Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

VANITY: Help! LJS Editor Needs Some Schooling
Butterdezillion

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.


TOPICS: Miscellaneous; Music/Entertainment; Politics; Society
KEYWORDS: certifigate; eligibility; mediacorruption; naturalborncitizen
Here is the letter I submitted: ___________________________________ 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

1 posted on 03/08/2011 10:07:54 AM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
And it will be going on my blog.

That'll show 'em.

2 posted on 03/08/2011 10:12:29 AM PST by humblegunner (Blogger Overlord)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
Nellie,
I am sorry but it IS their newspaper. You cannot force them to print anything they do not want to.

Short of starting or buying a newspaper, I really believe you are SOL.

3 posted on 03/08/2011 10:15:52 AM PST by Tupelo (The Boudicca from Wasilla supporter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
Let me see if the formatting "takes", for better readability: Here is the letter I submitted to the Lincoln Journal-Star:

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

4 posted on 03/08/2011 10:20:40 AM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tupelo

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.


5 posted on 03/08/2011 10:25:29 AM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah; Red Steel; Natural Born 54; Greenperson; bitt; LucyT; STARWISE; Candor7; rxsid; ...

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....”


6 posted on 03/08/2011 10:31:04 AM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

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.


7 posted on 03/08/2011 10:33:16 AM PST by JennysCool (My hypocrisy goes only so far)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JennysCool

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.


8 posted on 03/08/2011 10:35:24 AM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

You are so wasting your time.

9 posted on 03/08/2011 10:43:29 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum ("If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun." -- Barry Soetoro, June 11, 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

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”.


10 posted on 03/08/2011 10:54:33 AM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: All

There was a huge thread on this. It got pulled.
 
The mods came up with this reason.

Read more.....
 
 


11 posted on 03/08/2011 10:54:58 AM PST by Responsibility2nd (Yes, as a matter of fact, what you do in your bedroom IS my business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
But I will meet them in battle nonetheless.

Good on ya!

12 posted on 03/08/2011 10:58:33 AM PST by JennysCool (My hypocrisy goes only so far)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

OK let me “school” you. In Nebraska if you are not the ‘Huskers you do not rate.


13 posted on 03/08/2011 10:59:33 AM PST by US Navy Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

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.


14 posted on 03/08/2011 11:01:54 AM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet

They had space for a totally inaccurate ad hominem editorial on LB 654...


15 posted on 03/08/2011 11:05:10 AM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

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.


16 posted on 03/08/2011 11:06:34 AM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
I agree. And they COULD have zotted the troll, but left the trhead.
 
One FReeper said this....
 

Yeah, but I didn’t like the boat I got onto getting torpedoed like that. I lost some baggage before getting picked up out of the water.

 

 

I wonder how many hours of FReeping went down the mystery-hole just because a mod hit the "delete" button?



17 posted on 03/08/2011 11:48:41 AM PST by Responsibility2nd (Yes, as a matter of fact, what you do in your bedroom IS my business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

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.


18 posted on 03/08/2011 1:13:35 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: edge919

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?


19 posted on 03/08/2011 2:16:59 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
If you want to nail the Lincoln Urinal-Star, point out that in their state, the media has full access to certified copies of birth certificates. Such is not the case for getting a copy of Obama's birth certificate. Here's the law:

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??

20 posted on 03/08/2011 2:27:04 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: edge919

Excellent point.

Hawaii is actually supposed to provide letters of verification to media entities also, but (as always) they’re not following their laws and rules in Hawaii. (sigh)

For some reason I just feel really sad for the people at the LJS. Here I had thought they were so deliberately lying and it’s more likely that they either don’t have or haven’t cared to take the time to really know the subject they write about. I feel sort of like I would feel after finding out that the person making fun of my son all the time is doing it to cover up that he doesn’t know how to read.

I thought you had said at one point that you have experience with journalism. Do you have any insight as to how best to try to break through the crud so some of these people will be real with me?


21 posted on 03/08/2011 6:33:32 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

BZ:

Why not ask one of the reporters to lunch, where you can school them one on one.


22 posted on 03/08/2011 7:38:04 PM PST by JohnnyP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyP

lol. Have them for lunch, eh?

I think my family is mortified at the thought of me being within spitting distance of Hawaii, Washington DC, or anybody in the media. lol. They need not worry because I don’t know how to spit and besides I wouldn’t spit on anybody.

I’d probably talk their ear off instead. lol. My most effective weapon. Puts them to sleep better than a veterinarian could do.

I think it would be good for me to interact with some of the media people, though, if only because it would give me better perspective. It never even occurred to me that somebody would just look at the SCOTUS ruling and think that was the whole story of the case in question and they would then be confused by a statement that the plaintiff had been denied standing because SCOTUS didn’t deny standing in the cases.

And I realize now that I should make sure it’s clear that when a judge denies standing he/she is NOT making any ruling on the actual claim of the suit - but is just saying, “It’s none of your business whether Obama (or McCain or whoever) is eligible.” I’ve been dealing with this for so long now, that I don’t remember what kinds of things people might not know.

I ran my letter to the editor past my sisters. One said it took her a bit to realize that SOS is Secretary of State, and the other said most Nebraskans would think of SCOTUS as one of the high schools here. lol. So I need feedback; I don’t intend to speak in code but it creeps up on me.


23 posted on 03/08/2011 8:33:28 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

These are people who have just NO idea of how ‘the other side’ thinks....or researches...or makes proofs...

They go just far enough to get a pat on the head and then they all sit around and make fun of the birthers, like NPR does.

Just sent something off....


