Mailbag: Huntington Beach City Council instigating political agenda, not solving city problems
Vote 'no' on both if you think the City Council or a committee appointed by the council — not parents — should decide what is appropriate for children. Vote 'yes,' if you feel parents should retain the right to decide what is appropriate for their own children.
The council has brought this costly and unnecessary election upon the city by voting to establish a committee to censor or ban books from the children's section of the library before they had even considered what qualified one to be a committee member, how members of said committee would be chosen and what guidelines would be used to determine unsuitable books or material. Isn't voting to establish a committee without knowing how it will be appointed, and how it will function tantamount to deciding to build a house without blueprints?
It seems our current council does not know how to govern the city or try to solve its problems. So they choose to be busy fomenting a political agenda, to make it seem as if they are actually doing something.
By the way, one wonders what the committee would do with the Bible and its stories of violent murder, adultery, rape and incest.
Mark WimbishHuntington Beach
The opponents of Measures A and B would have you believe that their opposition is about protecting children and being fiscally responsible. Nothing could be further from the truth.
To scare voters about Measure A, they cite passages from books that are not even in our library and books that are in the adult section to try to make people believe children are being exposed to inappropriate materials. They fly in a book banning agitator from out of state.
They claim their opposition to Measure B is about fiscal responsibility. These are the same council members who gave away millions of taxpayers' dollars to the promoter of the Pacific Airshow for a cancellation that was not the city's doing. And then tried to hide the settlement from the public. They are the same council members who voted to spend an extra $1M of taxpayers' money to have this special election for these two ballot measures.
This election is not about protecting children and it's not about fiscal responsibility. It's about control. They want to control what books are in our library and they want to stifle resistance from our library staff. They want book selection in the hands of political appointees and library operations in the hands of a company where they control the terms of the contract.
Does this sound familiar? It should. We all learned about this when studying the world history of the early 20th century. We all saw it happen in real time in Turkey and Hungary in the last several decades.
They are running the authoritarian playbook and we're seeing this happen across our country at all levels of government. It's death by a thousand paper cuts.
You've probably heard the story of how to boil a frog: you don't put the frog in boiling water — it will immediately hop out. You put the frog in tepid water and slowly raise the temperature, bit by bit, so the frog doesn't notice until it's too late.
Don't be a frog.
Let's stop this right now: Vote 'yes' on Measure A and vote 'yes' on Measure B.
David RynersonHuntington Beach
I am a longtime resident of Huntington Beach and I'm also proud to say a retired public school teacher.
Please vote 'yes' on Measures A and B in the current special election.
A 'yes' vote on Measure A protects parents' rights by letting them decide what their children read instead of a politically appointed committee. It also protects against government overreach by maintaining the current system of educated and trained library staff managing and curating our book selection.
Measure B protects public operation of our libraries by requiring a vote by the electorate to make a change to our current system which has operated effectively and freely for over 100 years!
'Yes' on A and B is what is best for our H.B. community and parents' rights while also protecting our children.
Thank you to the 'yes' on A and B voters in H.B. who have helped to preserve our freedoms!
