Mediaboss Marketing

If Congress wants to lower the national temperature and quell the protests and bad feelings rapidly mounting across our land, they might consider listening more closely to Bill Flores when it comes to the combustible issue of immigration. The low-key Republican congressman from Central Texas offers a viable blueprint for immigration reform whose time, we believe, has come.

By getting to work on immigration reform complete with realistic remedies involving not only border security but also the 11.5 million or so people in the United States illegally Republicans can address an issue that drove President Trumps phenomenal 2016 campaign but in ways that are both humane and shrewdly pro-business.

Frankly, to let President Trump set the agenda with conflicting statements at rallies and in meetings is to allow Congress to abandon its Article I duties and responsibilities. And given that the Republican Congress has complained for several years about President Obamas federal overreach in this particular area, its high time for lawmakers to prove they offer more than campaign rhetoric.

Congressman Flores ideas, outlined in a Trib Q&A conducted by staff writers J.B. Smith and Phillip Ericksen, makes clear that a physical wall is not always practical considering the borderland terrain, yet border security is an absolute must. Expediting the processing of visas for certain trades is also a necessity, particularly for industries where workers are needed and Americans fail to fill the ranks.

Most controversially, Flores has for some time proposed a system of fines for those who came to this country illegally, even as he proposes ways to make them legal, given many of them are part of the foundation for construction, hospitality and agricultural endeavors in our state, including here in Central Texas.

And, yes, this includes a path to U.S. citizenship for the so-called Dreamers. As he told Ericksen and Smith: Look, if you take someone who was brought here when they were 2 years old and say, Now were going to ship you to Venezuela, theyd be lost. Theyre Americans. Weve educated them. Why not make Americans out of them? Legal Americans.

Some insist that Congressman Flores ideas amount to amnesty, but they need to consult a dictionary. Paying fines for long-ago offenses is not amnesty. And its important that local, state and federal governments know who these people are and ensure theyre paying taxes. And we hope this nation has not sunk to the level of imposing hardships on those who came here as innocent children.

To his credit, Flores ideas have been shaped and refined over the past few years by local folks, including business leaders as well as pastors. And when he invited comment from a mostly conservative crowd on his ideas at a town-hall meeting at Texas State Technical Colleges Waco campus last August, no one objected. Lets hope Flores can now employ his considerable influence in Washington including that from his chairmanship of the solidly conservative Republican Study Committee last session and help put this problem to rest before it rips this nation apart.

See the original post here:
EDITORIAL: Congressman Flores offers sane path on immigration reform - Waco Tribune-Herald

Someone asked recently why we have posted the First Amendment as a regular feature on this page.

Well its just a reminder that we can all have a voice in the defense and perpetuation of our great Democratic Republic.

The fact is, many people make reference to the First Amendment when theyve never actually read it, or else they havent read it in a very long time.

The First Amendment is the front door of our great Constitution. Without it, claiming the many protections for the individual in this document would be a cumbersome and inefficient process.

There have been efforts through the years to erode the First Amendment, but fortunately the concept attributed to Voltaire and echoed by Patrick Henry has prevailed. I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Such a noble stand!

Routinely we get comments from the public that paraphrased collectively say, He shouldnt be allowed to say that.

Well, we do have libel and slander laws which establish some parameters on our speech, but those provisions allow for evidence and a process of jurisprudence.

But the aforementioned reference, He shouldnt be allowed to say that typically involves contrasting opinions that come in the purview of fair game and often involves politics.

Keep in mind that the First Amendment also addresses freedom of religion, freedom of the press, the right to peacefully assemble and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The First Amendment is sort of an antidote to tyrants, big and small. It embraces concepts foreign to many governments around the world. It provides for broad discourse and robust debate elements that helped found our nation.Simply put, its the crown jewel of our Constitution and metaphorically speaking, should be worn on our sleeves!

Continue reading here:
First Amendment: Crown jewel of our Constitution - Moultrie Observer

Its Sunshine Week in the Sunshine State, and not just because its Spring Break.

Since 2005, open government and freedom of information advocates have designated March 13-19 as a time to celebrate public transparency and raise awareness about the critical importance of access to government records.

Sunshine Week is timed to coincide with the birthday of James Madison, author of the First Amendment.

True to form, the First Amendment Foundation has been busy at the Florida Capitol battling to ensure the publics right to know. The Tallahassee-based nonprofit helped restructure a bill this week that would have severely limited access to information if the government decided not to comply with public records laws.

