Mediaboss Marketing

BENNINGTON Many windows and spaces in the Bennington Four Corners were surreptitiously decorated on Sunday morning as a handful of people taped hearts on some downtown buildings.

The people involved remain unnamed, but former Vermont state representative Jim Carroll that he had seen something similar in Montpelier.

While I was in the legislature, in the days leading up to Valentines Day, anonymous folks taped heart shapes around downtown Montpelier and the first time I saw it, it really drew a smile on my face, Carroll said. It was such a wonderful gesture.

Carroll then admitted that some friends of his wanted to do the same thing in Bennington.

They were worried theyd get in trouble and I said that I didnt think [they would], Carroll said. Its not vandalism, its love-ism.

Carroll refused to say how many people were involved, joking that he was pleading the Fifth Amendment to protect his friends.

The friend that [started] this, Im crazy about them ... make sure you print that, OK? Carroll said. It was an act of goodwill, intended and designed to show affection for the town and its people.

Carroll said that around 60 hearts were taped up downtown and that next year it could be a lot more.

My hope is that we can have hearts all over the place next year, Carroll said.

See the original post:
Who put the hearts all over downtown? | Local News | benningtonbanner.com - Bennington Banner

EDWIN GREINER| Amarillo Globe-News

This is an open letter to the membership of the Amarillo Chamber of Commerce (ACoC) and by extension to the Citizens of Amarillo and Potter and Randall counties. The Mission Statement of the ACoC is: The Mission of the Amarillo Chamber of Commerce is to enhance business and industry growth while preserving a high quality of life. I know that many businesses in the Amarillo area are barely staying alive as we moved from 2020 into 2021. Perhaps the Mission Statement of the ACoC should read: To ensure the prosperity of its members against all impediments public and private. Maybe the Chamber should be more oriented towards individual business and not so much the esoteric and general enhance business etc.

The Chamber member businesses and businesses generally have been harmed and damaged by governmental edicts that are possibly arbitrary and violate the U.S. Constitution, specifically at least the derivative right of association of the First Amendment, the due process and takings clauses of the Fifth Amendment and the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Has there ever been a presentment of evidence to support probable cause and therefore due process for the lockdown edicts by the Amarillo City Council? Has any advice that the Amarillo City Council received by any health care professionals been substantiated by empirical evidence? People say follow the science! Has there ever been peer reviewed studies showing that these generalized lockdowns have any actual and positive effect on area health outcomes? If you filed a case with the evidence that has been utilized by the Amarillo City Council, if any, would a judge toss it out? Hillsdale College publishes the IMPRIMIS and the October 2020 edition was authored by a leading epidemiologist from Stanford who, with a plethora of evidence, debunks the generalized and authoritarian lockdowns that have occurred. He along with two other leading epidemiologists from Harvard and Oxford also authored the Great Barrington Declaration which recommends an approach called Focused Protection.

In this time, with edicts from public entities that are arguably damaging business, is the ACoC conflicted by having representatives from such public entities on their board? If these entities are not directly a public entity how are they funded? Entities such as the Potter County Commission, Amarillo Economic Development Corporation, Texas Panhandle Regional Development Corporation, Amarillo ISD, Northwest Texas Healthcare System, Elevate Amarillo, WTAMU Amarillo Center and the Workforce Solutions-Panhandle. Are there any anti-trust concerns by anti-competitive behavior against existing businesses?

Why is this important? Because what government does government does by force. Our founders enacted a Limited Government to ensure our liberty and prosperity. We are on the cusp of seeing our God given natural rights significantly eroded without the benefit of due process or equal protection. Government intertwining its tendrils into the private sector is to be mistrusted. How do Citizens protect their liberties? Those most aggrieved must come together in congress and actively remonstrate against such depredations. If the members of the ACoC cant bring themselves to do such then we need another general business association that will.

Edwin Thomson Greiner is a constitutional law attorney with a doctorate from Thurgood Marshall School of Law.

See the rest here:
Greiner: Virus restrictions and the role of local chamber of commerce - Amarillo.com

On Tuesday, Feb. 15, five Democratic members of Congress sent a letter to President Joe Biden, urging him to allow residents of Puerto Rico to have access to the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) Program.

The legislators who penned the letter were Reps. Nydia Velzquez, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Darren Soto, Ritchie Torres and House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Ral Grijalva.

"It is time for Puerto Ricans who qualify for SSI benefits to receive their benefits as soon as possible," they wrote in the letter.

They pointed out to Biden thatfor the fifth time, the U.S. Supreme Court has the Vaello Madero case on its agenda..

The nine justices of the highest judicial forum are scheduled to meet and discuss the cases on its current agenda on Thursday, Feb. 18.

"Time is of the essence and we owe it to Puerto Ricans on the island so that they can receive the same SSI benefits they would otherwise receive on the mainland," the Congress members wrote.

In United States v. Vaello Madero, Congress examined whether it was in violation of the equal protection component of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment by establishing the SSI program for all 50 states and the District of Columbia, but not extending it to Puerto Rico.

The case was based on the situation of Puerto Rican Jos Luis Vaello Madero, who had begun receiving SSI in the United States before moving to Puerto Rico.

In an April 2020 decision, a First Circuit judge ruled that it is unconstitutional for the federal government to exclude island residents from SSI and to recoup from Vaello Madero the nearly $28,000 he received from SSI when he was already domiciled on the island.

