Mediaboss Marketing

Sen. Steve Daines

U.S. Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT) on Jan. 23 said he plans to introduce bipartisan legislation to help protect the privacy of his home-state constituents and all Americans.

Montanans want their privacy protected, Sen. Daines said. Thats why Im fighting to protect our civil liberties and stop the federal government from interfering in our lives.

Sen. Daines intends to introduce the Safeguarding Americans Private Records Act of 2020 with U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR). In the U.S. House, U.S. Reps. Warren Davidson (R-OH) and Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) introduced legislation, H.R. 5675, on Jan. 24 to reform Section 215 of the sweeping anti-terrorism law, the USA PATRIOT Act, officially the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act, which was signed into law in 2001.

According to Sen. Daines office, the National Security Agency has used the law to create a secret mass surveillance program that also has swept up millions of Americans phone calls.

If enacted, the bipartisan, bicameral measure would permanently end the phone surveillance program by closing loopholes and prohibiting secret interpretation of the law, according to a bill summary provided by Sen. Daines office.

The bill also would prohibit the collection of geolocation information by intelligence agencies.

This is one of the most American pieces of legislation that the Senate could deliver. First off, it is an important bipartisan solution that proves our legislators can put the United States first. Second, it provides sunshine and clarifies our nations domestic surveillance programs. Third, it ensures Americans fourth amendment rights are clearly protected. And last, it updates and clarifies extremely outdated technology laws, said Daniel Zolnikov, a Republican member of the Montana Legislature and chairman of the Montana House Energy, Technology and Federal Relations Committee. I applaud both Senator Daines and Senator Wyden for taking their job and their oath to the constitution serious.

Read the original:
Daines intends to introduce bill to reform PATRIOT Act - Ripon Advance

Newark Advocate Published 12:35 p.m. ET Jan. 25, 2020

A government agency can use eminent domain to take private property for a valid public cause while compensating the property owner. A government agency can through its actions devalue a piece of property by restricting access to or the use of that property.

This is called legallytaking land. This can happenwhen a road is changed or widened. When Thornwood Crossing east of Granville was built, access to Cherry Valley Road from Route 16 was cut off. This restricted access to businesses along Cherry Valley Road.

The Ohio Supreme Court recently decided, by a 4 to 3 vote, that Wendys was entitled to compensation by ODOT for the business loss. The court stated that losing access constituted taking.Wendys lawyer stated that his client had a constitutional right to theaccess point of Cherry Valley at Route 16, and ODOT closed that access point.

So is a business entitled to be compensated for the loss of profit under the legal taking clause, paid for by a public entity using public money? Should businesses then not pay for profit for access to a publicly-funded road? No business is going to locate in an inaccessible area. That mean it is fully aware of thepotential profit by having access provided by the public. In order to get compensated for the loss of profit, a business should pay into a fund for profiting by getting access paid for by thepublic. The public should not pay for building a road and then again for private business losses. It should be either both or neither.

Jurgen Pape

Granville

During the Novembervoting day Zone 2 & 4 voted at the American Legion Lodge on 6th Street.There were numerous times that you had to look for a place to park.Come March it will be the same and November has the potential of severe over crowding, making many voters not voting or illegally parking.The election boardneeds to take a serious look at separating these twozones to there own area immediately.I see everywhere on social media of bad blood between Democrats and Republicans and I see a problem especially in November.I would hope everyone would act like adults and vote with heart.Thank you for listening there is a problem that needs fixed NOW!

Mike Miner

Newark

On Monday we witnessed a gathering of Virginia citizens protesting gun confiscation by their "Democratic" government. All the proposed laws are unconstitutional because they are an infringement on their constitutional rights. Not just the Second Amendment, but also the Fourth Amendment, and the Fifth Amendment. All of these government officials have taken the oath of office swearing to preserve protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. By voting to steal lawfully owned firearms they've violated their oath of office. By sending officers out to steal lawfully owned firearms they are committing the act of treason and forcing the officers also to commit an act of treason.

No one who has ever taken an oath to support, protect and defend the Constitution can support any law that violates that oath. If you have ever taken such an oath, you are bound to not support an unconstitutional law. Thank God that most of the sheriff's in Virginia understand that and are standing up in support of the Constitution.

It's understandable the fear that an unarmed citizen has for their safety and the safety of their family. Progressives have used anti-concealed carry stickers to keep law-abiding citizens from bearing arms in posted buildings. These are the buildings madmen come to murder innocent people, because they know they're safe. If you want to keep the people safe, take down the stickers and train all that wish to carry when and how to shoot in defense of their lives and others.

