LETTERS TO THE

E DITOR Media bias, censorship

To the editor: On Jan. 2, I sent a letter to the editor about how the media is extremely biased and one sided and social media is restricting/ deleting information. Most of the examples I used concerned the election, since these were most recent and were being misrepresented (at best) by the major media. The reaction I received from our local papers was a bit disappointing.

I received an e-mail from the Tribune-Phonograph

stating their publisher was declining to run my letter and to call if I had any questions. To their credit, we did have a good discussion in which we discussed a number of issues and did find points of agreement. But that’s the point. We had a discussion in which we were presenting both sides.

While this is a local paper with local issues, we are not an island. National issues affect local people daily. (Look how past national policies on oil and world events has affected gas prices and people’s pocketbooks.) A letter to the editor is one of (very) few options for people to speak their thoughts on other than local issues. People will support local papers that support them.

That week’s issue of the Star News (as did the Tribune) criticized Sen. Johnson with no opposing viewpoint. It’s interesting that they mentioned “a propaganda technique called the Big Lie where repeating a blatant lie over and over gets people to believe that it is true.” The media has been doing this for decades. They repeat a narrative over and over to make people believe it. (Remember with President Bush, we heard over and over almost every day—are you better off than you were? The media had people believing their neighbors were not doing very well while they knew they were doing OK.) It seems it’s OK to restrict conservative opinions that don’t agree with the narrative the media is pushing on us. However, an editor can make things up as they please and print assumptions as the TRG editorial had about me. He also criticized my article without giving his readers the courtesy of seeing what he was talking about. However, he did acknowledge the “liberal media manipulators.”

Many liberals supported riots for months (with looting, burning buildings and people dying) and called them “peaceful protests,” but now use terms like “insurrection” because it involves President Trump. (Speaker Pelosi (D) had stated “I just don’t know why there aren’t uprisings all over this country. Maybe there should be.”) When will she and others that made similar statements be “held accountable?”

Now, it’s not just people’s content being deleted from social media. Conservatives have seen their followers on social media disappearing by the thousands. Over the weekend, tens of thousands of people got kicked off Twitter (70,000 over the weekend, but some say over 700,000 now.) Amazon also reportedly removed Parler (a conservative social media that does not censor their members) from their servers, effectively shutting it down. Liberal censorship has entered high gear.

Social media suppression of President Trump is concerning people in other countries including leaders in Germany. Angela Merkel grew up in East Germany, where there was no freedom of speech or political expression. Germans remember how the Nazi party used censorship to implement their totalitarian dictatorship. Look at history and compare what the Democrats are doing now to what happened in Nazi Germany and Venezuela (a once prosperous country until socialism took hold about two decades ago.) The media has a habit of selectively feeding us certain information and attacking people more than addressing or explaining issues. How can they be believed with all the suppression and censorship? Where is, as Paul Harvey used to say, “the rest of the story”? We are just expected to believe everything the media says. (Remember CBS and Dan Rather fabricating a story about President Bush.) Some Democrats have even called for “reeducation camps” for Trump supporters. Where have we heard of those before!?

Congressional Democrats are now being vindictive against President Trump by impeaching him (again. They were calling for his impeachment even before he was inaugurated.) They are not just trying to remove him from office, as his term ends in a matter of days. They are trying to destroy him. Everybody should be very concerned with Democrats and the media and what they are going to do to regular Americans with their policies...

Tim Kampfhamer

Colby

Newspeak

To the editor: This week we will examine the Orwellian term newspeak. Merriam-Webster defines newspeak as “propagandistic language marked by euphemism, circumlocution, and inversion of customary meanings.” Mr. Weinschenk, in your Jan. 6 editorial, you referenced George Orwell’s Animal Farm. Orwell also wrote the novel 1984, a fictional world controlled by government and corrupt media. Your editorials on Jan. 6 and 13 would fit quite well in the Orwellian world of 1984.

Your Jan. 13 editorial portrayed Rep. Tom Tiffany as a king. In fact, you stated “Like a king, Tiffany claimed the law for himself.” This statement is a prime example of newspeak. Rep. Tiffany was exercising his constitutional duty to protect his constituents’ votes. Far from being a king, he was trying to ensure a free, fair and legal election.

In the Jan. 13 editorial, you referenced the Wisconsin Supreme Court 4-3 ruling against the Trump campaign. You also quoted the majority opinion wrote by Justice Brian Hagedorn. As Paul Harvey would say “now, the rest of the story.”

In the 4-3 Wisconsin Supreme Court decision, there were three justices who dissented. If you were to read their dissent, you would realize the majority used the legal doctrine of Laches in their dismissal of the suit. The definition of Laches is “bars recovery by the plaintiff because of the plaintiff’s undue delay in seeking relief.”

Chief Justice Patience Drake Roggensack wrote in her dissent.

“The majority does not bother addressing what the boards of canvassers did or should have done, and instead, four members of this court throw the cloak of Laches over numerous problems that will be repeated again and again, until this court has the courage to correct them. The electorate expects more of us, and we are capable of providing it. Because we do not, I respectfully dissent.”

Justice Annette Kingsland Ziegler wrote in her dissent: “Once again, in a too familiar pattern, four members of this court abdicate their responsibility to do so. They refuse to even consider the uniquely Wisconsin, serious legal issues presented. The issues presented in this case, unlike those in other cases around the United States, are based on Wisconsin statutory election law. Make no mistake, the majority opinion fails to even mention, let alone analyze, the pertinent Wisconsin statutes. Passing reference to other states’ decision making is of little relevance given the Wisconsin legal issues at stake. The people of Wisconsin deserve an answer — if not for this election then at least to protect the integrity of elections in the future. Instead of providing clarity, the majority opinion is, once again dismissive of the pressing legal issues presented.”