24 posted on 03/08/2011 9:55:57 PM PST by bitt ( ..Congress - either investigate Obama ...or yourselves, for complicity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
I took a stab at rewriting your letter to the editor. I took out things that I don't think will help get it published and added a couple of things that would IMO make the letter more compelling and relevant to local readers. Feel free to use it (or parts of it) if you'd like. I'm not sure if this can be submitted quickly enough before the hearing, but hopefully it's not too late:
I'm writing in response to the 3/7 editorial, "'Birther' bill is fringe of the fringe." Contrary to what the editorial claims, several valid questions remain about Obama's alleged birth documents and Constitutional eligibility. Under Nebraska law, the media has a statutory right to obtain certified copies of any state birth certificate, but such is not the case in Hawaii, meaning there's no way to fully corroborate the digital image Obama presented on his campaign website. A recent attempt by the current governor of Hawaii has failed to produce any corroborating documents.

Under the current system, no government body officially verifies the Constitutional eligibility of a presidential candidate. There is no clear definition of the natural born citizen requirement. Voters, along with the press, are left on their own to check candidates' backgrounds with no means to make a legal challenge. If there are questions, we have learned courts will not grant voters access to the most basic records necessary for determining citizenship. Even with compelling evidence a candidate is ineligible, Judges say voters do not have legal standing to sue an elected official in a civil lawsuit, thereby preventing these cases from going to trial in front of a jury.

The best option is a state law such as LB 654, which requires proof of eligibility and allows Nebraska voters the right to challenge any candidate. This bill presents no unreasonable burden — basically the same as a child who wants to play Little League baseball: present a legal birth certificate. As a senator, Obama voted for a federal law requiring states to verify the validity of birth certificates with the issuing agency when you apply for a drivers license. LB 654 does no more than follow this same standard that Obama voted for.

A hearing is scheduled 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 legal standing to hold politicians accountable. We need the ability to stand up for the U.S. Constitution and for our rights as voters.

25 posted on 03/08/2011 10:50:22 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: edge919

THAT was good.

BZ: I recommend the term “security clearance”, rather than “security checks”. Most people understand what a clearance is.


26 posted on 03/09/2011 12:44:52 AM PST by JohnnyP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: edge919

That’s a good letter that I think would be convincing. The trouble is the time (since the hearing is tomorrow afternoon) and the space. With their intended edit to my previous letter, they would have given me 88 words to try to correct all their errors and make my case. Without the names of the senators or my name, address, and phone number, they would give me 71 words. Five lines of print in a standard Word document with 11-point font.

That’s 10 words less than the above paragraph. That’s the “free speech” they want to allow me. IF they say that THEY can understand what I say in those words.

There is no way, with the lies they have all the space in the world to print, and with the restrictions and censoring they do, that this can even vaguely be called a discussion. They don’t allow the space or the permission to correct their errors, much less say something of my own.


27 posted on 03/09/2011 3:33:52 AM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyP

Supposedly because of space considerations, this gal wanted to change my word “critical records” (16 letters)to “birth certificate” (17 letters). With the space allowances they give, I literally had to count every letter and switch words around for the sake of saving one letter wherever I could.

I jumped through their hoops, tested that normal people could understand it, and the LJS STILL wanted to undo what I said.

It’s an illustration of what I’ve been dealing with this whole time - what anybody deals with when they have to correct inaccurate reporting in an understandable way using only the number of words that the paper will allow them.

It’s like a judge allowing the prosecution to take days, and allowing the defendant 5 words to defend himself. Stacked deck. People need to realize how this works.


28 posted on 03/09/2011 3:39:56 AM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
If you want to fit within 71 words, how about this:
I'm writing in regard to LB 654, which requires proof of eligibility for presidential candidates. Presenting a legal birth certificate is not an unreasonable burden. Under the current judicial system, voters have been denied the right to challenge or verify a candidate’s legal credentials. Judges will not grant legal standing to average citizens. This new state law would restore that right and provide a simple, accountable process. Please support this bill.

29 posted on 03/09/2011 8:06:19 AM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: edge919

That’s a good, concise way to say it. If (hopefully when) LB 654 gets passed and referred to the full legislature I might steal that (with your permission, of course. lol) to put in the paper. Anybody should be able to understand that one.


30 posted on 03/09/2011 9:24:42 AM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

I write for other people all the time, so I have no problem with you using any of that. Feel free to modify it or enhance it as you wish too. Nebraska is a pretty conservative state, so I’m hoping there are enough people with common sense there to understand how this type of bill will actually benefit them.


31 posted on 03/09/2011 9:36:23 AM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: edge919

Nebraska is conservative but we’ve got Sodom and Gomorrah to deal with too. And the press in those places is as liberal/inaccurate as anywhere, which is a big problem.

I had also wondered what the Lincoln and Omaha talk radio stations would do with this issue. They’re Fox, but I didn’t know if Fox had passed on the “no serious eligibility discussion” all the way down to local affiliates. What I do know is that the hosts on the Omaha station, who are normally pretty decent, act as if they’ve not gotten either of my communications. Total silence, on air and the e-mail inbox. Maybe that’s just the way they do things; I don’t know. But we’re not going to get any help from them. At best they might not spread falsehood, leaving them at neutral.


32 posted on 03/09/2011 9:47:53 AM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
Now that I have seen her picture (I will not punish anyone further - shame on you by the way)

I UNDERSTAND!

It is a shame that body/image language people do not understand . . . . . .

33 posted on 03/15/2011 3:18:22 PM PDT by Freeper (Obama - Please STOP representing MY country!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson