You are so wasting your time.
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
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.
You are so wasting your time.
OK let me “school” you. In Nebraska if you are not the ‘Huskers you do not rate.