Mediaboss Marketing

Let me be perfectly frank. For far too many years, we have been subjected to what Johnny-Come-Latelys want to believe they know about the thoughts, hearts and souls of persons deceased long before Johnny was even a glimmer in his or her mothers expecting eye.

Good literature of our childhood has been pulled from the library shelves because someone now has decided that the author (from then) meant something derogative being hotly attested today. Historical monuments are being pulled off their bases because the subject happened to be a leader of a movement now frowned upon; not considering that said individual had the blessing of the opportunity to examine the advanced understandings may well have made a different choice.

Point being, no one except the good Lord Himself knows the thoughts and meanings of another without intimate knowledge of and opportunity to question the subject themselves, and without the history, advanced understanding rarely comes.

I was stirred up while watching the State of the Union Address. A speech well delivered, whether I agree with the politics behind it or not. However, during the evening, we were subjected to yet another celebrity endorsement of an idea founded on the very principle that persons today believe they can speak to the thoughts, minds and souls of persons of the past to the point that the rest of us should be chastised and driven to their way of thinking.

I suppose the spokesperson was chosen because his father was once the speaker of the annual event, and this should somehow add authority to his words. Once again, the idea of Separation of Church and State has been forced upon us. I want to finally lay this beast (the idea, not the spokesperson) to bed. This notion has been debated for as long as the Constitution of the United States was first signed, or at least since the adoption of the First Amendment in 1791.

I read five of the historically documented arguments in the debate arguing for the notion that the founding fathers intended there to be a separation of church and state. In each argument, without fail, and I quote, the words separation of church and state do not appear in the Constitution, nor the First Amendment.

Each of the arguments went on to say, in one fashion or another, that the idea of its intent was derived through other writings by these same founders. In fact, the most noted document in the history of this debate, a letter from Thomas Jefferson in which the phrase wall of separation was included, happened to have been written to a church convention explaining that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment was purposed for the protection of the church against government interference.

The basic premise was that the government would not choose any religion to be the official religion of the country. All statements in accordance with the Establishment Clause were carefully worded to protect each persons right to practice the religion of their choice or no religion at all.

The only fact repeated in these arguments, and therefore known, is that the Constitution of these United States in no way suggests that there should be no reference to religious understanding within the walls or establishments of our government.

This argument that there is has done nothing but scare people away from moral lesson or comment within our government institutions, further eroding the already natural human condition that leads to chaos.

There appears to be, at least based upon the reports of those trying to do important work from within, a serious erosion of basic respect and decency that is vitally important in our schools; the very government institution through which most of our impressionable minds funnel through.

Now I, from personal experience, can tell you that this erosion has been seriously sliding since the 80s and the penalties for those who seek to do the right thing by expecting order and rule in the classroom have stiffened to the point, they just want to throw their hands up and find other career opportunities.

But they hesitate because of their love for their role and the knowledge that should they leave, the chaos would only worsen since, the proverbial monkeys would be in charge of the zoo.

Religion is not an evil word. Religion is applicable for all citizens, for all religions typically have a book for the guidance of those who believe. And, though I only know from one of those books, I can say that the scriptures are profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.

So even if you are not a believer, there is excellent instruction for morality that would benefit the whole of society.

Please read the following, (ideas and quotes taken from a study book written by Dr. Derwin Gray).

Society is a family of sorts. There are families who understand there is an unstated rule

Dr. Gray is speaking of rules of behavior unwritten, but understood based on traditions, rules and accepted behaviors. Dr. Gray goes on to state, Every family has practices and behaviors that are part of their culture.

Well, religious persons have their own families with their own set of guidelines for behavior. And the family of God is no different.

If there was a poster on the refrigerator in the kitchen of Gods house, stating the rules of acceptable behavior, it would have family rules like these listed:

Be gentle and humble; love each other with patience; use your God-given; abilities ; grow up in spiritual maturity; be generous; speak truthfully; deal with anger and conflict; do not take what belongs to others; watch your words; show compassion; forgive like Jesus forgave you; respect others to earn respect

With rules such as these, who can argue that religious behavior or speech is detrimental to social institution.

Our schools need to return to the days when great advances in science and math were commonplace with moral respectful behavior. This is necessary, so that education can return to the forefront of the institute.