Although the court ruled in favor of Valleo Madero, the SSI program is still not available for Puerto Rican residents.

The SSI program was first created by Congress in 1972 to replace the Aid to the Aged, Blind or Disabled (AABD) program. In Puerto Rico, the local Department of the Family continues to administer the AABD program, which offers significantly less benefits than the SSI program.

Based on data from the fiscal year 2011, the Government Accountability Office stated that if Puerto Rico did participate in the SSI program, beneficiaries would be eligible to receive between $1.5 billion and $1.8 billion each year.

Twenty major Puerto Rican and American religious leaders also joined in on the push for Biden to address the multiple crises that the island is currently facing, including the exclusion from receiving SSI benefits.

The heads of U.S and Puerto Rican churches signed the letter representing Catholic, Methodist, Lutheran, and Evangelical churches. The 20 signers included leaders of the National and Puerto Rico Council of Churches, the General Bible Society and Jubilee USA Network.

Please immediately instruct the Department of Justice to withdraw the suit, filed by the previous administration, that blocks $2.3 billion in annual Supplemental Security Income payments. About 300,000 poor and vulnerable U.S citizens with disabilities are critically impacted, the leaders wrote.

Biden has criticized the way that former President Trump handled the plights faced by Puerto Rico, and pledged to distribute federal aid and end discriminatory practices. Legislators and religious leaders are now making sure that Biden follows through on these promises.

View original post here:
Reps. Nydia Velazquez, AOC, Darren Soto and others ask Biden to expand SSI for Puerto Ricans living on the island - AL DIA News

To the Editor:

Convicted! Guilty if a Trump supporter! No need for facts!

Thats the song and dance of the Democrats who show us their disdain for the rule of law all the time. But Republicans? They usually take their oath seriously to uphold the Constitution. I am disappointed LCSS board members Hilliard and Bowen think otherwise. They swore to use tax dollars to further education and the welfare of our children. Not to politically charge the public. Thats exactly what happened.

When the board allowed atrocious accusations to be levied at Sherry Womack and voted for an investigation because she exercised her First Amendment right, they grossly misunderstood the power yielded to them by the voters. They convicted Sherry in the public square without any due process and used a public forum on the publics dime to hold the trial. Not your job to do that.

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution says we are innocent until proven guilty. The Sixth protects us from mob-like trials. The board's actions violated both. Neither amendment states, a trial in the public square is a requirement before one can exercise any amendment.

I am grateful those like Sherry want to serve our students. After all, she spent her career defending the very right for us to petition government, speak our minds, worship where we please and all without fear of retribution from government.

In the end, I imagine its Sherrys light that will shine far brighter than those who choose to disregard the oath they took.

Sheila Barber

Sanford

Excerpt from:
LETTER: Not board's job to put Womack on trial - The Sanford Herald

Austin, TX, February 15, 2021 The impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump came to an end on Saturday when 43 Senate Republicans voted to acquit Trump, blocking the 67 votes needed to convict him.

All 50 Democrats, joined by seven GOP senators, voted to find Trump guilty of inciting the storm of the Capitol on January 6.

Sens. John Cornyn (R-TX) and Ted Cruz (R-TX) voted to acquit the former president just as they did a year ago after House Democrats impeached Trump on the basis that he allegedly withheld foreign aid to pressure Ukrainian officials into investigating the Biden family for corruption.

Cornyn and Cruz condemned the violence that took place at the Capitol and have said that those who participated in it should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

The arguments of the House Impeachment Managers that the Constitution permits the impeachment of a private citizen, the free speech protections of the First Amendment dont apply, the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment is optional, and that the trial may include a presiding officer who also serves as a juror all were a bridge too far, said Cornyn.

But Texas senior senator said that his ultimate reason for opposing conviction was a concern about establishing a dangerous, and sure to be used in the future, precedent of impeaching a former President after he or she has left office.

This practice would, I fear, make impeachments a routine part of our political competition as a tool of the majority party to exact political revenge over the minority party. Given that the Constitution makes legal offenses committed while in office subject to investigation and prosecution, as warranted, after a President is no longer in office, I believe that is the Constitutional method of accountability not impeachment, said Cornyn.

While Cornyn focused his reasoning on the danger of setting a precedent of impeaching former presidents, Cruz was more pointed in his defense of Trump.

Donald Trump used heated language, but he did not urge anyone to commit acts of violence. The legal standard for incitement is very high and it is clear by the results of this vote that the House Managers failed to present a coherent standard for incitement, said Cruz.

The junior senator said that both sides of the political aisle, including numerous Senate Democrats and House Impeachment Managers, have used rhetoric similar to Trumps with phrases such as fight, win, and take back our country.

Using this rhetoric is not impeachable, whether made by Republicans or Democrats, said Cruz.

Unfortunately, this impeachment trial did nothing to bring the domestic terrorists who committed this heinous attack to justice. It merely satisfied Democrats desire to once again vent their hatred of Donald Trump and their contempt for the tens of millions of Americans who voted for him, said Cruz.

Similar to Cornyn and Cruz, when the House voted on the new article of impeachment in January, every Texas Republican member except for Rep. Kay Granger (R-TX-12), who was quarantining after a positive COVID-19 test, voted against impeachment.

Every Texas Democrat in the House of Representatives, like last year, voted to impeach Trump.

Read this article:
Cornyn, Cruz Vote to Acquit Trump for a Second Time - The Texan