The Wisconsin Supreme Court did not address the issues in the 2020 election. The majority of the court avoided the issue, they lacked the courage to define what is legal and what is not legal by Wisconsin election statutes. To rest your argument on four justices who state it is too late to correct an unlawful act is ludicrous. The Trump campaign could not file suit before the election because they lacked standing. They had not yet been injured by the actions of unelected officials changing election law. A classic gotcha.

Rep. Tiffany and Senator Johnson displayed and exemplified courage and strong moral character by their actions. We need more elected officials like Rep. Tiffany and Sen. Johnson. I cast votes for both Tiffany and Johnson and will vote for them again.

In conclusion: The cause of the riots at the Capitol was unelected officials and judges without lawful authority changing how the 2020 election was conducted. If the election had been conducted as in years past, it would have validity. There would not be numerous questionable court rulings that cast doubt on the election. As in Wisconsin, when the Supreme Court failed to rule on challenges to the election; instead, they hide behind the legal term of Laches.

Rick Weber Colby

Editorials were wrong about Johnson, Tiffany

To the editor: Our country is facing many problems, and I’m concerned about what direction it may be going. It doesn’t help that, for two straight weeks, editorials with the same theme of criticizing our state politicians turns information around about what our elected officials were trying to do when they spoke up about what many people believe were suspicious doings in our recent presidential election.

The most recent was titled “Rule of law,” but after reading it, it is my opinion that both Senator Ron Johnson and Congressman Tom Tiffany were following the “rule of law” as part of their duties because, like many of the people they represent, both politicians believed questions were not answered, leading to their decisions to want to find out the truth about what really happened in the election.

They actually deserve our thanks for

doing their jobs, and should not be criticized and brushed aside by the writer of the editorial as if he just hoped things would go away. I like to think I’m fairly well informed about what is going on, including in politics. My opinions and beliefs are based on things I have read, listened to and observed over the years of my life.

As a believer in Christ, saying and doing the right things is something I try my best to do as the Bible commands. Also, the laws we have from our U.S. Constitution are very important to me, and I would sacrifi ce much to protect them. The Bible says in Isaiah 5:20 “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; who substitutes bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!”

This verse hits the nail on the head when describing the spin that these past two editorial columns tried to pass off as true. In this case, both politicians were right, and not wrong, when taking the action they did with their positions.

Just my thoughts; thank you for letting me share them.

Daniel Buchanan

Owen

Rep. Tiffany did exactly what his constituents wanted him to do

To the editor: Please allow me to respond to the editorial published in the Jan. 13, 2021, edition of your newspaper.

Congressman Tom Tiffany objected to electoral votes as hundreds of thousands of Wisconsin voters expected him to do. Tiffany’s constituents know that Democrat bureaucrats ignored Wisconsin law to establish several election procedures that favored Joe Biden.

Tiffany’s constituents know that the Wisconsin state constitution states that only the state legislature, not unelected bureaucrats, can change election law. Tom’s supporters were disappointed when the courts repeatedly refused to defend the laws enacted by our legislature and the state constitution.

To say that Tom Tiffany “worked in common purpose with insurrectionists” is shameful. Tom was employing lawful and peaceful means to represent his constituents. Wisconsin bureaucrats changed election procedures in defiance of state law and the state constitution to favor Joe Biden. Are those bureaucrats working in common purpose with the insurrectionists who were burning and looting many of our cities in 2020?

Your Jan. 13 editorial included the weak majority opinion written by Justice Brian Hagedorn. I would like to give your readers an opportunity to read the strong dissenting opinion written by Wisconsin Supreme Court Chief Justice, Patience Drake Roggensack.

“Elections have consequences. One candidate wins and the other loses, but in every case, it is critical that the public perceive that the election was fairly conducted.”

“In the case now before us, a significant portion of the public does not believe that the November 3, 2020, presidential election was fairly conducted. Once again, four justices on this court cannot be bothered with addressing what the statutes require to assure that absentee ballots are lawfully cast. I respectfully dissent from that decision. I write separately to address the merits of the claims presented.”

“The Milwaukee County Board of Canvassers and the Dane County Board of Canvassers based their decisions on erroneous advice when they concluded that changes clerks made to defective witness addresses were permissible. And, the Dane County Board of Canvassers erred again when it approved the 200 locations for ballot collection that comprised Democracy in the Park.”

“The majority does not bother addressing what the boards of canvassers did or should have done, and instead, four members of this court throw the cloak of Laches over numerous problems that will be repeated again and again, until this court has the courage to correct them. The electorate expects more of us, and we are capable of providing it.”

I proudly stand beside Congressman Tom Tiffany and Chief Justice Roggensack. Wisconsin must return to election procedures in which the voters have confidence. Bruce Bohr Marathon

Tiffany did the right thing

To the editor: Congressman Tom Tiffany demonstrated his fearless leadership when he legally voted to object to the certification of Wisconsin’s 10 elector ballots on Jan. 6, 2021.

As Tom correctly stated, ballots cast in violation of procedures in state statutes “may not be included in the certified result of any election.” And it is documented that both Dane and Milwaukee counties did not follow state statutes.

I know Congressman Tiffany and this decision had to be challenging for him. However, I voted for Tom Tiffany because I felt strongly he wouldn’t be afraid to uphold the Constitution on important decisions for the best interest of the thousands of taxpayers who voted for him.

We need more Congressional leaders with the integrity of Congressman Tiffany. I want a Congressman that follows the law and Congressman Tiffany did that. Thank you, Tom Tiffany for your strength and perseverance to stand up for the voters in Wisconsin who elected you to this important office.

Joanne Leonard Wausau