Laura SireHuntington Beach
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
13 minutes ago
- New York Post
Team Trump is right to sue NYC over its ‘sanctuary' laws — but Mayor Adams isn't the one to blame
Team Trump had no choice but to sue New York City over its disastrous sanctuary-city laws, especially after a pair of illegal immigrants were accused of shooting an off-duty Border Patrol agent in a Manhattan park. But if President Trump, Attorney General Pam Bondi or Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem think Mayor Eric Adams, the NYPD or any other city agency is in any way responsible for those laws, they're badly mistaken. The suit names Adams, the police and other agencies and officials as well as the City Council as defendants. Citing Adams might be a legal necessity; it explicitly lists him 'in his official capacity,' and it concedes that he has opposed Gotham's sanctuary laws. Advertisement Yet Team Trump has also expressed anger at the mayor personally for the city's failure to cooperate with ICE in rounding up illegal immigrants, particularly criminal ones. Noem blasted Adams outright, along with the council, after Saturday night's border-guard shooting. 'This officer is in the hospital today, fighting for his life, because of the policies of the mayor of the city and the City Council,' Noem roared. Advertisement 'When I look at what Mayor Adams has done to New York City, it breaks my heart to see the families that have suffered because of his policies.' Noem is right to be mad at the council, but she couldn't be more wrong about Adams. Again, he's fought to roll back sanctuary laws. He tried to allow ICE agents back into Rikers so they can take custody of illegal immigrants in the safety of the jails, rather than on the streets, where the dangers are greater and more agents are required. Advertisement He has been cooperating with border czar Tom Homan, and is on record saying he wants to work with the feds. For his pains he's been attacked by the hard left and called an extremist. But the law is the law, and city government must follow it. As Adams noted correctly Friday, any changes to the laws 'must come through the City Council.' Advertisement Keep up with today's most important news Stay up on the very latest with Evening Update. Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters If the Justice Department's suit can force the council to scrap its sanctuary rules, it'll be a great boon to public safety. Those laws, like the state's sanctuary laws, allow violent illegal-immigrant criminals to elude detention and deportation. Indeed, the city has been ignoring ICE detainers by the thousands, leaving potentially violent illegal immigrants free to roam the streets. The pair accused of shooting the border guard had been in custody here and ICE had requested NYC Corrections to detain them for deportation, yet they were let go anyway. The suit also seems to be on firm grounds legally: The Constitution, Congress and the Supreme Court make it clear that immigration is the responsibility of the federal government. And while states and cities aren't obligated to help with that, they're not allowed to impede federal agents' efforts. Advertisement Letting a wanted illegal immigrant go free is akin to abetting a fugitive from justice. Keep your fingers crossed that Team Trump prevails in this suit. But remember, too, that Adams is on the right side of it.
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Inside the movement to make Idaho a ‘Christian State' — and how that affects Latter-day Saints
One of the most influential conservative policy groups at the Idaho Capitol wants to make the state explicitly Christian. But their definition excludes a quarter of the population who are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, not to mention those in the state who belong to other religions or no religion at all. Over the past five years, the Idaho Family Policy Center has become a legislative powerhouse, drafting, sponsoring and training lawmakers to debate a host of bills promoting Christian values in public spaces. This year the organization pushed to mandate daily Bible reading in public schools. Though the policy never received a floor vote, the organization has vowed to bring it back next year, with the proposal representing just the beginning of what the group envisions for the state. Religious litmus tests in Idaho? Idaho Family Policy Center president Blaine Conzatti told the Deseret News he would not oppose declaring Idaho a 'Christian state' and implementing religious tests for public office, although he clarified these are not his short-term goals. While the Supreme Court struck them down in 1961, provisions to prevent non-Christians from office are not new or radical, according to Conzatti. Many early American states incorporated religious tests requiring a belief in the Christian God, or a specific affiliation to Protestant sects. Conzatti does not advocate for states to put their stamp of approval on one specific denomination but he does draw a line between 'historic Christianity,' based on the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds, and the faith of Latter-day Saints. While they share many beliefs in common with Conzatti, some of the roughly one-third of Idaho lawmakers who belong to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints say this approach could alienate the state's nearly half million members, and threatens religious pluralism. 'Mr. Conzatti, unfortunately, would not consider the majority faith in my legislative district to be Christian,' said Rep. Josh Wheeler, a Republican who represents the southeast corner of Idaho. 