Mediaboss Marketing

In 2013, the Senate passed a bipartisan -- do you remember that word? -- immigration reform bill that provided a pathway for undocumented immigrants to earn their way to citizenship.

The bill included tough new border security measures along the Mexican border: More fencing and thousands of more border patrol agents.

That negotiated legislation, which passed on a 68-32 count, garnered 14 Republican votes.

People like McCain and Rubio and Graham and Flake and Corker and Hatch and Ayotte.

The pathway would be no easy road; the requirements could have taken 13 years to fulfill.

But Republicans buried the bill in the House where bipartisan legislation generally goes to die.

Now, the Senate too is hopelessly split by partisanship and party, and the White House no longer is open to immigration reform.

In view of today's sharp division and fiery rhetoric, it's startling to recall there was such an opportunity just four years ago.

Lincoln Catholic Bishop James Conley spoke up powerfully about illegal or undocumented immigrants in an op-ed published in the Catholic Southern Nebraska Register this weekend and posted on Facebook.

"Our immigration system is broken because overhauling it would require that political leaders on all sides put aside partisan posturing and incendiary rhetoric in order to reach meaningful and comprehensive agreements," the bishop wrote.

"Surely, our government, in wisdom and creativity and human decency, can find just means of addressing the crime of illegal immigration without severing marriages, sending children to foster care and returning people to situations of abject hopelessness," he wrote.

"Surely, if America is truly great, it can respond to these challenges with ingenuity and virtue and charity," Conley stated.

"I stand in solidarity with immigrant families living in fear of what might be coming for them.

"I stand in solidarity with American citizens looking for real security instead of political showmanship and rhetoric.

"I stand in solidarity with those politicians and law enforcement agents working to find fair and humane solutions to complex problems.

"I stand in solidarity with those living in poverty or danger seeking some promise of safety and opportunity for their children.

"As Catholics," he wrote, "we must continue to call for real, comprehensive, safe and just immigration reform.

"But we cannot accept the panacea of mass detention and deportation," Conley wrote.

Guessing the end game at the Legislature.

Who can tell how this ends?

Tax cuts -- property and/or income -- remain the explosive political issue.

Rural interests appear to be drawing a deep line in the sand this time, calling for an undivided focus on meaningful property tax reduction.

Hanging in the air, whispered in text messages but undeclared, is the possibility -- but not the certainty -- of political consequences if that does not happen.

Legislative seats are in play next year and so is the governorship and rural Nebraska dominates statewide Republican primary elections.

Sen. Ben Sasse's remarks to a Lincoln Chamber of Commerce coffee gathering last week were the latest reminder of how gifted this guy is.

In introducing him, Chamber executive vice president Bruce Bohrer described Sasse as "a walking think tank."

Sasse walked the crowd through a broad sweep of history, centered on the present and cast an eye on the future, all of that delivered seamlessly and with hardly a pause.

The top headlines from JournalStar.com. Delivered at 11 a.m. Monday-Friday.

It was the kind of performance that challenges all of us to up our game.

Police officers did a professional job of keeping a lid on the demonstration that confronted Sen. Deb Fischer in Lincoln last week.

They respected the right of assembly, calmly and patiently talked protesters out of the Grand Manse building after they became disruptive and were blocking the hall, and did so with no threat or show of force.

No confrontation; no escalation; no injuries, no arrests; noisy, but no harm done: that's an A-plus in crowd control.

Jane Kleeb was featured on MSNBC during the election of a new Democratic national chairman in Atlanta on Saturday.

Kleeb, the new chair of Nebraska's Democratic Party, supported Rep. Keith Ellison of Minnesota, who lost in a narrow contest with Tom Perez.

"We are in the streets, energized and progressive," Kleeb said, and Ellison would have been the bridge to connect activists with the party apparatus.

Kleeb told MSNBC she is ready to work with Perez.

"Of course," she said. "But it's his responsibility to build a bridge, not mine."

* A view from the west in this paragraph in the North Platte Bulletin about a town hall meeting with Sen. Mike Groene: "It turned out there was no need for law enforcement even though some Groene critics from eastern Nebraska were said to be in the audience."

* Baseball is in the air.

