On Feb. 28, the Review printed an editorial in favor of 'driving privilege' cards for those in our country illegally (who do not have the Social Security numbers now required for Oregon drivers licenses). On March 6, the Review printed my letter suggesting that, lacking facts and logic, the Review editorial staff had resorted to misdirection and untrue statements.
When it printed my letter on March 6, the Review inserted an 'Editor's note' (basically a rebuttal) directly below my letter. In this note, the Review states: 'Unfortunately, Mr. Luck is lifting partial quotations out of the editorial (of Feb. 28) to justify his comments.'
The attempt here, of course, is to infer that because I only quoted the portions of the editorial that I was commenting on, I somehow distorted the facts.
I am willing to let the readers decide. Does the full sentence used by the Review on Feb 28: 'That means they (illegals) won't have to prove that they have the skills needed to operate a vehicle or that they have insurance' try and convince the reader illegals will have to prove they have insurance or not? Of course there is no connection between having a drivers license and having insurance (which is on the car, not the driver), and I am sure the Review editorial staff knows that. Note that the Review again uses misdirection (that I did not quote entire sentences) to rebut my points as it knows facts are not on its side.
That said, I never indicated that I did not believe the editorial staff of the Review was not entitled to its opinion. This may not be clear to readers who just looked at the header the Review put on my letter: 'Editorial stand on licenses challenged.'
My suggested header was: 'Permit to break the law.'
Fact is, the Review is not alone in believing people should be aided (by getting 'driving privilege' cards) as they invade our country, violate several federal laws, fraudulently steal goods and services from citizens and (often) increase crime. Another outfit that has the same beliefs is Bank of America. They proactively provide credit and banking services to people without Social Security Numbers (a group logically consisting almost exclusively of illegals and terrorists). While I do not dispute B of A's position, I terminated (about a year ago) a 20+ year banking relationship with them over their actions. This is another situation where I urge the reader to decide.
It is only right to note that while the Review fully exercised its 'home court advantage' with the altered header to my letter, and with the same-day rebuttal, to their credit, they did print my letter. For the record, my suggested header for this letter is 'Let the reader decide.'
Dave Luck is a Lake Oswego resident.