An excellent place to start is to spend more time focused on what needs to be accomplished and less on what wants to be done. Quit starting a civil war with rhetoric based upon fallacy.

Written by the Rev. Robert Henry, Senior Minister Living By Faith Ministries and member of the Pickaway County Ministerial Association for The Circleville Herald.

Here is the original post:
Values for Living: Let us finally put this thing to bed - Circleville Herald

Opinion: Rep. John Kavanagh says his bill outlawing most filming of police will help prevent 'misunderstandings.' Really, it's about giving cops all the say.

Nobody could ever forget police officer Derek Chauvin pressing his knee on George Floyds neck for 8 minutes and 46 seconds.

That image will forever be etched on our minds thanks to a bystander who filmed the slow killing, which later sparked racial protests across the nation and ledto a reckoning onpolice brutality in America.

In Arizona, Rep. John Kavanagh and fellow lawmakers backing his House Bill 2319 want to make sure that never happens again.

No. They arent talking about saving the lives of people like George Floyd who had no chance to defend himself in court over the $20 billthat led him to the police encounter.

Instead, theyre seeking to protect cops like Chauvin from losing their jobs or landing behind bars.

HB 2319, which already passed the House and got the green light from a Senate panel this week, would criminalize filming cops on the job. Penalties would include up to 30 days in jail.

It specifically prohibits a person from making a video recording within 8 feet of the officer without that officers permission.

Can you imagine Chauvin actually giving the bystander permission to record the 8 minutes and 46 seconds it took him to kill Floyd?

Laughable, right?

But thats exactly the intent of this bill. Kavanagh, of course, argues that hes just trying to prevent violence and misunderstandings.

He also told the Arizona Mirror that this is to prevent the destruction of evidence and preventing police officers from harm.

Only Republicans keen on protecting the men and blue at all costs believe that. If that were true, Kavanagh and his fellow Republicans supporting the legislation should welcome any and all recordings.

What better way to prevent misunderstandings than having a video to show exactly what happened, just like in Floyds case?

But thats it. They want to keep things under wraps and at the discretion of officers.

The legislation does provide for some exceptions but even those are laughable.

The 8-foot requirement wouldnt apply to indoor situations, but only if the person recording is in an adjacent area or room.

And, oh, the person or persons being questioned could make a video of the encounter as long as they dont interfere with lawful police actions, including searching, handcuffing or administering a field sobriety test.

Do you see why critics say this whole thing is designed to give cops all the say? Thats clear. Criticsalso say the legislation is unconstitutional, notingthat theFirst Amendment protects the publicsright to record police.

First Amendment Watch of New York University noted in discussing Kavanaghs legislation thattheU.S. Court of Appeals in the First, Third, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh (circuits) have all ruled that the right to record police in public places is protected by the First Amendment.

No doubt Kavanagh's legislation would end up in court shouldit become law.

Not all cops are like Chauvin, who was convicted and sentenced to more than 22 years in prison.

Id say most are good people with good intentions of protecting the public from criminals. I count my nephew patrolling the streets of a northern California town among the good ones.

Not all cops would ever consider pressing their knee on somebody for 8 minutes and 46 seconds.

But cops like Chauvin do exist, and they are the reason why we must not criminalize filming their actions.

Elvia Daz is an editorial columnistfor The Republic and azcentral.Reach her at 602-444-8606 orelvia.diaz@arizonarepublic.com. Follow her on Twitter,@elviadiaz1.

Subscribe to get more opinions content.

Read more:
Film a police officer within 8 feet? You could soon be thrown in jail - The Arizona Republic

Save Yamhill County organizers say commissioner's goal was to misdirect voters days before ballots were mailed

Less than a week before ballots began arriving in mailboxes across the county, attorneys for Commissioner Lindsay Berschauer demanded that the organization seeking her recall, Save Yamhill County, retract statements made on the petitions circulated over the past several months. The embattled commissioner's attorneys threatened legal action if the statements were not retracted.

"On the recall petition filed Nov. 18 during subsequent circulation of that petition, and likely in other subsequent communications, you have made numerous allegations about Commissioner Berschauer without providing factual support," attorney Steve Elzinga of the Portland firm Sherman Sherman Johnnie & Hoyt wrote on Feb. 25.

It appears the threat of legal action was without teeth.

