Mediaboss Marketing

By Carrie Dann

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor says that he and President Barack Obama clashed Wednesday during a phone conversation about immigration reform.

But the White House has a different story.

One year after the Senate introduced its comprehensive immigration bill, which passed the upper chamber but has not been taken up by the GOP-led House, Obama issued a written statement criticizing Republican leaders for failing to take up the legislation. We have a chance to strengthen our country while upholding our traditions as a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants, and I urge House Republicans to listen to the will of the American people and bring immigration reform to the House floor for a vote, he said.

Then Obama called Cantor, who blasted out a statement making clear that he was no fan of Obamas message.

The President called me hours after he issued a partisan statement which attacked me and my fellow House Republicans and which indicated no sincere desire to work together, Cantor said in a statement. After five years, President Obama still has not learned how to effectively work with Congress to get things done. You do not attack the very people you hope to engage in a serious dialogue.

The Virginia Republican reiterated that the House has no intention of taking up the Senates reform bill, which many GOP lawmakers call unfair amnesty for undocumented immigrants.

However, a White House official described the call as pleasant and said they were surprised by how Cantors staff had characterized the exchange. The call was imitated so that the president could wish the House Majority Leader a happy Passover, according to the official.

But Cantors version of the conversation did not mention any well wishes.

I told the President the same thing I told him the last time we spoke, Cantor said. House Republicans do not support Senate Democrats' immigration bill and amnesty efforts, and it will not be considered in the House.

Originally posted here:
Cantor Blasts Obama After Immigration Reform Call

WASHINGTON: US President Barack Obama and the Republican leadership clashed over the immigration reform, which analysts say would make it difficult for the passage of the legislation that proposes to provide a path to citizenship to 11 million undocumented people from countries like India.

"Unfortunately, Republicans in the House of Representatives have repeatedly failed to take action, seemingly preferring the status quo of a broken immigration system over meaningful reform," Obama yesterday said in a strongly worded statement following which he spoke with the House Majority Leader Eric Cantor.

"The President called me hours after he issued a partisan statement which attacked me and my fellow House Republicans and which indicated no sincere desire to work together. After five years, President Obama still has not learned how to effectively work with Congress to get things done. You do not attack the very people you hope to engage in a serious dialogue," Cantor said.

Cantor said House Republicans do not support Senate Democrats' immigration bill and amnesty efforts, and it will not be considered in the House.

"I hope the President can stop his partisan messaging, and begin to seriously work with Congress to address the issues facing working middle class Americans that are struggling to make ends meet in this economy," Cantor said.

In his statement, Obama alleged that instead of advancing commonsense reform and working to fix the immigration system, House Republicans have voted in favor of extreme measures like a punitive amendment to strip protections from 'Dreamers'.

"The majority of Americans are ahead of House Republicans on this crucial issue and there is broad support for reform, including among Democrats and Republicans, labor and business, and faith and law enforcement leaders," he said.

"We have a chance to strengthen our country while upholding our traditions as a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants, and I urge House Republicans to listen to the will of the American people and bring immigration reform to the House floor for a vote," Obama said.

The Immigration Reform Bill passed by the Senate, Obama said, would grow the economy by USD 1.4 trillion and shrink the deficit by nearly USD 850 billion over the next two decades, while providing a tough but fair pathway to earned citizenship to bring 11 million undocumented individuals out of the shadows, modernizing the legal immigration system, continuing to strengthen border security and holding employers accountable.

"Simply put, it would boost our economy, strengthen our security, and live up to our most closely-held values as a society," Obama said.

View post:
US President Barack Obama, Republican leaders clash on immigration reform

First Amendment Fight - What Legal Options Does Bundy Family Have? - Judge Andrew Napolitano - F F
First Amendment Fight - What Legal Options Does Bundy Family Have? - Judge Andrew Napolitano - Fox Friends Battle Just Beginning - BLM: We Will Move Forwar...

By: Mass Tea Party

View original post here:
First Amendment Fight - What Legal Options Does Bundy Family Have? - Judge Andrew Napolitano - F&F - Video

Jemal Countess/Getty Images

Jason Patric

On Thursday, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge will hear a novel First Amendment battle over the extent to which an in vitro father can mention his child's name.

STORY:CNN Gets First Amendment Victory in Video Captioning Dispute

At the center of the dispute is actor Jason Patric, who has been locked in a custody battle with his ex-girlfriend Danielle Schreiber over their four-year-old son Gus, who was born through artificial insemination. Thanks to California law, which grants the mother full custody unless there is a written agreement establishing parental rights before conception, a judge has denied The Lost Boys star access to his son.