Visit link:
Don Walton: Immigration reform was within reach - Lincoln Journal Star

Fort Worth Star Telegram

Appeals court: First Amendment gives public right to video police Fort Worth Star Telegram A witness, Brandon Brooks, uploaded this video of the incident to YouTube. In a recent 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, Justice Jacques Wiener wrote: Protecting the right to film the police promotes First Amendment principles. Brandon Brooks YouTube.

See original here:
Appeals court: First Amendment gives public right to video police - Fort Worth Star Telegram

The First Amendment is stronger than ever, and is being exercised more freely and aggressively than at any time in our nations history.

That may seem a surprising conclusion based on the handwringing from Big Media outlets like CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, The New York Times, the Washington Post and others who claim that the First Amendment is under attack from President Trump. But it is nevertheless true.

The Big Media outlets are doing their best to conflate themselves with the First Amendment, i.e., an attack on CNN, they say, is an attack on freedom of the press. That is a lie, as CNN would quickly label a dubious assertion by the president. CNN is merely an organization that takes advantage of First Amendment rights to do its job. CNN is not the embodiment of the First Amendment. Neither is The New York Times or the Washington Post.

What really bothers Big Media is that they are not as relevant, respected or necessary as they once were. But they want to be treated as if they are, as if its still 1950 or 1960 or even 1990. They want to be the filter through which news and information flows, but they are no longer that, and it is that fact that leads to their frequent hissy fits.

In this internet age, there are tens of thousands of alternative sources for news and information when it comes to national events, at least several hundred of which are regularly consulted by the masses on a daily basis. Most of these newer, alternative news sources are firmly planted in one ideological corner or the other, and their credibility is often suspect but unfortunately the same can be said for CNN, MSNBC, FOX, ABC, CBS, NBC, The New York Times, the Washington Post and countless additional metropolitan newspapers.

The cratering of respect and credibility for the once powerful Big Media outlets is not the fault of President Trump. It is the fault of the media outlets themselves. Their low standing is the result of their own irresponsible choices, culminating in their outrageously biased coverage of the 2016 presidential election.

Trump is off the mark when he criticizes certain outlets for delivering fake news. The news itself the content is real enough. Its the delivery that is flawed. The problem is not fake news. The problem is horrible journalism.

Understanding good journalism does not require an advanced degree. Good journalism is accurate. It is fair. It does not have an agenda. It is not out to get someone. It presents facts as completely as human beings are capable of gathering them. It does not seek out only the negative or the positive about the subjects that are covered. It follows the facts where they may lead, without a preconceived end result. Virtually none of the Big Media outlets follow these simple precepts anymore.

The First Amendment states, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

What a thing of beauty. So much is covered in so few words. But for todays purpose, our focus is on free speech and the press. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press

The First Amendment does not say, The president shall not criticize the media or call it fake news. It does not say, Certain media outlets above others will have rights of access and the front row at press briefings. It does not say, The president shall always call on CNN for a question during press conferences. None of those examples, when they happen or do not happen, in no way threaten, harm or violate the First Amendment.

When he or his staff holds a briefing or event, the president of the United States can handpick any group of media outlets he desires and exclude any he wants to keep out. Doing so violates no ones First Amendment rights. The only way CNNs First Amendment rights could be violated is if Congress passed a law taking CNN off the air.

Everyone associated with the news media, big or small, has gone through battles with various public officials, whether local, state or national, over access and inclusion. There are always cases where some officials or organizations or groups invite some media outlets to an event and not others, or send press releases to one while not sending to the others, or provide information later to others while getting it into a preferred outlets hands first. These are age-old games that are as ancient as the written word.

When it happens, it is not a violation of anyones First Amendment rights. In some cases, open record or freedom of information laws might be violated, but First Amendment rights are not. Nothing is preventing a media outlet from exercising its First Amendment rights, both by complaining loudly about the treatment and by pursuing the information through a less convenient avenue than having it handed over on a silver platter.

But meanwhile, the First Amendment itself is being exercised in this internet age so freely, so aggressively, so without boundaries that it could be mistaken for being on steroids. Anyone with internet access and a blog, anyone with email, anyone with a Facebook or Twitter account both media members and non-journalists has a worldwide platform to exercise their freedom of speech, even the worst kinds of free speech (anonymous and therefore irresponsible). Far from inhibiting the exercise of free speech and a free press, President Trump, intentionally or not, is demonstrating that the jealous entitlement CNN and other Big Media outlets have had on the First Amendment is a thing of the past.

