Letters to the Editor

A letter to the editor in the Gothenburg Times was recently called to my attention, and I hope you can help me with a concern that I have. The letter was from a Neil A. Davis, and he takes issue with a couple of opinion columns I wrote, which he is more than entitled to do, just as I am entitled to express my views.

My concern, however, is his implicit criticism of the Nebraska News Service as a provider of the columns. It was indeed a departure from the mission of the Nebraska News Service. Here’s why: Allen Beermann asked the Nebraska News Service to provide a weekly column for Nebraska Press Association members who subscribe to the Capital View commentary during the nearly three-month period that the regular columnist was ill. We didn’t seek the opportunity to add this task to our reporting responsibilities, but Allen has been a great supporter of the Nebraska News Service, so we were happy to help out the NPA and its members. My reporters and I took turns providing commentary, and, in retrospect, we no doubt should have made clear that the columns represented our individual views, not that of the Nebraska News Service.

I certainly stand by the views I expressed in the columns I wrote, just as I’m sure Mr. Davis stands by his. But I don’t want him, or any of your other readers, to think that the Nebraska News Service is taking political positions or expressing opinions in the news stories we send to you or the nearly 100 other client news organizations around the state. I regret that I did not anticipate there could be confusion in this regard.

Thanks for anything you can do to clarify the situation for your readers.

Wally Rose’s (02-01-12) letter about voter fraud asked questions, made an assumption and gave a solution. All of which I believe are wrong.

Mr. Rose is concerned about the proposal of “...a state senator from Fremont?” (who isn’t even called by name?) to push legislation requiring Nebraskans to show ID before being allowed to vote. Mr. Rose believes that the goal of Sen. Charlie Janssen and his proponents is to disenfranchise thousands of voters (people too lazy to get an ID and go through the agony of carrying it to the polling place) simply because they disagree with his/their philosophy.

Really? Just the fact that Janssen comes from a city that attempted legislation which would allow them to seek out illegal aliens in their community, seems enough for me to discern that prevention of voting by illegals is the main if not the only motive.

Mr. Rose’s fair and just solution is to deny Janssen and his proponents the right to vote. How does that make Mr. Rose different from his depiction of Senator Janssen? It seems to me that more voter turnout (not less) might someday help our state to actually make a difference in elections. Nebraska is one of only 20 states with no voter ID law. I don’t see the problem in adopting one, even if fraud isn’t common in Nebraska.

Mr. Rose cited voter fraud by “...one of our major political parties...” during the presidential elections in Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004. I assume he means Republicans, as the party also goes un-named. Other than the convictions of two Ohio workers for improper interpretation of procedures, not fraud, every other story I have looked at seems to be more conspiracy theory than anything else.

Mr. Rose accused the same (un-named) party of making claims of moral superiority. I think Republicans claiming moral superiority are far less prevalent than Democrats claiming that Republicans claim moral superiority (if it is Republicans Mr. Rose is referring to). Just the fact that Republicans police their own, by default makes them look better than socialists (by not being morally bankrupt).

Mr. Rose’s letter began “Voter fraud—by whom?” That was my thought while I was reading it. I felt like I was playing the murder/mystery board game “Clue.” My guess is it was Colonel Mustard in the library with the lead pipe.

I do not have a beef with the “Capital View” commentary in The Times, but with two articles by Mary Kay Quinlan of Nebraska News Service. Researching NNS, I read a webpage announcing “UNL journalism college launches state government news service.” On the webpage are smiling faces of enthusiastic students ready to accomplish their task. Quinlan is quoted as saying “NNS will not only provide a real-world learning experience for students but will also assist the state’s news organizations in covering government decisions made daily at the state capitol.”

My concern is how her viewpoint as expressed in “Capital View” fits with the NNS goals and how it affects the student reporters (she is their overseer). I recently wrote about how liberal indoctrination can turn young brains into mush. If she is going to write commentary, maybe it shouldn’t be under the auspices of NNS. Quinlan has a fine resumé and has written books about oral history research. The books appear (to me) to be about the mechanics of researching history. Perhaps not necessarily making any judicious use of the information.

In her (01-04-12) article, Quinlan suggested our elected officials would do well to return to American history class and attempted to make the case that since our Constitution was “born in compromise,” bi-partisanship should be the preferred vehicle to good government.

The question is, what is Quinlan asking the current Congress to compromise with? Over the last 100 years our law and ethics have been slowly compromised by a relentless progressive movement. With the election of Barack Obama, progressivism boldly gave way to Marxist socialism and fascist tendencies.

The problem is, Obama doesn’t have the patience to be a good socialist. When he said, “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America,” he was talking about implementing a system that at best would turn us into Europe and at worst has historically killed millions when taken to it’s logical conclusion.

Quinlan wrote that “...it takes compromise to make things work.” I say, if destroying freedom and the very values our nation was built on is the plan, I don’t want to “make things work.” Compromise used while crafting the Constitution and compromise that threaten it’s future existence aren’t in the same lexicon. The founders intentionally made the lawmaking process a difficult proposition. They certainly didn’t relinquish their values in the “Great Compromise.”

Quinlan asked “When did compromise become a four-letter word?” That would be when President Obama first met with Republican leaders and said “I won. So I think on that one, I trump you.” Even with the influx of new Republicans in Congress, their leadership is being played for fools while our debt continues to expand by trillion$. To go one step further, Obama recently said on the economy, “And where Congress is not willing to act, we’re going to go ahead and do it ourselves.” Those my friends are the words of a dictator.

Voter fraud—by whom? Is it by a few misguided souls who somehow think that they can scam the election game through the use of false ID, or, are they really the proposers and proponents of legislative action who should know (and probably do know) that the goal of their action is to disenfranchise thousands of voters who may not agree with the economic or political goals of such legislative proponents, i.e., a state senator from Fremont? Perhaps justice would be more fairly served if such proposers and their proponents were denied the “right” to vote.

Many readers may recall two of the greatest examples of voter fraud in recent American history, namely, Florida in 2000 A.D. and Ohio in 2004 A.D., both of which were orchestrated by—not a few misguided individuals—but one of our major political parties, the party that claims to have a corner on American values that.elevates it to some level of moral superiority. Hah!