John Bell

Newark

Read or Share this story: https://www.newarkadvocate.com/story/news/local/2020/01/25/letters-newark-readers-speak-out-subsidies-guns-and-polling-places/4555955002/

Read more from the original source:
Letters: Newark Advocate readers speak out on subsidies, guns and polling places - The Newark Advocate

Though Whitehall City Council members say they will take the time to find a solution to make everyone happy concerning a balance between person-property rights and property-maintenance standards, they appear poised to broaden existing city code to include a parking prohibition on unimproved surfaces in the backyards of residents.

After listening to two residents at their Jan. 21 meeting who are opposed to the proposal, council members advanced the legislation, without any discussion among themselves, to a second reading at 7 p.m. Feb. 4 at Whitehall City Hall, 360 S. Yearling Road.

Current city code prohibits parking an automobile, motorcycle or other motor vehicle, boat or trailer on any non-impervious surface, non-parking or non-driveway portion of the front yard or side yard.

The proposed amendment would strike front yard or side from the language of the ordinance, effectively prohibiting parking on unimproved areas, such as grass, of a residential yard.

Not addressed Jan. 21 was another provision in the current legislation: a requirement that all vehicles parked in the parking areas of driveways shall bear the current registration or license plates required by Ohio Revised Code.

After the meeting, Whitehall Ward 1 councilman Chris Rodriguez said the proposed legislation is "pretty fair.

Were just asking people to not park on grass," he said.

Ward 4 councilwoman Lori Elmore said residents need to be good neighbors, but additional meetings remain to further discuss the proposal.

At-large councilman and President Pro-Tempore Robert Bailey said council members will continue to review the proposal and work together to figure out a way to make everyone happy.

At-large councilwoman Karen Conison said she wanted to research the policies of other cities before opining on the legislation.

Two residents shared their opinions Jan. 21; one of them was Gerald Dixon, a Doney Street resident who lost a bid for a City Council seat in 2019 in his third attempt at elected office.

Dixon said the legislation equates to my government granting themselves the right to stick their nose in the liberties of citizens' backyards.

The proposal was unethically born from photographs taken of citizens' backyards that flouted the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution that protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures, said Dixon, referring to photos that service director Zach Woodruff provided to council when introducing the legislation.

The photos included aerial images from the Franklin County Auditors Office and some taken by Whitehalls zoning officer.

You are a guarantor of the citizens' rights and not their grantor, said Dixon, who appealed to council to not give credence to those things which undermine citizens' rights but instead to that which ensures the citizens of Whitehall that their rights are being properly respected and served.

Don Minor, a Westphal Avenue resident, compared the proposal, which he called parking crap, to entering the home of elected officials and criticizing the furniture.

Whats happened to my freedoms? Its not fair to a lot of us, said Minor, who told council members he restores vehicles at his residence and admonished council for not addressing problems such as out-of-control kids.

But city officials maintain the proposal is necessary.

Mayor Kim Maggard said the initiative is meant to raise the quality of life in Whitehall.

Unfortunately, we have had a proliferation of backyard junkyards, and it affects the quality of life of residents living next to one, Maggard said.

Woodruff agreed, saying the problem has become worse since he first suggested a backyard parking ban two years ago.

The proposed legislation also considers the possibility a homeowner might simply pave over grass.

Any lot 7,500 square feet or smaller is limited to 50% impervious surface; lots greater than 7,500 square feet are limited to 4,500 square feet of impervious surface, Woodruff said.

Jim Graham, who stepped down as council president at the end of last year, addressed council as a resident to support the proposal.

It will make our city more attractive, he said.

At-large councilman Wes Kantor, who said he opposed a backyard parking ban two years ago when the legislation did not gain traction, hopes a different solution is found.

Kantor said he considers the current proposal an overreaction to a minuscule number of residents with too many cars in their backyards, but does not yet know how to address that problem without infringing on the personal property rights of residents.

kcorvo@thisweeknews.com@ThisWeekCorvo

See the rest here:
In mulling backyard-parking ban, Whitehall seeks balance between property rights, quality of life - ThisWeek Community News

Whatever happened to the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution you know, the one prohibiting infliction of cruel and unusual punishment on prisoners?

Rep. Adam Schiff has already put 16 hours in on his opening arguments in the Senate, with a little help here and there from Rep. Jerry the Penguin Nadler and assorted other Democrat lunatics.

And the 100 members of the Senate also known as the prisoners have to put in another eight hours in stir today listening to Shifty Schiffs same old you-know-what.

If 24 hours of Adam Schiffs bug-eyed rants dont represent cruel and unusual punishment, then what does?

Sen. Dianne Feinstein fled Wednesday night, not even trying to cover her tracks, saying Goodnight to two reporters as she took it on the lam. Granted, shes 85 years old, but it has to be excruciating even if youre not knock-knock-knocking on heavens door.

Sen. Rand Paul was seen surreptitiously doing a crossword puzzle. Sen. Bernie Sanders, almost as ancient as Feinstein, dozed at his desk.