Floridas sunshinelaw says that it is the policy of this state that all state, county, and municipal records shall at all times be open for a personal inspection by any person.But the only real recourse against a government officer or agency that refuses to hand over public informationis to challenge them in court.

That can be expensive. As a safeguard, if a judge rules that the government violated public records laws, then the government must pay the record requesters attorneys fees.

The mandatory provision creates a level playing field for someone who can afford to pay for an attorney and those who cannot, according to the First Amendment Foundation.

Putting aside the issue of awarding attorneys fees with taxpayer money, a new bill would have made the mandatory fee provision optional. By changing the word must to shall, a judge could deny fees even if the court rules in favor of the citizen.

The potential consequences are enormous.

Without a penalty provision when the government is wrong, there is no incentive to be transparent and provide citizens with access to information about governmental decision-making. The result will be fewer challenges brought by citizens, which will certainly result in less government transparency, says the First Amendment Foundation.

But Tuesday, a compromise was reached and the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously approved it.

Under the bill as amended in committee, the fee provision remains mandatory, Barbara Petersen, the foundations executive director, told Watchdog.org.

Petersen sounded the alarm about the proposal in February, then outlineda fix, and recently worked with Sen. Greg Steube, R-Sarasota, the bills sponsor, and the Florida League of Cities to amend the bill.

As part of the compromise, the bill also includes a five-day notice requirement that would alert a public records custodian of a pending records request before a lawsuit can be filed, and an additional provision that allows courts to crack down on improper records requests the issue Steubes bill initially sought to address.

Hisapproach, however, also would have penalized legitimate inquiries and legal challenges.

In recent years, lawmakers have decried a cottage industry of records requests that are intended to trigger sunshine violations. Petersen calls them predatory requests.

Theyre designed to fail, she told Watchdog.org. When the agency doesnt respond, or doesnt respond quickly enough, then the requester files suit in civil court. A few days later, they call up the agency and offer to settle for a financial payout with the promise of dropping the lawsuit.

In 2014, the issue became a statewide concern when a circuit court judge ruled that Jeffrey Gray, a self-described civil rights activist from northeast Florida, was engaged in a baiting gesture meant to achieve personal financial gain, rather than a genuine effort to obtainpublic information.

According to the Florida Bar, the ruling said Gray had been a plaintiff in 18 separate lawsuits involving public records requests in Duval County, and that Grays lawyer had paid him when attorneys fees were recovered. The judgment said the practice was nothing more than a scam.

Knocking out Floridas mandatory fee provision would haltfrivolous, harassing and disingenuous records requestsdesigned to force sunshine violations, but not without collateral damage.

In doing that, the bill wouldnt just punish the people who are taking advantage of the system, but the 99 percent of people who make requests because theyre legitimately seeking public records, Petersen said.

The amendment adopted this week should fix that.

If Steubes amended bill becomes law, not only will courts continue to award attorneys fees when the government wrongfully withholds public information, but courts also would be able to assess attorneys fees against anyone who attempts to profit from scamming Floridas public records system.

See the article here:
Sunshine Week: First Amendment Foundation goes to bat for ... - Florida Politics (blog)

Steamboat Springs District Judge Shelley Hill on Thursday ruled that a Jan. 26 court hearing should not have been closed to the public, and the transcripts should be released.

On Jan. 26, a preliminary hearing for Miguel Diaz-Martinez was scheduled. Diaz-Martinez has been charged with 41 felonies related to accusations that he exchanged drugs for sex with underage girls.

Diaz-Martinez ultimately decided he did not want a preliminary hearing, and the case was bound over to District Court, where felonies are heard.

It was disclosed in court during the Jan. 26 hearing that Diaz-Martinez had been offered a plea deal.

In a rare move, Routt County Judge James Garrecht offered to close his courtroom to the public for a few minutes. District Attorney Brett Barkey said he wanted to state the plea deal on the record, but he did not think it was appropriate in this case to do it publicly.

The Steamboat Pilot & Today requested the transcripts, believing court should not have been held in secret.

Hill agreed.

Once the public is excluded, that First Amendment right has been abridged, Hill said.

The defense and prosecution argued that releasing the transcript containing the plea offer would harm the ability to seat an impartial jury. They were concerned that, if an impartial jury could not be found, the trial would have to be held in another county.

Because of that, District Attorney Brett Barkey said there was an overriding and compelling interest to close the courtroom to the public.

As we all know, there is a clash between two constitutional divisions, Hill said.

The First Amendment guarantees freedom of the press, while the Sixth Amendment guarantees a person the right to a fair trial.

Hill said there were times when the freedom of the press might be limited, but she had the ability to ensure Diaz-Martinez still receives a fair trial.

