You are so wasting your time.
Posted on 03/08/2011 10:07:47 AM PST by butterdezillion
The Lincoln Journal-Star printed a totally inaccurate, ad hominem editorial regarding the eligibility issue at http://journalstar.com/news/opinion/editorial/article_896f2493-dd7d-5ed6-9261-8e36ef8e6fa5.html . But they refuse to print a factually-accurate, 200-word letter to the editor that I submitted because "The first couple of graphs are fairly confusing to us, so we'd take those out ..."
I encourage you to contact Victoria Ayotte at VAyotte@journalstar.com and let her know that you don't appreciate their censorship of facts on critical issues. You can mention the e-mail exchange wherein she refused to print critical facts from a letter to the editor by Nellie.
We have got to call out the media lies.
Details of the communications in the first comment. They are wilfully pretending not to comprehend basic facts.
But voters have no legal standing to see critical records - even for the wannabe CEO of foreign policy, military, Supreme Court, and all law enforcement and regulatory agencies. Judges say not enough is at stake for us - even for active military. Legally it’s “none of our business”.
Even with proof of ineligibility, voters can do nothing about it legally. When the NJ SOS put a non-citizen on the Presidential ballot the courts said the rule of law was “none of our business”. It never will be until our laws specifically say it is.
LB 654 requires proof of eligibility & allows NE voters to challenge eligibility legally. This bill will be challenged, & the courts will define “natural born citizen, leaving only Constitutional provisions.
A hearing is March 10th. Please ask Senators Avery, Price, Brasch, Janssen, Karpisek, Pahls, Schumacher, and Sullivan to support LB 654. Voters need a definition for “natural born citizen”, access to critical records, and standing to hold politicians legally accountable. The rule of law, national security, & our Constitution ARE our business. _________________________________
After being told they would cut out the first paragraphs because "The first couple of graphs are fairly confusing to us", I read the letter to a couple of my apolitical friends and asked if it was confusing (they said no) and had them tell me what it meant (they understood it perfectly). I told them the situation and after they told me this gal was definitely BS-ing me I responded with this:
_______________________________ The first couple of paragraphs are the meat of my letter. They contain factual information that is critical to understanding why LB 654 has even been proposed: there is no security check, nobody has legal standing to see even the most basic of records, and even when we KNOW somebody is ineligible we can't make a secretary of state follow state laws.
If you won't print those background facts, my letter is left with no substance.
But I can tell you that I read the entire proposed letter to several people who have no experience with this issue at all, and they had no problem understanding what was said.
What was particularly confusing to you? __________________________________________
The response: "The reference to a "security check" and "legal standing" are unclear. The court rulings that I saw don't refer to "legal standing" as such."
I responded with: There is no security check for elected officials. The FBI, CIA, and secret service are not allowed to check any records. We can't even know whether the person claiming to be a person actually is that person. Lots of people believe that we could never elect anybody really bad or dangerous because they wouldn't be able to pass a security clearance. But there is no security clearance. The election is all there is. If the voters can't find out the information, then nobody can. That is a CRITICAL point that voters and legislators really need to know. And those who read my letter understood that clearly.
What court cases have you looked at? Of the 50+ cases that have been filed, all but 2 were dismissed because the plaintiff was ruled to not have legal standing. Did you not understand the term "legal standing", or were you thinking that in the 200 words I am allowed I should have listed the court cases and their legal rationale?
Again, those who read my letter explained to me that they understood that the judges refused to decide the cases - which is what people need to know. There is no way for anybody to get a legal ruling on anything unless the law specifically creates a way for that to happen. That's why this bill is so necessary. A critical point.
I assure you that the facts I have stated are correct. Others who read it were able to understand what I stated. If they didn't understand it, they could write me off as stupid or they could check out the facts themselves. Why should they not have a chance to at least hear what I have to say?
This morning she sent this: "Nellie: I understand your position; I ran this by another editor to come up with what we could run, because I did want to get your view in. But if you don't want us to publish what we feel we can, that's your right."
They don't "feel they can" publish the first couple paragraphs containing the facts that refute their own editorial inaccuracies. What journalistic integrity they display! (sarc)
I responded with this: I don't much care what anybody thinks of my view; what I care about is that people know the facts, and that is apparently the part of my letter that you don't want to print - even though normal people are well able to understand the facts as I wrote them.
Please cite the court cases you looked at where legal standing was not an issue. The facts in my letter were too "confusing" for you to print because you apparently knew nothing about any cases being thrown out for lack of standing. Of the 50+ cases on Obama's eligibility there was only one case you could have looked at where standing was not denied. If you are "confused" by the facts regarding any of the other 49 cases you accidentally overlooked, that says to me "tunnel vision" and "selective attention".
Apparently nobody in the LJS readership is allowed to hear facts that you choose to be personally ignorant of - as decided by you and at least one other editor at the Lincoln Journal-Star.
The LJS editorial staff has room (at http://journalstar.com/news/opinion/editorial/article_896f2493-dd7d-5ed6-9261-8e36ef8e6fa5.html ) for an editorial full of ad hominems and factual inaccuracies that anybody who has followed this issue at all can see from a mile away, but it refuses to comprehend the simple facts when stated in 200 words or less. That is incredibly sad. And it will be going on my blog.
Nellie
That'll show 'em.
Short of starting or buying a newspaper, I really believe you are SOL.
FACT: Voters do the only security check for elected officials. The vote IS the security check.
But voters have no legal standing to see critical records - even for the wannabe CEO of foreign policy, military, Supreme Court, and all law enforcement and regulatory agencies. Judges say not enough is at stake for us - even for active military. Legally it's "none of our business".
Even with proof of ineligibility, voters can do nothing about it legally. When the NJ SOS put a non-citizen on the Presidential ballot the courts said the rule of law was "none of our business". It never will be until our laws specifically say it is.
LB 654 requires proof of eligibility & allows NE voters to challenge eligibility legally. This bill will be challenged, & the courts will define "natural born citizen, leaving only Constitutional provisions.
A hearing is March 10th. Please ask Senators Avery, Price, Brasch, Janssen, Karpisek, Pahls, Schumacher, and Sullivan to support LB 654. Voters need a definition for "natural born citizen", access to critical records, and standing to hold politicians legally accountable. The rule of law, national security, & our Constitution ARE our business. After being told they would cut out the first paragraphs because "The first couple of graphs are fairly confusing to us", I read the letter to a couple of my apolitical friends and asked if it was confusing (they said no) and had them tell me what it meant (they understood it perfectly). I told them the situation and after they told me this gal was definitely BS-ing me I responded with this:
The first couple of paragraphs are the meat of my letter. They contain factual information that is critical to understanding why LB 654 has even been proposed: there is no security check, nobody has legal standing to see even the most basic of records, and even when we KNOW somebody is ineligible we can't make a secretary of state follow state laws.
If you won't print those background facts, my letter is left with no substance.
But I can tell you that I read the entire proposed letter to several people who have no experience with this issue at all, and they had no problem understanding what was said.
What was particularly confusing to you? The response: "The reference to a "security check" and "legal standing" are unclear. The court rulings that I saw don't refer to "legal standing" as such." I responded with:
There is no security check for elected officials. The FBI, CIA, and secret service are not allowed to check any records. We can't even know whether the person claiming to be a person actually is that person. Lots of people believe that we could never elect anybody really bad or dangerous because they wouldn't be able to pass a security clearance. But there is no security clearance. The election is all there is. If the voters can't find out the information, then nobody can. That is a CRITICAL point that voters and legislators really need to know. And those who read my letter understood that clearly.
