[mccookgazette.com] Fair ~ 33°F  
High: 63°F ~ Low: 42°F
Monday, May 2, 2016

A few suggestions

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

Recently McCook's favorite son, Ben Nelson, announced that he will again run for the U.S. Senate in the 2012 election cycle. Senator Ben (D-Neb) made his announcement at a meeting of the teacher's union in Grand Island.

I personally have known Senator Ben as a boy in my hometown and have cheered his rise as a successful attorney in the insurance industry, his election to the office of Governor and then in 2006 to the U.S. Senate. I take pride in his journey from a rather tough childhood to success in politics. I hold in high esteem the office of the U.S. Senate and think that Senator Ben has in general done a fairly good job in office. So, if I had his ear, I would be so bold as to offer a few suggestions so that the people of Nebraska would be inclined to send him back for another term in 2012.

First off Senator Ben needs to apologize for his affirmative vote for Obamacare. He embarrassed all of us Nebraskans when he sold his vote for what will forever be known as the "Cornhusker Kickback." He could have stopped the whole process by voting AGAINST cloture on debate of the health care reform bill. A good reason for his vote at the time would have been to ask for a delay so he could have at least read the bill before having to vote FOR it. In the mode of Monday morning quarterbacking he insists that "he voted for cloture because he was afraid if he didn't Senate Democrats would use the budget reconciliation process to pass health care reform that included the public option." Remember the House had already passed the bill and the reconciliation process loomed as a way for the Obamacare power grab to be passed without an up or down vote by the Senate.

And that brings up another point. Senator Ben should guard against becoming beholden to special interests, in this case the insurance industry. "Single payer," another name for socialized medicine, would be devastating for the health insurance industry but coming from that background Senator Ben could have pushed for savings from competition by allowing health insurance to be sold across state lines. Tort reform, he is a lawyer, would have been most helpful in protecting doctors from predatory lawsuits designed to make lawyers rich and health care much more expensive.

Speaking of his insurance background, Senator Ben would have access to that industry's brightest minds, and could use their expertise to redesign the Social Security system to put it onto a sound fiscal basis. Over the years, since being created during President Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration, Democrats have created legislation to let them spend, rather than invest the monies collected from each of us. Laws prohibit anyone in the insurance industry from spending, rather than investing the premiums collected and the U. S. Government should at the least follow those sound fiscal rules. Any changing of the Social Security system is a political mine field but doing the right thing, putting it onto a sound fiscal basis, would most likely be looked on favorably by Nebraska voters.

Another abuse that should be eliminated is unions contributing their members' dues to the campaigns of politicians running for public office. Those contributions, actually bribes, only make those elected to office beholden to those unions so that they in turn return the favor by voting for legislation favorable to the big unions and detrimental to U.S. business. Example: the current deplorable state of Detroit, formerly the Auto Capital of the world. Union extortion abided by legislation has allowed our auto industry to become second rate. Senator Ben could do this nation a great favor by submitting legislation to make union contributions to election campaigns illegal.

A move to eliminate earmarks will be among the first order of business when Congress reconvenes this week. By all means Senator Ben must vote for legislation to eliminate earmarks.

Senator Ben sits on the prestigious Senate Armed Services Committee and has announced his intent to vote for the change in law to allow gays to serve openly in the military. He should consider the havoc wrought in the church by gay members of the priesthood.

The military, prior military and in particular General James E. Amos Commandant of the Marine Corps is against changing that law and Senator Ben should listen to their counsel.

Senator Ben could improve his favorability among Nebraska voters by caucusing with the new conservative faction in the Senate. This would allow Senator Ben to escape the dictates of far left liberal Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) who wouldn't have an ice cube's chance in heck of being elected in conservative Nebraska in the first place. To do so might require him to switch political parties assuming that the Republicans would accept him but that has been done before.

