Mediaboss Marketing

Summit County Council member Dave Ure wants the Council to pass a resolution calling on the U.S. Congress to pass an immigration reform bill. Ure says many in Summit County, including business owners and undocumented immigrants, believe action must be taken. (Park Record file photo)

With immigration reform still being held up in the U.S. House of Representatives, Summit County Council member Dave Ure wants to send a message that something must be done on the issue on the federal level. Ure has helped to draft a County Council resolution supporting immigration reform and declaring June "Immigrant Heritage Month."

To view the resolution, click here.

"It's basically saying, 'Congress, get in gear and do something for us,'" Ure said. "There's a strong national push to try to get Congress to do something that's why we're doing it, to try to show a strong coalition from everybody."

Immigration reform is an issue that Ure said he has been passionate about for the last 10 to 12 years, especially during his time as the 53rd District representative in the Utah State Legislature. He said he has heard from many business owners in the county, as well as undocumented immigrants, that reform is sorely needed.

Congress and the president are currently deadlocked over immigration reform legislation.

Obama says there is bipartisan support for immigration reform but House Speaker John Boehner maintains that Congress would not accept the comprehensive bill passed by the Democratically-controlled Senate last year, Reuters reported.

Ure said he has heard mainly from business owners in the restaurant, agricultural and ski industry about the importance of addressing immigration. He said businesses like those are having a difficult time recruiting immigrants, who fear they will be deported.

"Many of those people are still in the community and are very active, and even though they're not citizens, they've lived here most of their lives and have to live in the shadows 99 percent of the time," Ure said.

Creating an easier, more streamlined way for immigrants to obtain a green card or permanent residency should be a crucial part of immigration reform, Ure said. That way, more undocumented immigrants can work in the United States and pay taxes, hospital bills and educational expenses.

Go here to see the original:
Council to vote on resolution calling for immigration reform

Speaker John Boehners (R-Ohio) office on Friday moved to tamp down speculation that GOP leaders are preparing to act on immigration reform.

The Wall Street Journal reported Friday that Boehner last month told donors at a Las Vegas fundraiser that he was "hellbent on getting this done this year, referring to immigration legislation.

But a spokesman for the Speaker said the quote does not reflect any change in position.

"Nothing has changed. As he's said many times, the Speaker believes step-by-step reform is important, but it won't happen until the president builds trust and demonstrates a commitment to the rule of law, Boehner spokesman Brendan Buck said.

The spokesman said he could neither confirm nor deny Boehner had made the hellbent comment.

House Republicans have long favored passing border security and enforcement bills in an incremental approach to immigration reform and have rejected a conference committee to consider the comprehensive bill passed by the Senate last year. While some of the piecemeal bills have moved out of committee, they have yet to see a floor vote.

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), a top opponent of the Senate-passed bill, decried the reported Boehner comments and urged his party not to move forward on House companion bills. "At a time when trust in the President is at record lows, Republicans should not sacrifice their own credibility with such a maneuver. Such action would represent a colossal breach of the public trust: saying one thing before the primaries and then doing another thing after," Sessions said.

House leaders at their annual retreat this year released draft principles for immigration reform that included options for giving legal status to some illegal immigrants, but the majority of the GOP conference argued in favor of holding off on tackling the issue, according to lawmakers.

On Feb. 25, Boehner met with Obama to discuss immigration, and since then has consistently said that his members do not want to move forward because they do not trust Obama to abide by stricter enforcement mechanisms in any reform law.

Every time the president ignores the law, like the 38 times he has on ObamaCare, our members look up and go, 'Wait a minute: You can't have immigration reform without strong border security and internal enforcement. How can we trust the President to actually obey the law and enforce the law that we would write?' Boehner said.

More:
Boehner aide: No change on immigration

B. Scott arrives to the 25th Annual GLAAD in Los Angeles in April 2014.

FORTUNE -- In August 2013, transgender television personality B. Scott filed a suit against Black Entertainment Television and its parent company Viacom Inc., claiming that the network had discriminated against him based on his gender identity and sexual orientation.