The only way the traditional Big Media outlets can recapture their special claim on the First Amendment and the respect they once enjoyed is by doing what they are most unlikely to do return to a form of journalism that is fair and unbiased, tough but respectful. Short of that, their standing and influence will continue to diminish. The fault will be theirs, not the presidents.

Reach Gary Abernathy at 937-393-3456 or by email at [emailprotected]

http://timesgazette.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/web1_Gary-Abernathy-CMYK-9.jpg

.

Read more from the original source:
1st Amendment stronger than ever - Hillsboro Times Gazette

The writers at the Daily have done an excellent job of examining the Constitution recently. However, there is one portion of that terrible document they forgot to condemn, and it threatens our lives even more than others they have decried.

Therefore, I modestly propose one addition to their editorials on the grounds that mine is milder and has more justification behind it. Yes, the First Amendment is outdated. This ill-conceived rule was only made so evil farmers could talk about the government, their peers and anyone else without being jailed for speaking without approval.

Back in those times, they didnt have rapid communication such as telephones and the internet. Words had to travel very slowly by mouth and perhaps carried by horses, giving plenty of time to prevent thought crime, which must be accounted for differently today. Besides, black people and women had a different legal position, so we can automatically discount any ideal from the era as outdated.

People like me who see the wisdom in discarding the First Amendment could amend the Constitution with a heavy majority in Congress. But it would be easier to tell people that its irrelevant and gradually pass laws to eliminate its range of application so we dont have to wade through the tedium of coming up with better arguments and getting more seats in Congress on our side.

Where does the First Amendment even fit in a good world? Should we have every mother and father explain their views of the world to their kids and spend the day worrying that the youth might come to a different conclusion? Should we accept the possibility that any worker you encounter on your daily business has different opinions than yourself?

If a man were to shout fire in a crowded theater, others would repeat his shout and some would shout the opposite, creating a complete mess for authorities determining if there ever had been a fire. Behold, this problem reaches to the beginning of recorded history, with individuals, nations and entire species that were described but whose existence is uncertain.

Lets make the ACLU a division of the government; any group that lobbies Congress is practically in the government already, never mind that some other lobbyist organizations are actually receiving federal funding. Perhaps they can distribute thesauruses or pamphlets on theories of government. When we give everyone a reason to question authority, what could go wrong? If someone shouted a slur at pedestrians from a car and sped away, Id like to see free-speech advocates open their mouths and try to think of a rebuttal to erase the damage.

Pro-speech rights people would rush to wave my example away as an exaggeration and argue that people would have training to prevent poor grammar and logical fallacies. But they forget, we already have plenty of politicians to handle public speaking for us, so letting civilians have their own ideas is redundant. Thats why we should strike the First Amendment.

Im not claiming we need to abandon words or even the English language. We just need to control people more. Lets clamp down the right to speak freely and peaceably assemble. We cant trust 18-year-olds, 22-year-olds or 26-year-olds with responsibility like that; who knows what they might say? More ideas and thinking arent the answer to a complex situation like our modern world. Instead, we should move the designated area to assemble with controversial ideas off campus, then into a basement, and then require a permit to enter the basement. Hopefully, people will forget about free speech and religion before a disaster happens.

Read this article:
Letter: Why not strike the First Amendment? - Iowa State Daily

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

Friday, former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton delivered a video message to the Democratic Party ahead of Saturdays vote to choose the next chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

Clinton said, Ideas we championed are now inspiring leaders and activists across out country. Nearly 66 million votes are fueling grassroots energy and activism. And everywhere, people are marching, protesting, tweeting, speaking out and working for an America thats hopeful, inclusive and big hearted. From the womens march to airports where communities are welcoming immigrants, refugees and people of every faith, to town hall meetings where people are speaking up for health care, the environment, good jobs and all the other issues that deserve our passionate support.

She continued, The challenges we face as a party and a country are real. So now, more than ever, we need to stay engaged. In the field and online. Reaching out to new voters, young people and everyone who wants a better, stronger, fairer America. We as Democrats must move forward with courage, confidence, and optimism, and stay focused on the elections we must win this year and next. Let resistance plus persistence equal progress for our party and our country.

She added, Keep fighting and keep the faith. And Ill be right there with you every step of the way.

(h/t RCP Video)

Follow Pam Key on Twitter @pamkeyNEN

Go here to see the original:
Hillary Clinton to Dems: Keep Fighting, Protesting ...