"Despite her promise in her March 4 Facebook Live video to bring a lawsuit against Save Yamhill County, chief petitioner Phil Fovre and myself, we have heard nothing further from either the commissioner or her attorney, and don't expect that she will follow through with her threat," Lynette Shaw, the co-petitioner on the recall effort, said in an email. Berschauer defeated Shaw in a 2020 race for Position 2 on the commission.

Shaw dismissed the threatened lawsuit as a political ploy to distract voters from the real issue: Berschauer's fitness for office.

"Instead of answering the concerns of her constituents or talking with the community about what troubled them enough to call for her resignation, the commissioner has, from the very first day the recall was filed, followed a strategy of casting doubt on the recall effort with lies and mischaracterizations and, even more disturbing, making repeated personal attacks on her constituents who have supported her recall. The threatened lawsuit is just more of the same," Shaw said.

Berschauer countered that her intent in threatening a lawsuit was to maintain the integrity of county governance.

"My purposes in pursuing legal action against this fraudulent recall effort are not only to protect taxpayers from having to pay for these unwarranted and unlawful pursuits in the future (this is costing county taxpayers $80,000), but to also reinforce that recalls should be reserved for egregious and unlawful behavior, not differences of opinion over public policy decisions," she said in an email. "I have also incurred considerable costs in having to defend myself against this unlawful recall attempt, therefore economic damages would be pursued as well."

Berschauer further argued that the wording on the petition, circulated during the first of the year and garnering more than 7,000 signatures, differed significantly from the petition circulated in November that was disqualified by the county on a technical error. She said her team had concerns about the statement on the first petition, but its disqualification rendered it unnecessary to retain an attorney to question its legality.

"When Mr. Fovre filed the second petition, we were shocked to see that his statement changed considerably," Berschauer said. "The language and accusations were markedly different from 'round one.'"

At that point Berschauer hired an attorney, who suggested that the statements were fundamentally false and could be proven as such.

"The statute says that the individual must have known at the time that their statements were false," said Berschauer, who owned and operated a political consulting firm prior to being elected. "We believe, given that Mr. Fovre had spent months on this effort, that he and Save Yamhill County knew the statements provided in the recall petition were false."

Shaw explained that the wording on the petition, technically called a "recall statement," was approved by County Clerk Brian Van Bergen, which allowed SYC to begin circulating the petition and collect signatures.

"That approval happened for this recall on Nov. 18," Shaw said. "The petition is a public document and has been accessible to Commissioner Berschauer and her legal counsel since Nov. 18. We never heard anything from the commissioner or her counsel about the wording on our statement until well after our signatures were submitted for certification and ballots were soon to be delivered to voters."

Shaw said Berschauer's goal was misdirection, plain and simple.

"We believe the commissioner's threat of a lawsuit was intended to harass and intimidate our recall effort," Shaw said. "It's a political strategy she has used with us before: threaten and claim violations of some sort, but never follow through because the damage is done with the threat and misleading messaging that she stands up around it. It's a hardball political tactic, and it has no place here in local politics, especially when used against members of the community."

Shaw responded to Berschauer's threat of legal action with a promise: "If a suit is ever filed, it will most definitely be met with an anti-SLAPP motion. It's highly doubtful she'll take it further, because she understands that this is a classic SLAPP suit, denying us our First Amendment rights, and it's not winnable."

SLAPP is an acronym for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation and is intended to silence critics by forcing them to mount a costly legal defense. Anti-SLAPP laws were adopted in Oregon and many other states more than a decade ago to protect individuals and organizations from litigation while protecting their First Amendment rights.

Berschauer argued that SYC's actions violated state statute that make it illegal to complete and file a recall petition with reckless disregard and that it contains false statement of material fact related to the public officer subject to the recall.

"We also believe that their actions won't qualify for anti-SLAPP protections given the statute's clear language."

You count on us to stay informed and we depend on you to fund our efforts.Quality local journalism takes time and money. Please support us to protect the future of community journalism.

Read the original post:
Berschauer threat of legal action not carried through - Portland Tribune

Jalil Muntaqim, a former Black Panther and Black Liberation Army member convicted of killing two police officers in the 1970s, has been invited to speak at SUNY Brockport. (Jalil Muntaqim / Facebook.com)

by Sabrina Conza

SUNY Brockport faces significant backlash over plans to host a discussion with Jalil Muntaqim, previously known as Anthony Bottom, a former Black Panther and Black Liberation Army member, who was convicted of killing two police officers in the 1970s.