The lawsuit stemmed from Scott's appearance as a style correspondent at the 2013 BET awards preshow. After his first segment of the night, in which he appeared with heavy makeup and heels, the network told him to tone down his look and change into masculine clothing that was "different from the androgynous style he's used to ... and comfortable with," according to the complaint.

A Los Angeles Superior Court judge decided the case Wednesday, and it came down to theFirst Amendment; not Scott's freedom to speech and expression, but Viacom's (VIA).The court found that BET's decision as to how Scott would appear on camera was part of the network's creative process of developing and broadcasting the show, which is protected by the First Amendment.

MORE:Americans have fallen in love with real estate once again

The case is by no means the first in which a media company has used the First Amendment as a defenseagainst lawsuits alleging discrimination. The order on Thursday cites several other instances.

There was the racial discrimination case against ABC for its failure to feature non-white contestants on The Bachelorand The Bachelorette. A federal district court in Tennessee dismissed the matter after finding that "casting decisions are a necessary component of any entertainment show's creative content." The court said that "the plaintiffs seek to drive an artificial wedge between casting decisions and the end product, which itself is indisputably protected as speech by the First Amendment."

And there was the lawsuit filed against Warner Bros. by a former writers' assistant for the television show Friendswho asserted that the use of sexually coarse and vulgar language and conduct by the show's writers constituted sexual harassment. The Supreme Court of California in that case held that "the First Amendment protects creativity."

The case thatheld greatestprecedent is a matter in which a group of gay, lesbian, and bisexual Irish Americans sought to participate in Boston's St. Patrick's Day parade. The U.S. Supreme Court, which ultimately heard the case, ruled that it would be a violation of the First Amendment for Massachusetts to require private citizens "who organize a parade to include among the marchers a group imparting a message the organizers do not wish to convey."

The defendants in these cases arguedthat they didn't care what their employees or participants are in reality -- gay, straight, male, female -- but rather how they appear. "They say, 'We are entitled to create a program that looks the way we want it to look,'" says Eugene Volokh, a professor at UCLA School of Law. And the courts have agreed with them.

Read more:
To kill bias suits, companies lean on the First Amendment

The Supreme Court often takes on difficult and controversial cases, ones over which reasonable people can and do disagree. But the case of an Ohio statute that bans campaign lies Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus is not a close call. The law is a direct affront to the First Amendment, and a matter that anyone who values free speech should be happy to see invalidated.

The case arose from a dispute between a one-time Ohio state representative, Steven Driehaus, and the Susan B. Anthony List, a pro-life group.

During Mr. Driehaus' re-election effort, the group planned a billboard campaign accusing Mr. Driehaus of supporting taxpayer-funded abortions because he was in favor of Obamacare.

Mr. Driehaus moved to block the group from putting up the ads. The Susan B. Anthony List challenged the law, but was rebuffed because it could not show it had suffered harm.

Although the billboard ads didn't go up, and Mr. Driehaus was not re-elected, the matter did not stop there.

The Susan B. Anthony List then sought to bring the matter before the Supreme Court, claiming its free-speech rights remain under threat because of the law.

The details of the dispute are interesting, but hardly matter. The simple fact is that laws restricting political speech are inconsistent with the First Amendment.

The Ohio statute see codes.ohio.gov/orc/3517.21 bars a range of election-related claims and speech, including false statements about a candidate's military or educational record, or what professional licenses a candidate holds.

Those are easy claims to investigate, but how does one evaluate whether a campaign ad, sound bite, or debate claim violates the provision barring "a false statement concerning the voting records of a candidate or public official"?

America's colorful political history contains many famous exaggerations and falsehoods, which usually haunt those who make them. But innumerable claims are grounded in political viewpoint, interpretation, and shades of meaning. It is impossible to gauge their truth or falsity.

Read the original:
First thing, First Amendment

Hillary Clinton Exposed Movie She Banned From Theaters Full

By: pete tsim

See the original post:
Hillary Clinton Exposed Movie She Banned From Theaters Full - Video