'That right there shows you the danger of becoming too narrow in what you require in policy that brings faith into the public square.' Since Wheeler entered the statehouse in 2023, legislators have introduced a record number of bills, with 'a large majority' of those originating from groups like the Idaho Family Policy Center, Wheeler said. The organization has had some major victories like the 2023 passage of bills letting parents sue libraries that carry sexually offensive books and letting students sue for encountering members of the opposite sex in public bathrooms. The Idaho Family Policy Center is characterized by its relentless approach, providing lawmakers with several versions of a bill to introduce each session to make it more likely that efforts like daily Bible reading will eventually pass, according to Wheeler. 'What I was surprised by is the way that this influence kind of shapes the whole legislative process in Idaho,' Wheeler said. But these legislative wins may ultimately come at the expense of broader goals to spread Christian values across society, Wheeler said, because they don't take into account the needs of all state residents. What the founders intended? In a series of email responses, Conzatti said that his political mission rests on the belief that the Founding Fathers crafted constitutions with the assumption that governments would actively promote what Conzatti calls 'biblical Christianity.' 'We are a Christian nation, as our founders at both the federal and state level affirmed,' Conzatti told the Deseret News. 'Put simply, we want our public schools and local governments to acknowledge God, in ways consistent with the history and tradition of our state and nation.' To support his conclusion, Conzatti, who studied government and law at Liberty University, cites numerous sources from the American Revolution and late 19th century where founders and Supreme Court justices affirmed the nation's Christian foundations. Drawing on Federalist leader Fisher Ames, Commentaries on the Constitution (1833) by Justice Joseph Story and Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States (1892), Conzatti argues that the First Amendment was never meant to put a wall between traditional Christianity and policymaking. His view is the opposite, that the maintenance of constitutional governance depends on the 'governmental promotion of biblical Christianity,' and that forgetting this has threatened American liberty, led to increased crime and weakened the family. 'Both policymakers and voters alike should take this opportunity to return to those biblical principles that made America a great place to work, worship, and raise families,' Conzatti said. Conzatti said he does not believe state-endorsed Christianity needs to come at the expense of religious liberty. The founding fathers, Conzatti said, were also firm believers in the natural right to freedom of conscience. While Conzatti is consistent in stating that voters of every state should have the power to choose what 'religious values and system of morality their state government will reflect,' he said 'biblical Christianity' is the only worldview that can sustain the country. 'We can — and we should — openly promote biblical Christian values and acknowledge God in our governmental affairs," Conzatti said. 'Idaho Family Policy Center affirms the freedom of all religious minorities to live out their faith, and we advocate for the religious freedom of everyone, Christian and non-Christian alike.' Idaho's history of religious discrimination Republican Rep. Stephanie Mickelsen, who represents the area west of Idaho Falls, said proposals for the state to come out in transparent support of a certain interpretation of Christianity have 'been on turbocharge over the last few years.' Groups like Idaho Family Policy Center have an 'outsized influence' in Idaho politics because of the partnerships they have developed with many sitting lawmakers and prospective primary challengers, Mickelsen said. While some of their initiatives align with conservative small government principles, like allowing tax dollars to follow students outside of public school, others would expand government through increased litigation, spending and regulations, according to Mickelsen. An approach to social issues that takes control away from local governments is not just heavy-handed, it could create a precedent that infringes on the kind of pluralism that protects religious diversity, Mickelsen said. 'I think that we're getting back to a very slippery slope of being like the Church of England, or the Roman Catholic influence in Italy,' Mickelsen said. 'When's this going to stop? What's good enough for them?' Even though the 14th Amendment extended the Constitution's prohibition on religious tests to the states in 1868, just after Idaho became a territory, in the state's early history there was an effort to exclude Latter-day Saints from political life. Despite Latter-day Saint missionaries being among the first Europeans to settle in Idaho, the territory's laws in the 1880s, and its first state constitution, required an 'Idaho Test Oath' that banned supporters of groups that practiced polygamy from voting, serving on juries or holding office. The Supreme Court upheld the law in an unanimous ruling in 1890 — the same year the church ended the practice of plural marriage. And while enforcement ended later in the 1890s, the language that had earlier disenfranchised Latter-day Saint voters was not removed from the Idaho State Constitution until 1982. Personal faith in the public sphere Like Wheeler, Mickelsen, who is also a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, pointed to the church's seminary program as an example of how to bring religion into the public square without imposing on others. In southeast Idaho, as in Utah, high school students are given release time to leave campus for one period to attend church seminary buildings that are often built next door to the school. Former Republican Rep. Chenele Dixon, who was defeated in a primary in 2024 after opposing an Idaho Family Policy Center proposal, said she shared Wheeler and Mickelsen's view that an individual's faith should influence their policy decisions, and that this is healthy for society. During her single term in office, Dixon supported some bills written by the Idaho Family Policy Center that overlapped with her conservative views as a lifelong Republican, she said. But she said she thought other bills seemed like solutions in search of problems that the Idaho Family Policy Center had stirred up in an effort to box out views, or religions, they did not agree with. 