The voters of Nebraska sent Senator Ben to Washington to vote in the best interests of the United States, he is after all a U.S. Senator from Nebraska. His job is to make wise judgments for the good of the nation. Not in his charter is there any requirement to gather all the largess that he can for our state or to fill his reelection coffers. I have faith that he can make those changes and that the voters in Nebraska would look favorably on him if he would do so.

That is the way I see it.

Dick Trail

Fact Check
See inaccurate information in this story?

Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please Login or Create an account first, and then you will be able to flag a comment as objectionable. Please also note that those who post comments on mccookgazette.com may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

What does the writer mean by this?

Senator Ben sits on the prestigious Senate Armed Services Committee and has announced his intent to vote for the change in law to allow gays to serve openly in the military. He should consider the havoc wrought in the church by gay members of the priesthood.

Is the writer saying the abuse of children in the church was by gay priests?

This whole piece does not compute and overlooks the major reason why Senator Nelson is our best Member of Congress, he is the only member from Nebraska that does not vote his party line, all the other members vote 90% plus with their party. Not Senator Nelson, its more like 60%, that is my kinda Senator.

-- Posted by letfreedomring on Wed, Nov 17, 2010, at 9:56 AM

The majority of other nations allow gays to openly serve in the military. There really is no reason that America shouldn't as well.

-- Posted by Damu on Wed, Nov 17, 2010, at 10:15 AM

The author makes a point that many many ignorant people make. It was paedophiles were the cause of the problem in the church, not homosexuals. I do agree that paedophiles should not be allowed to serve.

I would also like to controll unions putting forth money, as well as overseas donations that the chamber loves to collect.

-- Posted by president obama on Wed, Nov 17, 2010, at 6:07 PM

Don't forget that Benedict Arnold Nelson is also the Father of taxpayer funding for abortions in ObamaCare.

On a skewed, straight-vote-tally Nelson might look like some sort of a moderate, but in actuality he voted against the wishes of the vast majority of Nebraskans on all the big votes including TARP, Stimulus, Omnibus budget, Sotomayor, Cash for Clunkers, ObamaCare, Finance takeover, etc. Ol'Ben has managed to rack up more in deficits than all presidents from Washington to Reagan combined. Most of that was stolen from our children and grandchildren and borrowed from the Communist Chinese.

As for the Gay issue. If anyone just wants to be like the rest of the world, in any way, go ahead and exercise your right to leave. F.Y.I. - our nation was founded on Judeo-Christian values and NOT being like the other basket cases of the world.

As a Vet I know for a fact that many of our best fighting men and women, along with their commanders, do not want Gays to serve openly and they will leave. Recruiting will drop off dramatically. Personally, I am for repealing Slick Willie Clinton's DADT and reinstating the full ban on Gays as in UCMJ.

Let's look beyond even the problems with sleeping arrangements, and bathroom & showering issues. Studies show that sexual assaults among Gays in the military are 3x higher than even among those in the civilian population. STD/AIDS are rampant among Gays and who would want a battlefield transfusion under those conditions? Our tax dollars also fund their HIV/AIDS treatments via the DOD and VA. HIV scares at multiple VA hospitals have affected thousands of Vets. Unit cohesion, morale, and health standards that are vital to our national security must trump the immoral social experiments of the radical Left.

In any case, even by liberal accounts, Nelson's career is toast and I hope he is impeached...

-- Posted by 9th ID on Wed, Nov 17, 2010, at 7:03 PM

Im not exercising my right to leave, im gonna stay and execerise my right to try to change things. If you are the spokesperson for the Judeo christian values then I want no part of it. Judge not lest ye be judged.

Lets not let republicans off the hook for the large deficit.

Just wondering if you could cite a reference to the taxpayers paying for abortions? Or for that matter anything else you posted.

-- Posted by president obama on Wed, Nov 17, 2010, at 8:51 PM

RIGHT ON 9thID! Couldn't agree more!!!!!!!! I'd have a different take on the gay issue, with my point being if you are gay and don't agree with the US Arm Forces policy THEN DON'T JOIN! Last I heard this is still a all voluntary force.