Muntaqim is slated to speak at the university April 6 about his stint as a Black Panther and his time serving nearly 50 years as a political prisoner according to the event description. After facing criticism on Twitter, SUNY Brockport President Heidi Macpherson released a statement, reading, in part:

We do not support the violence exhibited in Mr. Muntaqims previous crimes, and his presence on campus does not imply endorsement of his views or past actions. However, we believe in freedom of speech. SUNY Brockport has routinely held speaking events involving controversial speakers from various background[s] and viewpoints, and will continue to do so. These conversations are uncomfortable. They are meant to be. Theyre about gaining a new perspective.

The university has upheld its First Amendment obligations by refusing to cancel the event, and in doing so affirms the importance of free expression on campus.

This is the correct approach. Universities, especially public institutions like SUNY Brockport, may not disinvite a speaker based on backlash even if that speaker was convicted of murdering police officers 51 years ago. However, there are some who would prohibit the university from allowing the event to proceed.

For example, New York Sen. Thomas OMara tweeted at the university, urging it to cancel Muntaqims talk.

Members of the public, including elected officials, can speak out against controversial speakers like Muntaqim, but calling for cancellation of an invited speakers event advocates unlawful censorship which, if carried out, would violate the universitys First Amendment obligations.

Another New York senator, Minority Leader Rob Ortt, wrote to SUNY Brockport criticizing its invitation of Muntaqim, taking issue with the characterization of Muntaqim as a political prisoner and urging it to consider those who have family members in law enforcement. He asked that the university rescind Muntaqims invitation to speak on campus.

New York gubernatorial candidate, Rep. Lee Zeldin, also weighed in, calling SUNY Brockports decision to provide Jalil Muntaqim with a taxpayer funded platform disgraceful and urging the institution to disinvite Muntaqim.

And Josh Jensen, a New York assemblyman, said the university should disinvite Muntaqim, criticizing his appearance as wholly inappropriate.

Even amidst pressure from elected officials to disinvite Muntaqim, SUNY Brockport must stand firm in its decision to allow the speaking appearance to continue as planned. It is the universitys responsibility to place its First Amendment obligations above the calls of detractors, regardless of the level of controversy or the volume of calls for censorship.

Public institutions like SUNY Brockport may not disinvite a speaker based on backlash.

And although not the case in this situation, legislators must be careful not to suggest that they wield government authority against institutions that fail to accede to their demands of censorship. Legislators, administrators, and the public must instead take a more speech approach to this situation by expressing their own views about Muntaqim and SUNY Brockport. This option is the correct alternative, as it will lead to more individuals taking advantage of instead of violating the First Amendment.

As we continue to watch the situation unfold, we look forward to SUNY Brockport allowing the event to continue as planned.

Original post:
SUNY Brockport must not heed calls to disinvite former Black Panther, convicted murderer - Foundation for Individual Rights in Education

On March 18, 2022, Fortune Brands Home & Security, Inc. entered into a Second Amendment and Incremental Agreement (the “Amendment”) to the 364-day unsecured term loan credit agreement dated as of November 29, 2021 among the Company, the lenders party thereto and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as administrative agent (as amended by the First Amendment and Incremental Agreement dated as of March 1, 2022, the “Existing Credit Agreement”; the Existing Credit Agreement as amended by the Amendment, the “Credit Agreement”). Under the Amendment and the Credit Agreement, subject to the satisfaction or waiver of certain conditions, the Company will be able to borrow an incremental term loan in the aggregate principal amount of $500,000,000. Except for the incremental amount which the Company may borrow, the terms and conditions contained in the Credit Agreement were not changed as a result of the Amendment. See the Company’s Current Reports on Form 8-k filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2022 and December 2, 2021 for a description of these terms. The proceeds of borrowings under the Credit Agreement may be used for general corporate purposes, including working capital, capital expenditures, permitted acquisitions and other lawful corporate purposes.

Excerpt from:
Fortune Brands Home & Security, Inc. Enter into Second Amendment and Incremental Agreement to the 364-Day Unsecured Term Loan Credit Agreement -...