan as a traitor. The raid itself was seen as a violation of Pakistans sovereignty, even though the 9/11 mastermind and Al Qaeda leaders presence in Pakistan was not likely a secret to many in power.

Sartaj Aziz, an adviser to Sharif on foreign affairs, confirmed that Sharif will meet President Trump but declined to comment on Afridi's case or negotiations between the nations for his release.

However, a senior government official in Islamabad, speaking on condition of anonymity, indicated a deal could be close.

For improvement in the strained relations between Islamabad and Washington, it is the right time to resolve the pending issues including Dr. Afridis case, he said.

In May 2012, Afridi was sentenced to 33 years behind bars, under murky charges. Pakistani officials initially reported he was convicted of treason. Then in 2013, his conviction was overturned and he was instead charged with the murder of a patient eight years earlier and his prison term reduced to 23 years.

Afridi filed an appeal seeking a new trial, but his lawyer told Fox News in 2015 that the case ground to a halt when proceedings were repeatedly canceled.

While the U.S. provides Pakistan with more than $800 million in foreign aid, the U.S needs the mostly Muslim nations cooperation in the war on terror.

See original here:

Doc who helped get Bin Laden on Trump's radar ahead of meeting with Pakistani PM - Fox News