Of course the Democrats with press passes were swooning over Schiffs BS, claiming to be fascinated, enthralled, riveted breathless, as if they were reviewing opening night of a hit Broadway musical. Sen. Chuck Schumer went so far as to say that Schiff was delivering his remarks succinctly.

Succinctly! I was a young man when Adam Schiff began speaking and he hasnt stopped yakking yet.

As a reporter, Ive always enjoyed covering trials. Its all right there in front of you, on the public record. When either side introduces a photo or document into evidence, you can put it into the paper. You can bring cameras into state courtrooms. At the Moakley Federal Courthouse, you can tweet.

But the fact is, even the best trials have shall we say dry spells. When technical testimony is being put into evidence, or the lawyers are arguing among themselves with the judge at interminable sidebar conferences.

Still, a spectator always know that eventually, the action in the courtroom is going to resume. Take opening arguments I dont think Ive ever heard one go on longer than a couple of hours. A judge wouldnt permit it. Beyond that, any lawyer that long-winded would lose the jury, before he even called his first witness.

But these Democrats just keep droning on and on and on.

And there seem to be no rules. First of all, the president is not charged with committing bribery, treason, or any other high crimes or misdemeanors. In a real trial, that would be enough for the defense counsel to immediately move for a directed verdict of acquittal. How can you convict somebody of nothing?

Another thing: Schiff has mentioned Russia, I believe, more than 40 times. Again, in a real courtroom, the defense lawyer would be on his feet, objecting. These same clowns tried to frame Trump on the Russian collusion hoax, and he was, in effect, acquitted.

So theres another amendment to the Bill of the Rights that the Democrats are trashing: the Fifth.

No person shall be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life and limb.

Unless, of course, your name is Donald Trump.

One by one, the Democrats are trashing the entire Bill of Rights. In 2016, Hillary Clinton openly ran on a platform of overturning Citizens United (the First Amendment) and D.C. v. Heller (the Second).

Then theres the Fourth Amendment, prohibiting illegal search and seizure. Ask Carter Page how that works out for you in the Democrats secret corrupt FISA courts with their secret Democrat police known as the FBI falsifying evidence against you.

Making up evidence under oath the Democrats dont care much about the 10 Commandments either, apparently. Remember Number 8 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

Unless he works for Donald Trump and went to the U.S. Naval Academy. Then its okay, right Democrats?

How about the Sixth Amendment you know, the one that lets the accused confront his accuser. That ones out the window now too, at least for POTUS. The whistleblower must be protected at all costs, especially since he has no direct evidence, only hearsay, which used to be inadmissible in a court. But thats just the old Constitution, and,the Democrats go by the living Constitution, which means, they make it up as they go along, to frame anyone they disagree with, which is anybody who they disparage as a Deplorable.

Its bad for everybody, but especially Rand Paul. First a Bernie bro tried to shoot him at a baseball practice. Then his moonbat neighbor in Kentucky (originally from New Bedford) almost killed him in an unprovoked assault.

And now Paul has to listen to Adam Schiff for 24 hours, with only a crossword puzzle for comfort.

Are the nominations for the 2020 Profiles in Courage Award closed? Id like to make a motion for Rand Paul .

See the article here:
Howie Carr: Weve all had just about enough of this Schiff - Boston Herald

"He obstructed us. He is trying to obstruct you. And he has violated the Constitution," Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., thundered during his closing statement before the Senate Thursday evening. It was a powerful moment that belied an inconvenient truth about the impeachment trial of Donald Trump: Democrats ceded their moral authority in the case long ago.

As Truthdig columnist Chris Hedges argues in a new interview with "Rising's" Krystal Ball and Saagar Enjeti, the Democratic Party has been "selective" in its assessment of what rises to a constitutional violation, willfully ignoring a litany of crimes committed by the Bush and Obama administrations. "What are they?" he asks rhetorically. "Those would be nine illegal warswars are supposed to be declared by Congress; the war in Yemen; the wholesale surveillance begun by the Bush administration, exposed by Edward Snowden, in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment; [violations of] the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which makes it a crime for the government to surveil any U.S. citizens; the global programming of extraordinary rendition, kidnapping and torture; [and] the decision by the Obama administration to reinterpret the 2002 Authorization to Use Military Force Act to give it the right to act as judge, jury and executioner and assassinate U.S. citizens."

Later in the segment, Hedges claims the Democratic Party "engages in a form of demagoguery every bit as pernicious as the demagoguery that the Trump White House does." While the latter targets Muslims and undocumented immigrants, the former blames Russia for the results of the 2016 election rather than admit its complicity in the neoliberal policies that enabled Trump's victory. "Democrats are also living in an alternative reality," he says.

Watch the interview in its entirety above.

Continued here:
Chris Hedges: Democrats Have No Moral Authority on Impeachment - Truthdig