-- Posted by remington81 on Wed, Nov 17, 2010, at 8:51 PM

Mr bigdawg let me understand. The Priests that got in trouble were convicted (or accused) of being "paedophiles" who pried on little boys. Priests male, little boys male. Isn't that the definition of homosexual now politically correct "gay". Ignorant huh?

-- Posted by Dusty on Wed, Nov 17, 2010, at 9:48 PM

bigdawg - you might want to try out that newfangled Google news search thingy...

-- Posted by 9th ID on Wed, Nov 17, 2010, at 10:10 PM

Big Dawg,

I hear your agrument on don't judge me or you'll be judged from godless people all the time trying to shut the mouth of the Godly that dare address immoral behavior.

Jesus said,

1 Corinthians 11:31

31For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged

Romans 2:12

For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

The point of judging others is if you are doing the same thing and yet waiving your finger at others behaviors, beware. Remove the Beam from your eye first and then you are in a position to judge. (Don't be a hypocrit!)

It use to be a crime to be a homosexual and an adulturer. America use to have standards of law. America is immoral and lawless as seen by acceptance of these behaviors as "politically and socially acceptable" I guarantee neither is acceptable with God. America cannot judge, because her judges and leaders are immoral and corrupt and changed Gods standards to allow and justify their crimes against God. God is not mocked or fooled as man is.

As far as Ben Nelson goes, he can no more change his own nature out side of divine providence than a leapord can change her spots to stripes. Dick is deluded that Ben is something other than what he is, as many of our leaders are deluded in their immorality and covetness.

To have Dicks wish list, Ben would have to have a transformation internally and an repentant change of heart about his course of actions. He is in fact TONE DEAF. He doesn't care what we think in his home town, he is somebody. He is not even shame faced about it. Stiff necked, he plows forward in his errors awaiting to be judged, by his peers and God.

I frankly am waiting for his career change. I have not forgotten and I will remember in 2012.

Jerie Quinty

-- Posted by Jerie Quinty on Thu, Nov 18, 2010, at 8:50 AM

MAN! I hate to agree with remington81, but we are in the same side of the fence on this. The issue, as 9th ID put it, is that it's a morale killer. Do you want Our Country protected by men and women that are distracted by ANYTHING? I think that being on edge from the enemy would be enough of a worry. I'm against homosexuality, but that's not my point here.... I don't think a distraction from duties is right. If the soldiers are worried about the flu going around, it's a distraction, perhaps ever so small, but it might take them off guard just enough to cause misjudgment. Misjudgment can lead to hesitation, hesitation can lead to "Real Bad Things".

I don't see what is so bad about DADT. The point of going into the Military isn't to flaunt sexual affiliation but to defend the Country they call home, and protect those that are otherwise not capable of defending themselves. It is not necessary to even bring up such things, hence DADT.

If the Heterosexual Community set aside a day to celebrate their sexual preferences, there would be an uprising, yet somehow there is a day that a main artery of transportation is blocked off in NYC for a Gay Pride Day. Again, if the homosexual community is wanting fair treatment.... Then don't force the controversial issue in front of the nation.

The Point I am trying to make is this: If sexual affiliation isn't an issue to the homosexual soldiers, then the DADT policy works fine. It's ONLY when the awkwardness of the issue is revealed that it becomes a concern or distraction.

Can a homosexual do their job as a soldier? Of course they can, it's a matter of how the rest of the troop is affected by the Pink Elephant in the room. (that, by the way is a reference to an issue that everyone can see but doesn't know how to address, not that the gay community have an affinity towards either pink or large animals)

-- Posted by Nick Mercy on Thu, Nov 18, 2010, at 11:20 AM

I found this to be an interesting read dusty.


as far as 9th id, see how easy that was to post a link?

hopefully dusyt will realize the difference between an adult who abuses children and adults who do not abuse children.

