R-C Letters to the Editor for Oct. 26, 2022

Editor’s Note: The last letters section before the election is Nov. 2. The deadline for that edition is noon on Halloween. Please ensure you include an address and phone number with your letter. Letters arriving after the noon deadline or addressing issues that have not already been published in some form will not be printed.

Why I’m running for school board

Editor:

At the Oct. 11 debate the two sitting members plus Ms. Butterfield tried to paint a picture of how great the Douglas County Schools are. Heather Jackson was reminiscing about playing in the hallways when she was a little girl, and Roberta Butterfield praising the education her children received. I am grateful they had that experience, but things are changing, and changing fast.

Please consider when Ms. Jackson was playing in the hallways, or when Ms. Butterfield’s children were in Douglas High School, CRT, DEI, and the other alphabet of social justice remedies were not in place … but they are now.

Although Critical Race Theory has supposedly been removed, Diversity, Equity and Inclusion and other vestiges are part of the professional development that teachers are required to complete. My question is that although CRT was supposedly removed from professional development curriculum, why was it there in the first place?

Finally, Ms. Jackson said I was wrong about the amount of the DCSD Budget. I encourage you to visit https://www.dcsd.k12.nv.us/ and download FY22-23 May Final Budget.pdf. The total fund resources for the 2022/23 year ending June 30, 2023, is $107,034,188 (see page 7 of 65). Of course, some of those funds are earmarked for various projects/programs, but it is the primary responsibility of the board of trustees to prioritize where that money is spent. My position is that the board needs to make sure the people who make the schools work, from classified to credentialed, are taken care of.

Katherine Dickerson

School Board Candidate District 6

Topaz Ranch Estates

Support our Schools

Editor:

I have followed our school board race since March, and I am disturbed by the falsehoods Mrs. Dickerson, Mrs. Jansen, Mr. Burns, and their campaign have portrayed to our community. The uncertainty and fear of their innuendos is negatively impacting the students, families, staff, and community of Douglas County School District.

I have been a teacher for 20 years, and for most of those, an English teacher in Douglas County. Many of my students and I read the story, “The Possibility of Evil,” by Shirley Jackson. Its main character, Miss Strangeworth, watches her neighbors and others in her town, and she writes anonymous notes to their spouses, family members, and friends that suggest immoral and illegal acts. This action results in destroying the trust and relationships of the people she targets. My students were often troubled by such behavior, but they could relate when they considered how they and their friends, through spreading rumors of what might be happening, had created similar results.

Mrs. Dickerson, Mrs. Jansen, and Mr. Burns, claiming that DCSD schools must be “saved,” have spread inaccurate information about our school district, based on national issues and fears that do not apply to our schools.

Here are just a few of their damaging innuendos:

Our schools and teachers engage in “social engineering” of our students and do not focus on teaching the core subjects.

Our teachers take part in professional development that promotes “White Supremacy.”

Our schools provide inappropriate sex education instruction without parent permission.

Our teachers and counselors promote gender identity instruction, so “no LGBTQIA+.”

“Tell Douglas Schools ’Stop sexualizing our children.’”

Student achievement scores have declined because teachers are not providing core content instruction.

The school board underpays and does not appreciate staff by providing adequate raises.

All of these claims are false and extremely insulting to anyone who knows what truly happens every day in our schools.

I strongly encourage you to watch the debate on The Record-Courier website to see for yourself (click “elections” and open the “Town Hall Debate online”).

We do not need to save our schools. We need to support our students, families, and staff to continue the learning and growth our students achieve each day in our schools

Pro School candidates Roberta Butterfield, Heather Jackson, and Robbe Lehmann support our schools. Butterfield has two daughters who are DCSD graduates and are prospering in college. She also has an extensive background in finance. Jackson is a graduate of DCSD, as are her two older sons. She has two children in our schools and a mechanical engineering and math instruction background. She has served on our school board for over a year. Lehmann has three children in our schools, and he has served for eight years as a school board trustee. All three volunteer in our schools, know our schools, and support our schools.

You can best support our schools by voting for Roberta Butterfield, Heather Jackson, and Robbe Lehmann.

Marty Swisher

Gardnerville

Vote against wokeness

Editor:

Since 2013 when we bought our first home in Douglas County, Nevada, we have felt like part of this special place. We love living in Genoa and enjoy all that this beautiful valley has to offer.

My intentions for running for the Douglas County School Board are to be of service to my community and help where I can. With 32 years total of inner-city teaching and a master’s degree in art education, curriculum, and instruction, I have a broad base of experience and expertise in the classroom.

I am confident that the vast majority of the residents in this community do not want their kids being exposed to the social engineering agenda that is being promoted all over the country. I certainly don’t. Most parents want their students to learn a core curriculum of Reading, Writing, Math and Civics (which is sadly missing from classrooms today).

I would like to help keep the progressive (socialist) agendas from Washington, DC and Carson City that are being pushed our way out of our schools. I had no idea, in fact, how vulnerable our district was until a friend asked me to start attending school board meetings about nine months ago.

That is where I witnessed my opponent and other members of the board defending the district’s several year usage of its sole new teacher training book despite evidence that the book was racist and called for white students being treated and regarded differently than all other students. (Only after this election was underway did the board decide to remove the book).

Another policy referenced as “Restorative Practices” and described in the meeting agenda as a form of “Social Justice.” came forth for a vote several months ago. A person in Public Comment pointed out that Social Justice is part of Critical Race Theory.

The board treated the comment as if it were nonsense and voted in the CRT policy. In fact, I observed time and again the board majority including my opponent deliberately choosing to ignore warnings that gender fluidity, sexualization of young students as early as third grade, and policies that violated our community’s values needed to be fought against at the board level. Sometimes people from the community were even sneered at by my opponent.

I understand that this is an election and a competition, but I never thought that it would get this ugly. Because it has been falsely stated that I am against our dedicated teachers, I have been insulted and demeaned both to my face and in this newspaper.

I believe that most teachers in this district only want what is best for their students and have demonstrated that. That is what I want, too.

A vote for me is a vote against the woke agenda. If elected, I will do everything I can to be a productive and encouraging member of the board who will always listen to what parents and the community stand for and have to say.

Susan Jansen

School Board Candidate, District 2

Genoa

School board candidates

Editor:

As a lifelong resident of Douglas County, a Republican, and a father, I feel compelled to weigh in on the local school board election. As I have watched the candidates and the election unfold, I cannot stand by idly while three of the candidates share outrageous lies and misrepresentations about our community, our children, and our school district.

Three of the candidates running for school board, Dave Burns, Susan Jansen, and Katherine Dickerson, are new to our community, and they know very little about our schools and our community values. They have run a campaign based on fear and lies. In a recent debate, these three candidates could not name our schools or articulate correct pronunciation of the schools in Douglas County School District.

Burns, Jansen, and Dickerson are claiming that our district is under performing. The graph that they have shared in recent mailers shows proficiency in math and reading both declining by about 30 percentage points between 2010 and 2019. These numbers are extremely misleading. Prior to 2014, high school seniors were required to pass the High School Proficiency Exam to graduate. Students were given up to four times to pass the test, and if they failed the test, they were given remediation. Motivated to graduate, all students who wanted to get a diploma tried to pass these tests. In 2016, the state eliminated the High School Proficiency Exam and instead started using ACT scores to assess proficiency. Students were not required to earn a passing score to qualify for graduation, and it was clear that many students who were not using their ACT scores to gain entry to college, did not give their best effort on the test. It is important to recognize that comparing the data from 2010 to 2019 is not equivalent. It’s important to note that every single district in the state reported similar drops in their proficiency scores and DCSCD’s scores are still in the top 20 percent in the state. Our district was just named the #1 district in the state by the education website Niche.com. The fact is, Douglas County School District is one of the top performing school districts in the state of Nevada.

Burns, Jansen and Dickerson’s attacks on EPIC Learning is baffling. Their unfounded accusation that this is a curriculum that costs DCSD over $4 million, is false! EPIC Learning is a framework for providing instruction to students in a way that is individualized to each child’s academic needs while maintaining a focus on the rigorous content for the student’s grade level.

EPIC has three core ideas of what teaching in DCSD should be:

1. Foster a positive culture

2. Be learner centered

3. Focus on responsive instruction that meets each child’s individual needs and challenges them so their DCSD diploma allows them to pursue whatever they aspire to accomplish next.

As a lifelong resident of Douglas County, the choice for school board is clear: Robbe Lehmann, Heather Jackson, and Roberta Butterfield.

Joe Girdner

Gardnerville

Wearing masks

Editor:

I have been to many school board meetings over the past two years and have watched the current board be less than attentive to the needs of the students. They talk a good game, but in reality, they are wearing masks when it comes to their true intentions. I was at an eye appointment the other day and the young gal that waited on me said that she was a product of the Gardnerville schools and she would now never educate her children here. She warned me off Keith Lewis as he was principal of the school she attended. She gave me examples of bullying that is ignored even to this date. She gave me stories of CPS (child protective services) cases where her family member an employee of the DCSD was told they could not file a report. As a mandatory reporter (nurse) this concerns me that there has been and may still be a suppression of this requirement that protects our children at the most basic levels. If one life can be saved in the process of a report being filed, it is worth it. It is time for a new sweep in our county not two incumbents that rubber stamp the existing administration. My vote is for Burns, Dickerson, and Jansen whether or not they can recite all 12 schools or pronounce Scarselli. That is small criteria and a low bar for small-minded folks that just want to belittle, demean, and criticize. There are bigger issues as stake.

Virginia Nisse

Gardnerville

Nonpartisan for a reason

Editor:

Seeing the campaign signs around the valley suggesting that the coalition of three candidates should be elected to the DCSD Board of Trustees to “save our Douglas schools.” Having taught in DCSD for 31 years (1977-2008) and served as a school board trustee (2009-2013), I was interested and confused by the concept of needing to “save” the schools in Douglas County. I looked at the website and found a list of platform priorities; the first was for “full transparency” for budgets, salaries, curriculum, test scores, and teacher development material. My confusion comes from the fact that all of that information is already available and required to be available by Nevada Revised Statutes.

The second priority was to eliminate “critical race theory” from the curriculum. Having taught social studies for 31 years at DHS, I never heard of critical race theory, let alone discussed it or tried to implement it into the curriculum. As a school board member, the same is true. The first time I heard the term was in September of 2021 as a political tactic in the Virginia governor’s race.

School Board Trustees are listed as “nonpartisan for a reason; the community should never place decisions about students in the political process. School boards are about governance and cooperation with the community. This current school board has been through one of the most difficult times in modern education and navigated the negative impact of “social media ‘’ for all of society coupled with a pandemic that kept students from a vital link in learning, instruction.

Please vote for Roberta Butterfield, Heather Jackson, and Robbe Lehmann for the DCSD school board. Their dedication, knowledge, and honesty will help the district move through the many obstacles ahead.

Randy Green

Gardnerville

We believe in prevention

Editor:

We are the parents of two DHS graduates who are now attending the University of Nevada, Reno. We are also counselors who have been working with youth and families in educational, law enforcement and community mental health settings for (combined) over 70 years. Throughout that time, we have participated in numerous school social emotional learning programs, federally funded programs designed to prevent and intervene with substance abuse, suicide, self-harm, and bullying. These programs enhance parent and community efforts to teach emotional management, mutual respect and self-confidence, skills necessary to reduce youth risk behaviors. If candidates Jansen, Dickerson and Burns do not believe in substance abuse prevention, suicide prevention and bullying prevention, what do they believe in?

Enough with the conspiracy theories. Please support Robbe Lehmann, Heather Jackson and Roberta Butterfield for Douglas County School Board Trustees.

Mary Wolery

Lance Crowley

Gardnerville

Support informed candidates

Editor:

As a DHS graduate, an educator with experience across content areas and sites in the district, and a parent of students in DCSD schools, I feel compelled to offer my perspective on the school board election. I find this race is about the informed versus the uninformed, full engagement versus selective engagement, and a solutions-oriented approach versus a fear-based approach to governing our school system.

Robbe Lehmann has demonstrated an inquisitive, transparent, engaged presence on the board. He bases decisions on his analysis of available information, and when he finds he needs more, he seeks it, whether it is by reading entire books on contentious subjects or meeting with stakeholders to understand their perceptions and concerns. Whether or not you agree with Lehmann on an issue, you will always know where he stands with clear, well-supported reasons and an openness to account for new information and perspectives.

Heather Jackson shows the same engagement and dedication, having joined the board of directors for the Nevada Association of School Boards to represent the interests of DCSD and act as a liaison between DCSD and trustees across the state. She also lent her perspective to the committee formed to support effective grading practices among our teachers. Jackson shows a clear grasp of issues facing our district as she advocates for our schools at the local and state levels.

Roberta Butterfield’s combination of experiences in and out of our district makes her uniquely qualified to serve on the board. As a DHS employee who was involved with managing student data and testing protocols, she understands the nuance of student assessment at a time when test scores have been misconstrued and presented by others without context. Her background in finance will prove important in discerning the truth among inaccurate claims regarding the district’s budget.

As parents of current and former DCSD students, these candidates are invested in keeping our schools successful. In opting not to seek endorsements from political parties, they model and support the political neutrality teachers display in classrooms. Their knowledge and support of the EPIC framework reflect a commitment to preserving what makes our district great while focusing on the best way forward. In addition to “the basics,” these candidates acknowledge the need to provide students with the digital literacy, problem-solving skills, and agency needed to thrive in the information age.

The opponents of these candidates fail to reconcile allegations regarding indoctrination in schools with statements that they support teachers. To claim our schools need saving from the infiltration of CRT implies a mistrust of our teachers to vet materials, maintain political neutrality, or even read a book without adopting and espousing extreme views in classrooms.

Instead of voting based on politics or fear, I support Butterfield, Jackson, and Lehmann, because they will take informed action to support all students, including my own, they will make decisions guided by authentic inquiry rather than superficial research, and they will unambiguously support my colleagues and me as we do our jobs.

Daniel Hyden

Gardnerville

Generations of support

Editor:

I have had a child or grandchild enrolled in the Douglas County School District since October 1991. Five of my family have graduated and one is still in school. Each has received an excellent education, and all are good, positive, productive Americans: a registered nurse, a medical technician, a combat veteran, a cosmetologist, a brand new graduate just starting out and a fourt- grader getting smarter everyday.

The improvement of each of my descendants’ education has been noticeable from one to the next.

In the past 31 years we’ve had year-round track/block school in K-6, environmental problems and school consolidation at the lake, new schools, increased student population, constantly changing testing requirements since 2001, mass shooting security implementation, more than 2 years of “Pandemic Education Learning” and over 5 decades of state legislative and county underfunding for our schools.

Through all of this and much more, the DCSD and our nonpartisan School Board has been there for our kids. From procuring financial aid that our state and county won’t provide, to researching and implementing new ways to better educate our kids, these community Board members and the DCSD administration get the job done very well. Our parents are always involved and are vocal at board meetings and at their schools, I know, because I’m involved and have been involved, unlike the nominees endorsed by our local DCRP “Polit Bureau”.

If they had true community support, Mr. Burns, Mrs. Dickenson and Mrs. Jansen would not need a DCRP endorsement. The DCRP has made it public that it will demand these endorsed candidates abide by the DCRP agenda they were indoctrinated to follow. The implication is that they would likely violate federal, state, educational, equal opportunity, and discrimination laws to accomplish their political goals. That would jeopardize funding we cannot afford to lose!

We must keep the political influence out of our board.

We must remain community minded and nonpartisan in our goals for better educating our children.

Douglas County School District is always at the top in graduation rate for Nevada, our kids like to learn here, their attendance reflects that as well. Our district is creative and sends well prepared graduates out to our nation.

Robbe Lehman, Roberta Butterfield and Heather Jackson are the only legitimate candidates for the DCSD Board positions because they are simply the only ones qualified for the positions. They are DCSD parents and/or currently involved in DCSD education and they were involved long before the local “Polit Bureau” decided to plant endorsed candidates into our School Board.

Michael C. Ivie

Gardnerville

Retain Conine for Treasurer

Editor:

I have been a proud life-long Republican my entire life. I grew up idolizing Ronald Reagan. No one has been a fiercer supporter and defender of the American First principles than me. When I decided to run for public office Harry Reid told my mother that if I was a Democrat, he would make sure I got elected. I couldn’t do it because I believe too strongly in the principles of rewarding hard work, taking personal responsibility, government providing a helping hand up not a hand-out, and the guarantee of precious personal freedoms.

However, my firm belief in these principles do not trump my love for our country, for Nevada and the appreciation of everything they provide. That is why I support Democrat Zach Conine for Treasurer. Mr. Conine has done a great job communicating with all parties on the best way to spend the billions of dollars handed out by the federal government. No partisan favors, just what is in the best interest for the state of Nevada.

Elizabeth Parsons-Lenz recently published an Op Ed “rebuking Republicans that endorse…qualified conservative Republican candidates.”

That is the point, the Republican nominee, Michelle Fiore, is without question the least qualified candidate to ever run for Treasurer. The IRS closed several of her businesses because she incurred more than a million dollars in tax liens, federal investigators are currently investigating her for misusing campaign funds for personal and family use, she physically assaulted her former best friend and fellow city councilwoman in city hall, and in this election, she has taken numerous donations in excess of the $10,000 maximum limit. Couple that with the fact Fiore filed a complaint against Conine for operating a state required business in the Treasurer’s office exposing the fact she knows nothing about the job she is running for, and it is clear which candidate is best for the state of Nevada.

The state Republican Party used its considerable influence to assure several questionable candidates, including Fiore, would win their primaries. They did this to assure complete loyalty to themselves, not to the Republican Party. Now, when wise and courageous people publicly speak out concerning these candidates the State Party excommunicates them. With the red wave rising throughout the country, every Republican statewide candidate should win. If they don’t, blame the state GOP, not the people who chose what is right over being liked.

Danny Tarkanian

Gardnerville Ranchos

Marchant misses deadline

Editor:

For those who may have missed it The Nevada Appeal reported Oct. 22 “GOP Secretary of State nominee misses report deadline.”

“Republican Secretary of State candidate Jim Marchant is the only statewide candidate in Nevada who has yet to file his campaign finance report, having missed Monday’s deadline. A central duty of the secretary of state’s office is administering elections, handling campaign finance reports and enforcing reporting deadlines for contribution and expenditure reports.”

The article goes on to explain the penalty fee structure. Also reported Marchant said if his coalition is elected, we’re going to fix the whole country and President Trump is going to be president again in 2024.” How crazy is this? Regardless of party affiliation, once elected, we need a Secretary of State that we can trust to conduct and certify the results in a fair and unbiased manner. We’re talking about fair and free elections now and in the future.

Michael King

Minden

Consider entire question 3

Editor:

Question 3 has two major components. The most promoted changes the primary election procedure. The other major part, rarely mentioned, drastically changes the general election system. If you vote for question 3 because of the primary election changes, be aware that you are also voting for drastic changes to the general election procedures.

The primary election system changes would allow anyone to register as a candidate regardless of party nomination or affiliation.

All registered voters regardless of party affiliation can vote for one of the candidates. {This seems to be the same as the current general election}

The candidates receiving the five highest number of votes, voting by plurality, will be placed on the general election ballot. It does not mention if a potential candidate can simply register as a candidate for the general election and forego the primary.

The other changes the general election proposing a system known as “ranked-choice” voting and tabulation. It requires the voter to rank all candidates for one particular office by indicating a “1,” “2,” “3,” “4,” and so on for each candidate. The votes are then tabulated and if one candidate receives 50-plus percent of the No. “1” ranking they are elected. If no one receives 50-plus percent then the lowest ranked candidate is eliminated, and their votes are tabulated for the next higher candidate. This continues until a candidate receives the required receives 50-plus percent.

An imbalance exists in the “ranked-choice” system. For example, a voter’s choice for candidates they numbered “3”, “4” and “5” being ultimately added to number “2’s” tabulation allows them to have 4 votes tabulated for candidate no. 2 yet only having a single vote for the one they chose as no. 1. This is not one person one vote.

Be aware of the entire content of question 3 before you vote.

Ben Justus

Gardnerville\

Vote no on 1, 2 and 3

Editor:

Question 1 equal rights: In 1978 Nevada voters rejected the passage of a federal Equal Rights Amendment. In 2017 the Nevada Legislature

rejected the will of the people of Nevada. Vote No. Question 2 minimum wage

If passed, this measure would remove incentives for employers to offer certain health benefits and also remove the existing method for making cost-of-living adjustments. Vote No. Question 3 ranked-choice voting

This 1,470-word Amendment to the Nevada Constitution is confusing and would take away “One person, one vote.”

Vote No.Our Nevada Constitution does not need these Amendments.Vote No on Questions 1-2-3

Gwen Marsh

Minden

Concerns about Nevada ERA

Editor:

The Nevada Equal Rights Amendment has been described by proponents as a benevolent way to ensure the “equality of rights under the law” for everyone regardless of their race, sexual orientation, gender identity, etc. Who doesn’t want to see everyone treated equally?

Yet, the ERA to the Nevada Constitution would advance the rights of certain groups at the expense of the rights of others including young women, parents, doctors, charitable organizations, and religious institutions – both laity and clergy. In fact, there is no stated protection of religious rights under this amendment. And that, in and of itself, should be cause for concern. Yet, there are other serious issues as well.

The Nevada ERA would mandate taxpayer-funded abortions as occurred in New Mexico when the New Mexico Supreme Court mandated that taxpayers pay in 1998. This also occurred in Connecticut under the guise that restricting abortion is a form of sexual discrimination.

Another sexual discrimination lawsuit was filed by the ACLU against a California Catholic hospital in 2017 for refusing to perform a hysterectomy on an otherwise healthy women who wanted to become male. Doing so would violate Catholic ethics. Similar cases have occurred in other states.

By promoting “gender identity” in the state constitution, biological men who identify as women would be allowed to compete with biological women in sporting events. This “inclusion” will destroy women’s sports and undermine the chances for young women in Nevada to advance in their athletic field and receive scholarships.

It would also open sex-specific facilities, such as locker rooms and restrooms to members of the opposite sex, violating the privacy of young women and increasing the risk for sexual assault.

Religious freedom could also be imperiled by forcing clergy and businesses to accommodate same-sex marriage even if doing so violates their religious and personal convictions. According to the Alliance Defending Freedom for Faith and Justice, “SJR8 (Nevada ERA) would deny state financial aid to students at faith-based colleges and universities unless they abandon policies and practices reflecting their sincerely held beliefs about marriage and sexuality.”