What court cases have you looked at? Of the 50+ cases that have been filed, all but 2 were dismissed because the plaintiff was ruled to not have legal standing. Did you not understand the term "legal standing", or were you thinking that in the 200 words I am allowed I should have listed the court cases and their legal rationale?
Again, those who read my letter explained to me that they understood that the judges refused to decide the cases - which is what people need to know. There is no way for anybody to get a legal ruling on anything unless the law specifically creates a way for that to happen. That's why this bill is so necessary. A critical point.
I assure you that the facts I have stated are correct. Others who read it were able to understand what I stated. If they didn't understand it, they could write me off as stupid or they could check out the facts themselves. Why should they not have a chance to at least hear what I have to say?
This morning she sent this: "Nellie: I understand your position; I ran this by another editor to come up with what we could run, because I did want to get your view in. But if you don't want us to publish what we feel we can, that's your right." They don't "feel they can" publish the first couple paragraphs containing the facts that refute their own editorial inaccuracies. What journalistic integrity they display! (sarc) I responded with this:
I don't much care what anybody thinks of my view; what I care about is that people know the facts, and that is apparently the part of my letter that you don't want to print - even though normal people are well able to understand the facts as I wrote them.
Please cite the court cases you looked at where legal standing was not an issue. The facts in my letter were too "confusing" for you to print because you apparently knew nothing about any cases being thrown out for lack of standing. Of the 50+ cases on Obama's eligibility there was only one case you could have looked at where standing was not denied. If you are "confused" by the facts regarding any of the other 49 cases you accidentally overlooked, that says to me "tunnel vision" and "selective attention".
Apparently nobody in the LJS readership is allowed to hear facts that you choose to be personally ignorant of - as decided by you and at least one other editor at the Lincoln Journal-Star.
The LJS editorial staff has room (at http://journalstar.com/news/opinion/editorial/article_896f2493-dd7d-5ed6-9261-8e36ef8e6fa5.html ) for an editorial full of ad hominems and factual inaccuracies that anybody who has followed this issue at all can see from a mile away, but it refuses to comprehend the simple facts when stated in 200 words or less. That is incredibly sad. And it will be going on my blog.
Nellie
They can do whatever they want - although if they wilfully deceive the public in a matter of federal jurisdiction it is a violation of the Federal General False Statement Act.
But they can also be exposed for the lying sacks of scum that they are, and the public can let them know that they see what lying sacks of scum they are and make them a little uncomfortable at the prospect.
That’s what I’m asking people to do - to give the Journal-Star a little bit of feedback on how they censor out the facts about 49 cases because they pretend to not understand it. Unless, of course, they really can’t understand that simple language, in which case they are hardly fit to tell people what they should be thinking.
Ping.
The Lincoln Journal-Star needs to hear from Freepers who don’t appreciate lies being printed and facts being censored. That is where the real battle over the eligibility bills will take place, and the Journal-Star has shown its true colors.
Any facts they don’t want to print, they just say, “No comprehende....”
Good letter, but I think dealing with the media on this subject is a useless task.
They don’t WANT to know if the President is eligible for the office or not, because if he isn’t, they’re going to look like complete fools.
I really believe the big media execs suspect Obama isn’t eligible, and that’s why they’re trying their damndest ro ridicule the so-called “truthers.” Not because they care about Obama, but because they care about ther own butts.
I hear what you’re saying. Until we actually confront the media on their factual inaccuracy and their censorship of the true facts and expose them to the world-at-large, they will continue to do this and they will continue to hold the entire political process hostage.
Maybe I can’t win.
But I will meet them in battle nonetheless.
You are so wasting your time.
The dinosaur media needs to hear from us exactly what kinds of antics make them lose credibility. We need them to know that they don’t have a monopoly on what people can hear, and the factual information getting out on the blogs and alternative news sites is leaving them in the dust. People have a chance to know the facts so when they do this kind of stuff it’s like dancing around thinking nobody can see that your slip is showing big-time.