-- Posted by president obama on Thu, Nov 18, 2010, at 12:54 PM

Gay people don't want to flaunt their sexuality within the military. It's more about being able to confer with their loved ones outside without fear of reprisal. If you are found to be gay and in the military, you can be dishonorably discharged.

This is a more fundamental appeal, to actual individual freedom. Why should one care if someone is homosexual or not and in the military? Gay people serve right now just as straight people do. Does the ambiguity of it really solve some kind of problem?

@9th ID Your kind of right there. America was founded to help escape religious persecution. The founding fathers wanted to keep church and state apart for this exact reason. Many of you posters here however sound like your all for the joining of church and state, as long as your church is the one doing the talking.

@Jerie Quinty Stop the fundy talk. Really, based on what you said you should be quietly living your life. Who cares what other people are doing, since you'll be riding high with Jesus right? On another note, it used to nearly be a crime to be black. Do you think that was morally analogous to what your jesus was talking about?

-- Posted by Damu on Thu, Nov 18, 2010, at 3:45 PM

I'd suppose that as far as the effect on morale or morals of gay persons serving openly we could always ask the Israelis whose military usually elicits high praise from most people in this country.They along with Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Uruguay.have experienced no major problems in allowing openly gay persons to serve.If someone desires to serve this country through a career in the military why should their sexual orientation prohibit them from doing so?

-- Posted by davis_x_machina on Fri, Nov 19, 2010, at 6:57 AM


Oddly, the Israelis, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Uruguay don't have ANY major problems in allowing openly gay persons to serve, yet 9th ID, which has actually served our Great Nation, says it is an issue.... Like he would have any idea what the soldiers think....

Seems to me like infromation that comes directly from the source is pretty reliable.

I'm not saying that 9th ID has a phobia, just that it is an appearent issue, and one that might be avoided by DADT.

-- Posted by Nick Mercy on Fri, Nov 19, 2010, at 9:33 AM

I do not care whether Senator Nelson apologizes for his support of ObamaCare, against the wishes of most of his constituents, or not. His actions have spoken much louder than any words possibly can. I have voted for him in the past. I will not do so again.

As for the whole DADT thing, all the same arguments used to be made against integrating women and blacks into the military. It occurs to me that attitudes, ideas, and preferences are entirely irrelevant to any social order, good or bad, without some BEHAVIOR - either good or bad. And I can think of no problematic BEHAVIOR that a gay soldier, or a female soldier, or a black soldier could engage in that would not be problematic were it to be done by a white male soldier.

-- Posted by Owen McPhillips on Tue, Nov 23, 2010, at 12:19 AM

As a member of the military for several years, I can tell you that there is absolutely nothing wrong with a man or woman who is gay serving openly in the military. I for one knew several of my peers and chain of command that were gay. Most of them were hard workers and it didn't matter what they did in the bedroom at night. In fact my best Boss was gay.

We didn't allow PDA between members of the opposite sex and it won't be allowed between members of the same sex. Serving openly doesn't mean they are going to be making out in the hallways, it just means that they can do their job without fear of retaliation.

There was a time that people were afraid of having blacks or women in the same unit; you know we can all work together and make a team. I know I have been there, done that. It's all those old fashioned prudes in suits in Washington that wouldn't know what this generation is capable of and how well we work together despite our race, religion, or sexual orientation.

I for one hopes that Ben votes to repeal DADT.

-- Posted by TravRN on Thu, Nov 25, 2010, at 10:41 PM

My assumptions... and they are a dangerous thing, have been silenced by soldiers which state that a gay soldier either male or female, causes no distraction. My appologies for making an assumption based on what I feel might have effected me.

Just so long as ALL the soldiers can do what they are trained to do including keeping THEMSELVES safe.

-- Posted by Nick Mercy on Fri, Nov 26, 2010, at 1:18 PM

Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration:

Dick Trail
The Way I Saw It