Not only would this amendment open the door to opposition to the First Amendment (religious freedom), but it could also politicize medicine and force physicians and hospitals to violate their oath and values by prescribing sex-altering therapies, such as puberty blockers and surgery, to young children who are struggling with gender identity. These therapies could cause unwarranted, irreversible harm since “research has shown that 80 to 90 percent of children outgrow their distress with their bodies after puberty.” - Daily Signal, May 15, 2020

“Once you change the definition of gender (identity/expression) in the Constitution, legislators cannot address the unintended consequences,” points out Karen Barton England, the Executive Director of Nevada Family Alliance.

The vagueness of the language in the Nevada ERA, such as the Age Clause, will open the door to laws that would uproot the freedom of Nevadans, endanger our youth, and result in excessive lawsuits. Please vote no on ballot question one.

Bob Russo

Gardnerville Ranchos

Biden policies bad for the economy

Editor:

Biden policies, done intentionally to differ from Trump, without concern of the harm created on the population, which consist of green agenda and open borders, have enjoyed unanimous approval of his party [both the house and the senate] and most blue states including Nevada, have had enormous negative effect on the quality of life on its citizens. Beginning with the great economy handed to him by President Trump with 6 percent plus GDP and under 2 percent inflation, in 20 months to a recession [2 quarters of negative growth 1 percent] to 8.5 percent producer inflation 17 percent if food and energy included. Over 20 percent in Nevada, outlier examples 2 to $5,5 gallon of gas, dozen eggs from $1.25 to $4.5 etc. Cost of living increases in 20 months, $5.000/individual and an example of an investment of $100,000 in 401k or IRA 25 percent market downturn plus 15 percent inflation effect in the purchasing value now worth $65,000. Now saddled with ever increasing interest rates until they exceed the inflation rate. Especially harmful to senior citizens with fixed incomes. Thank you, Biden.

Transformed U.S. from a Fossil fuel exporting nation to one having to rely on imports from enemy nations even though we have the largest and cleanest oil reserves in the world. 0 benefits for the environment as these are discounted several times over by the increased use of coal by China and India as they are not bound by the Paris Accords and China will be the main beneficiary as they will be manufacturing majority of the EV’s as they control over 80 percent of world lithium and Cobalt used in the batteries. {makes one wonder Does China have compromised Bidens Open Border Policies.

Eliminating the policies of President Trump increased the border crossings in 20 months from 450,000 a year to 4 million plus 1 million gotaways [criminals, terrorists] including hundreds of potential sleeper cells. One such cell in 2001 9/11 caused 3,000 deaths and $2-$3 trillion damage to U.S. economy. Other concerns, Electro Magnetic Pulse, Mini Nukes, Phentanol responsible for 100.000 plus deaths in US, Anthrax etc.

No checks for covid19 or other diseases. 9/11/2001 was the genesis for creation of Homeland security, Homeland security leader Mayorkas keeps declaring the border safe as does Biden and Border Tzar Kamala Harris.

They don’t want the public to be aware, until after the elections. If you still support these policies or yearn for The Trump economy, vote accordingly, and hold your party representatives responsible for what has happened.

Mark Tarvainen

Gardnerville

Don’t believe Laxalt on abortion

Editor:

Don’t believe Adam Laxalt when he says, “It’s a falsehood that I would support a federal ban on abortion as a US senator.” [Reno Gazette Journal, 9/2/22] Laxalt said that Roe was a ‘joke” and “we are not a pro-life state and we got work to do on that.” [Nevada Independent, 6/30/22].He also said that overturning Roe v. Wade was a “historic victory” [@AdamLaxalt, 6/24/22].

