Media Search:



LAWRENCE: Bell outlines Senate campaign issues

From the need for immigration reform and the return to the gold-backed dollar and related economic issues, U.S. Senate hopeful Jeff Bell touched on a wide range of topics at Rider University in Lawrenceville last week.

Mr. Bell, who is a Republican, wants to unseat U.S. Sen. Cory Booker in the Nov. 4 general election. The Democratic senator was elected to the U.S. Senate in a special election last year, and is running for his first full term.

Right out of the box last week, Mr. Bell criticized Senator Bookers decision to hold only one debate with him. Mr. Bell, who ran unsuccessfully for the U.S. Senate against Democrat Bill Bradley in 1978, said the two men held 21 debates during that campaign.

"There is something about the Democratic Party and the left wing. They are not used to a debate. They dont like it. They assume their vision is correct," said Mr. Bell, who spoke at the invitation of the universitys Rebovich Institute for New Jersey Politics.

Mr. Bell described the debates between himself and Mr. Bradley as "fruitful." Although Mr. Bradley was opposed to income tax rate cuts, he eventually reconsidered and co-sponsored the Tax Reform Act of 1986 in the Senate.

Reaching bipartisan support today is difficult to do, Mr. Bell said. President Obamas idea of negotiation is to ask for 95 percent of what he wants, demand it and then threaten to leave the table if his demands are not met, he said. The president issues executive orders to get what he wants, so there is no incentive to go to the table.

Another issue that should have received bipartisan support is immigration reform, said Mr. Bell, noting that he favors immigration reform. President George W. Bush pushed for immigration reform, but the Republican-led U.S. House of Representatives balked.

President Obama pledged there would be immigration reform in his first term, but "he did not lift a finger," Mr. Bell said. The rumor has it that one of his top advisers, Rahm Emmanuel, told the president not to do it because it could have hurt the 2010 election, he said, adding that afterwards, the president "used immigration reform as a club against Republicans."

Mr. Bell said he is not opposed to immigration reform. It would be a pathway to citizenship for 11 million illegal aliens, he said. Reform would "regularize" their status. They would have to pay fines and taxes, and then there would be a 10-year waiting period until they could apply for U.S. citizenship.

Immigration reform is not amnesty, he emphasized, because there is no guarantee of obtaining American citizenship.

Originally posted here:
LAWRENCE: Bell outlines Senate campaign issues

Commentary: Immigration reform remains dead

Would a Republican takeover of the Senate improve the prospects that an immigration bill will get to President Barack Obamas desk? That theory is making the rounds and some of the people who oppose the dominant approach to immigration reform are starting to worry about it.

The theory goes like this: A lot of Republicans, having just taken full control of Congress and seeking the presidency in 2016, will want to show that they can govern. And many of them think that they need to deal with immigration, in particular, to do so. The idea is that passing a reform bill would help the party appeal to Hispanics and take the issue away from Democrats in the presidential campaign.

An online service is needed to view this article in its entirety. You need an online service to view this article in its entirety.

Or, use your linked account:

Unlimited access to SantaFeNewMexican.com and PasatiempoMagazine.comon your computer, smart phone and tablet.

Unlimted access to SantaFeNewMexican.com and PasatiempoMagazine.comon your computer, smart phone and tablet PLUS 7-Day home delivery of The New Mexican.

*Must reside within SFNM home delivery area. RATES DO NOT APPLY IN PLACITAS, RIBERA, ILFIELD OR VILLNUEVA. PLEASE CALL 800-873-3372 FOR MORE INFORMATION.

Unlimted access to SantaFeNewMexican.com and PasatiempoMagazine.comon your computer, smart phone and tablet PLUS Weekend home delivery of The New Mexican.

*Must reside within SFNM home delivery area. THESE RATES DO NOT APPLY IN PLACITAS, RIBERA, ILFIELD OR VILLNUEVA. PLEASE CALL 800-873-3372 FOR MORE INFORMATION.

Unlimted access to SantaFeNewMexican.com and PasatiempoMagazine.comon your computer, smart phone and tablet PLUS Sunday home delivery of The New Mexican.

Read this article:
Commentary: Immigration reform remains dead

First amendment denied part 1 Baldwin county al – Video


First amendment denied part 1 Baldwin county al
It was fine for me to record until I asked questions about wearing my hat then the deputy told the clerk I was recording I ended up pussing out and paying ti...

By: Thomas Duke

Read the original:
First amendment denied part 1 Baldwin county al - Video

First Amendment test. NYC FUCK YOU PIG! – Video


First Amendment test. NYC FUCK YOU PIG!
Nypd pass first amendment test only after being reminded of oath. Fuck the police! COP=criminals on patrol, cowards on patrol. Here #39;s the link to the unedited version. http://youtu.be/G6mvd2L8i...

By: Pocholo

Follow this link:
First Amendment test. NYC FUCK YOU PIG! - Video

Racist names meet the First Amendment in Minneapolis

Minneapolis officials are reportedly considering legal action to prevent the Washington Redskins name from being used at TCF Bank Stadium.

The Minnesota Daily reports that the city attorney is investigating whether the city has legal authority to ban the football teams name and logo.

I have my doubts, said Cam Gordon, who represents the University and surrounding areas on the City Council.

He said there might be issues with the ban violating freedom of speech. And at a council committee meeting late last month, the councilman called the issue a minefield.

You think?

Its the most horrific name in sports history, said Clyde Bellecourt, founder of the Minneapolis-based American Indian Movement.

Hes right, of course. It is.

And hate speech can be suppressed without violating the First Amendment if it causes the listener to react violently. But, the Supreme Court has made clear that people still have a right to hateful speech.

That officials in Minnesota are being pressed to challenge that right is not without some irony because Minnesota has had more than its share of assaults on the First Amendment.

A 1992 case before the Supreme Court defined the difference between hateful acts of hateful speech when it overturned the conviction of a teenager for burning a cross on the lawn of an African American St. Paul family.

More here:
Racist names meet the First Amendment in Minneapolis