As the custody issue goes to an appellate court next month, Patric has launched an organization called Stand Up for Gus to raise awareness of parental alienation. At a fundraising event last autumn, Matt Damon, Kiefer Sutherland and Jon Hamm were among the celebrities on hand. Patric has also built awareness for the project with interviews on shows like 20/20 and The View. The actor has also established Twitter and Facebook pages that mention and picture Gus.

According to Patty Glaser, one of the Glaser Weil attorneys representing Schreiber, this amounts to a "public relations tirade" from a father who she says didn't want his name on the birth certificate so as to avoid attention from the paparazzi.

STORY:'Freeway' Ricky Ross vs. Rick Ross: First Amendment Protects Hip-Hop Persona

Schreiber is now demanding a restraining order. "We are asking him not to use the childs name and likeness for commercial purposes without moms permission," Glaser tells The Hollywood Reporter.

In the past, celebrities like Liam Neeson and Sandra Bullock have been the ones leaning on likeness rights laws to stop the unauthorized use of their fame. Other celebrities have asserted privacy laws to keep the media from intruding upon their space. In this case, it's the other way around, as the celebrity is the one raising a First Amendment defense.

Read more:
Jason Patric's Sperm Spawns First Amendment Battle

At 10 a.m. next Tuesday, the Supreme Court continues its current fascination with free speech and the First Amendment, exploring at a one-hour hearing when an advocacy group can challengea restriction on election campaign rhetoric. Arguing for two advocacy groups in Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus will be Michael A. Carvin of the Washington, D.C., office of Jones Day, withtwenty minutes of time. If the Court, as expected, permits the federal government to join in the argument, its views will be represented by Eric J. Feigin, an Assistant to the U.S. Solicitor General, with ten minutes. Ohios lawyer at the lectern, with thirty minutes, will be Ohio Solicitor Eric E. Murphy of Columbus.

Background

The attack ad, often used to shamea candidate in an effort to persuade voters, is as common in todays political campaigns as buttons, town hall meetings, andendorsements. But it is not routine for the government to try to police those ads. The state of Ohio and some fifteen others try to do so, however, and that has helped produce the latest First Amendment case for a Supreme Court that currently has a keen interest inthat amendment, especially in campaign settings.

In all of the history of the First Amendment, theCourt has never ruled that false statements are totally without protection under the Constitution. It made the point again (although in a somewhat uncertain ruling that lackeda clear majority) in the decision two years ago in United States v. Alvarez, which took most of the punch out of a federal law making it a federal crime to falsely claim that one had received a military medal. That, too, involved political speech.

But if a group or an individual wants to challenge a law that outlaws speech, how and when is it allowed togo to courtto claim the protection ofthe First Amendment?That is the issue the Court faces next week, in the first case to reach it in which opposition to the new federal health care law became a campaign issue.

When the House of Representatives in 2010 gave its final approval to the Affordable Care Act (now known widely in politics as Obamacare), one of theDemocrats voting for it was Rep. Steven Driehaus, representing an Ohio district that included Cincinnati and its suburbs. Later that year, he campaigned for reelection, but was defeated.

An advocacy group that is opposed to abortions, the Susan B. Anthony List, made an arrangement to put up a billboard in Driehauss district that would proclaim: Shame on Steve Driehaus! Driehaus voted FOR taxpayer-funded abortion. It also aired radio broadcasts with the same message. The billboard never went up, because the company owning the space backed down when a lawyer for the congressman threatened to sue, claiming the message misrepresented his vote.

Driehaus soon pursued a complaint with the Ohio ElectionsCommission, which has the power to recommend prosecution for violations of a state truth-in-politics law. That law has two key provisions:it prohibits anyone from trying to influence voters by intentionally making a false statement about a candidates voting record, and it prohibits the distribution of any false statement about a candidate if the source knew it was false or didnt care whether it was true or false.

The state commission, in a preliminary vote, sided with Driehaus, but before any prosecution by state officials went forward, Driehaus was defeated for reelection, and his complaint was dismissed by the commission at his request.

Susan B. Anthony List then sued in federal court,seeking to strike down the law under the First Amendment. It sued Driehaus and the state commission, along with its members. Thatcase was joined with one filed by an anti-tax group, the Coalition Opposed to Additional Spending and Taxes, which had wanted to send out emails and other materials also attacking Driehaus for allegedly voting for tax-supported abortion. That group said it had held off sending out its messages because it knew of the commission action on Driehauss complaint, and was deterred from speaking out.

Continued here:
Argument preview: Attack ads and the First Amendment