Hill said pre-trial media coverage helps ensure an open, competent judicial system based on integrity and fundamental fairness.

Without constitutional freedom of the press and public scrutiny, government, including the judicial, and for trials themselves, could easily become secret proceedings where fundamental fairness could always be suspect, Hill said.

The court is preparing the transcripts for the Steamboat Pilot & Today.

On Thursday, Diaz-Martinez was scheduled for an arraignment to either plead guilty or not guilty to the charges. The arraignment was postponed until 2:30 p.m. April 26.

Also on Thursday, Hill partially denied a request from the Steamboat Pilot & Today to take photos in the courtroom.

The defense did not want photos taken, because it felt doing so might endanger Diaz-Martinezs right to a fair trial.

Hill ruled photos could not be taken while Diaz-Martinez appeared in jail clothing. Diaz-Martinez was still in custody and in jail clothing Thursday.

Photos will be allowed if there is a trial. During trials, defendants are allowed to wear normal clothing to avoid the appearance of guilt in front of jurors.

The Steamboat Pilot & Today will still not be allowed to show Diaz-Martinez wearing shackles.

To reach Matt Stensland, call 970-871-4247, email mstensland@SteamboatToday.com or follow him on Twitter @SBTStensland

View original post here:
1st Amendment triumphs in court | Craig Daily Press - Craig Daily Press

Though Rep.Keith Ellison was muscled into second place in the DNC chair race by the Democratic establishment, which selected former Secretary of Labor Tom Perez to prevent him from winning, Ellison is defending their status quo.

On March 16, Ellisonrespondedon Twitter to a user who criticized HillaryClintonby citing things President DonaldTrumphas done that Clintonwouldnt have doneand reduced the initially cited criticism as spin. Peter Daoua former Clinton adviser who writes for a pro-Clinton outlet that was funded by Clinton Super PACs specifically to create and distribute propaganda to boost Clintons candidacythanked Ellison on Twitter for the exchange. Ellisonrepliedenthusiastically, Honored to stand up for HRC!

Hillary Clinton doesnt warrant progressives standing up for her, and continually defendingClintonwill prevent the Democratic Partys recovery. The manner in which Clinton won the Democratic presidential nomination was a stark indicator of how undemocratic the Democratic Partys primary process and rules are. Yet, the DNC has suppressed any calls forreforms. Super delegates, closed primaries, a primary process susceptible to overt bias from the DNC chair andstaff, and corrupt funding from corporate lobbyists and Super Pacs have all been kept in place. Claims that the Democratic Party is united are pointless as long as progressives like Ellison are continuing to force feed Hillary Clinton to the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.

Clintons flawed recordcombined withObamas adoption of a neo-liberal political agenda contrary to his campaign promises of hope and changerepelled millions of voters from the Democratic Party. The last thing Democrats should be doing is trying to rehabilitate Hillary Clinton. Continuing to reverberate the failed Democratic Party strategy of focusing on Trump being worse than Clinton makes Democrats appear disconnected and out-of-touch. Despite Ellison gaining a reputation as being one of the few members of Congress that endorsed Sen. Bernie Sanders during the 2016 Democratic primaries, Ellison has tweeted about Clintonover a dozen times. For comparison, he mentioned Sanders twice in the same period. Clearly, Ellison is pandering to the Democratic establishment over voters, as Sanders remains substantially more popular with voters than any other member in the Democratic Party. Sanders recently led a Fox News favorability poll over every politician polled in the Democrat and Republican parties, and he maintains over a 56 percent favorability rating based on current poll averages.

Democrats should be adopting the strategies that made Sanders the most popular politician in the country and should focus on issues that impact working, low income and middle class Americans. While Democratic leaders remain obsessed with the Trump-Russia narrative, Sanders has been hosting town halls and engaging voters in states like West Virginia, Kansas, and Wisconsinplaces where the Democratic Party has suffered drastic losses since 2008. Rather than try to recoup these losses, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) is debating notputting resources into rural America at all. And Rural America isnt the only area where Democrats have been losing support. Since 2008, exit poll data shows that Democrats have continuously lost voters in every voter demographic, and Democrats low favorability is due to millions of voters, who have traditionally been loyal to the party,developing widespread resentment against it.

Ellison and other establishment Democrats need to give up on trying to make Hillary Clinton seem palatable to American voters. Their stubborn insistence to defendher even after she lostwill ensure that the voters who left the Democratic Party never return.

Originally posted here:
Former Sanders-Backer Continues to Cringingly 'Stand Up' for Hillary Clinton - Observer