How many people wrote to their legislators and received back letters quoting some media report saying that Obama is eligible? That’s the kind of unthinking sway the Congress-critters allow people like this gal to have over them.
If we can’t win this (larger) battle over insisting that the truth be reported and lies be confronted and corrected, we can’t win anything in this society. As long as liars have the power to influence lawmakers, this nation is sunk.
Ayotte tells me that they have somebody working on a story regarding LB 654. She’s given me the name of the reporter but not contact information at this point. She says they want the facts to be reported and it’s strange how some writing is “understandable” and others not.
Maybe the reason she’s not “understanding” it is because she is stupider than my apolitical high school-educated friend who understood it perfectly. But if she insists that everybody has to be as stupid as her, that’s going to severely limit what the public is able to hear - not a good situation for a paper that is supposedly “informing the public”.
Good on ya!
OK let me “school” you. In Nebraska if you are not the ‘Huskers you do not rate.
I do want to say that I hold nothing against Victoria personally. She has been polite in her responses and has now given me contact information so I can ask for corrections to the factually-inaccurate editorial and can contribute information to the reporter who is supposed to write a story on LB 654.
I imagine she’s been told what she has to say and which facts she can allow to be printed. The whole thing is just sad.
And the Journal-Star is not alone. Of the 11 papers I sent a 250-word version of this letter to, only my hometown paper and one other paper contacted me to verify that I wrote the letter so they could print it.
That should tell us something.
They had space for a totally inaccurate ad hominem editorial on LB 654...
That stinks. Seems like there should be a way for everybody who pitched in on a thread to not have their posts zotted just because the person who started the thread gets zotted.
I wonder how many hours of FReeping went down the mystery-hole just because a mod hit the "delete" button?
butter, it’s really rare that an editor would tell a letter writer what they are and aren’t going to publish in a letter to the editor. It’s also quite possible that she and others at her newspaper are too stupid to understand the concepts of ‘security checks’ and ‘legal standing.’
Also, I think you’re better off forgetting about the false statements act. No newspaper is going to be held accountable under that act. Newspapers occasionally get into trouble for libel, but that’s about it.
Apparently I **AM** giving them too much credit for being even literate. The reporter who covers the legislature for them thought that every time the Supreme Court rejects an appeal for a challenge of Obama’s eligibility, the Supreme Court is saying that Obama is eligible and us stupid “birthers” are too stupid to accept their answer.
And since the Supreme Court doesn’t give their reason for refusing the appeal, folks like Ayotte and this reporter look at that and conclude that standing was never an issue for the case.
So these people really MAY have been confused over the “legal standing” comment and may have thought they were reporting accurately. They’re just woefully ignorant. Unfortunately they are so ignorant that they’re ignorant of how ignorant they are. lol. So they call people like you and me “kooks”.
And that passes for journalism. And you know, anybody can be confused or mixed up. Happens to me all the time. But the measure of a person is what they do with information that shows they have been mixed up. This reporter doesn’t want to hear about it; why should truth matter anyway?
This kind of stuff is what the vast majority of voters are relying on for their knowledge. These are the people that state legislators are afraid of getting on the bad side of. We are so screwed.
In the amount of time given to testify in a legislative hearing, how can any of us ever undo all that ignorance?
3-003.05 The Department will supply for any proper purpose as defined in 174 NAC 3-004, a certified copy of a birth, death, marriage, or dissolution of marriage record, except as otherwise provided by law or court order. The burden is on the applicant to prove to the Department that a valid proper purpose exists.
3-004 PROPER PURPOSE: Proper purpose means and includes the following circumstances:
3-004.09 Media Use: Use of a certificate upon proof of identity and employment with a newspaper, magazine, radio, or television station for the purpose of reporting news to the public.
Now why, if the media can get the birth certificate of anyone born in their state, is it an unreasonable burden to expect a presidential candidate to provide proper credentials and birth documentation as is required by the proposed eligibility bill??
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.