As attorney general, Laxalt supported abortion bans across the country. He signed amicus briefs backing abortion bans in Alabama and Texas. [Nevada Independent, 7/13/18; KOLO, 7/13/18; Nevada Independent, 3/14/18]

Make no mistake, given the chance, Adam Laxalt would vote in the senate to ban abortions nationwide. It wouldn’t be the first time a politician lied to you. Look at the Supreme Court, they all said at their hearings that Roe v. Wade was settled law and they believed in the doctrine of stare decisis. Roe v. wade was the first case they took up once they had the majority. So much for precedents.

If a nationwide abortion ban goes into effect, the reproductive rights enshrined in the Nevada State constitution will no longer exist.

Fourteen members of Adam Laxalt’s family have pledged to vote for Catherine Cortez-Masto. [Nevada Appeal, 10/15/22] I will be voting for Catherine Cortez-Masto too, because she will do everything in her power to protect reproductive rights.

Alice Meyer

Gardnerville

More that unites us

Editor:

In response to Rick Nelson’s Oct. 5 letter “Am I Wrong? — Yes. But you knew that. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have made such absurd accusations, most of which is the same old dogma of conservative media trying to convince gullible people how to think.

You were correct in saying we can do better, but I don’t think you meant it the way I took it.

There was a statement that Antifa were peaceful protesters but J6’ers are criminals. The BLM movement was predominantly peaceful. That’s not what was shown day after day on conservative media. They showed images of destruction and violence as if that was all of what the protesters did rather than the few. When arrests were made for the violence and destruction, among them were far right people who had posed as leftist protesters. That was not shown on conservative media. Antifa, Marxists, violence was the message conservative media wanted you to believe.

J6’ers had among them far right military groups who conspired to impede the peaceful transfer of power. Some have admitted to it, others have been tried and convicted for other crimes of violence and destruction. The agenda of the few needed large crowd mentality to accomplish their goal. All J6’ers, by their presence, knowingly or unknowingly enabled that attempt to overturn an election.

We have a choice in what we believe. Were J6’ers criminals? Or were they duped, manipulated, used? We can choose to believe what we’re fed by the media, or we can discern, review, understand. Understanding doesn’t mean condoning. It’s a pathway to compassion and forgiveness.

The bigger question to you, Rick, in choosing to believe what you do of Democrats, are you afraid to find out there is more that unites us than divides us?

Joan Costa

Gardnerville

Wrays valuable addition

Editor:

Recently a fellow county commissioner sent an email to an unknown number of people within our community in what could be considered condemning Ms. Lois Wray for her decision to sell “The Pink House” in Genoa and forecasting a similar demise of her recently opened “Daniels” restaurant on adjacent property suggesting she fire her financial consultant.

While this email was sent via his personal email to an undisclosed number of recipients, I nonetheless find this very disappointing.

Ms. Wray has been a valuable asset of our county for many years and did in fact take great risk in restoring this “treasure” in the Genoa Township which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

The Wray’s, Daniel and Lois, bought the property in 2014 and spent over $1.2 million in restoration. The Pink House has been, and continues to be, an anchor of the Historic District of Genoa, the oldest community of Nevada due to their tremendous efforts and unselfish dedication.

While we are disappointed that Lois now feels the necessity to sell this particular piece of her estate, she informs me that she does plan to continue to operate Daniel’s, a tribute to her deceased husband and a tremendous dining experience of which my wife and I can attest.

For her efforts in our community Ms. Wray was recently recognized by Douglas County and the Business Council at their 30th Year Celebration Gala at the Hard Rock Hotel and Casino with a “Lamplighter” Award in the category of Preservation, Culture, and History and I was honored to be on hand to congratulate her for this recognition and her continued efforts.

As we all know, the recent covid issue has taken a great toll on our business community and we wish Lois well in her other endeavors both inside and outside our community.

As a result of this ill-advised email I felt compelled to communicate to our community that this particular commissioners’ feelings in no way reflect the feelings of the Board of Commissioners and suggest to him that an apology to Ms. Wray and our entire business community be issued.

Mark Gardner, Chair

Douglas County Board of Commissioners

Topaz Ranch Estates