'I do have a concern when we say that we need to be a Christian state, because there is always, I have found, a litmus test for Christianity with people that say that,' Dixon said. 'And actually, the folks who are saying that, don't have room for LDS people either, and I think a lot of LDS people don't understand that.' Correction: The Idaho Family Policy Center was not directly involved in lobbying for bills to require the display of the Ten Commandments in classrooms and to allow chaplains to serve as school counselors. Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
Jewish Tacoma candidate opposed by PAC backing ‘interests of Jewish community'
With funding coming largely from outside Tacoma, a political action committee that backs candidates who 'support the interests of the Jewish community' is spending thousands of dollars to oppose a candidate in Tacoma's District 5 City Council race. The PAC, called Washingtonians for a Brighter Future, spent $15,000 on mail and postage to send flyers opposing Cook to voters of District 5, and another $1,000 on text messages with the same goal. The group, according to a substack article linked on its website, is endeavoring to 'oppose hate in all forms' by elevating or opposing candidates at the local level who could move up to national positions. It's modeled after a California-based PAC called California Against Hate, which in 2022 worked to oppose a city council candidate in San Diego who was 'anti-Israel,' according to the article. 'Many of the most dangerous people crop up in the small cities,' Jared Sclar, co-founder of the California-based PAC, said of the Washington PAC in the substack article. 'If there is someone problematic, we may not know. We may not know someone is going to sneak by and get on the city council, and then they're the next Ilhan Omar,' Sclar wrote of Omar, a Democratic U.S. representative from Minnesota. Cook said she wasn't surprised to see such opposition to her campaign. 'I think these are the kind of hurdles that are very common when it comes to trying to win people-powered campaigns against corporate interests,' Cook told The News Tribune. The mail campaign came around mid-July, ahead of the Aug. 5 primary election that will whittle the slate of three candidates for the District 5 race down to two. Cook has raised the most money in the race so far at $47,012.98. Incumbent Joe Bushnell raised $35,744.14, and candidate Brandon A. Vollmer raised $851.03. The PAC as of July 24 raised $32,768.09 this year, only $1,000 of which came from a donor with a Tacoma address. The rest came from donors in Washington cities like Mercer Island, Seattle and Medina. At least one contributor listed an address in Naples, Florida. According to the Washington Public Disclosure Commission, the PAC spent $18,076.61 by July 24, $16,000 of which paid for the campaign against Cook. The mailers that the PAC distributed depicted her standing in front of a building with broken windows with graffiti that reads 'don't burn' and 'ppl live upstairs' overlaid with text that stated, 'Zev Cook cooking up chaos for Tacoma.' It also implied that Cook supported defunding the police and stated that doing so would result in increased crime, gang violence and home invasions. Cook, a community organizer and activist, has the backing of groups like the Tacoma and Pierce County Democratic Socialists of America, United Food & Commercial Workers Local 3000, and the Washington Education Association's PAC. Incumbent Joe Bushnell, who is running for re-election, has the endorsement of several state representatives, current and former council members, and the Tacoma Police Union, International Union of Police Associations Local 6. Bushnell also has Washingtonians for a Better Future's endorsement. 'Council Member Bushnell is a friend of the Jewish community,' the PAC's website reads. Bushnell said he didn't solicit an endorsement from the PAC but said he wasn't surprised to see the group oppose Cook, given her support from the Democratic Socialists of America. 'The groups that are supporting my opponent have very public rhetoric that rubs a lot of folks the wrong way,' Bushnell told The News Tribune. Cook, who is Jewish, said she feels the group is going after her because of her vocal support of Palestine. 'I'm the only candidate running for city council this year that's made public comments in support of Palestine and against genocide, in alignment with my Jewish values of community repair and justice,' she told The News Tribune. 'I think this is very similar in some ways, but certainly at a smaller scale, to the attack ads that were run against Zohran [Mamdani] for being a pro-Palestine candidate that he is continuing to be,' she said of Mamdani, who recently won the Democratic primary in New York City's mayoral race. 'But like Zohran I'm intending to win by continuing to just focus on how we make life better for working people in our city.' Nevet Basker, the PAC's co-chair, told The News Tribune the group is seeking to combat antisemitism and said it was Cook's 'rhetoric against Zionism' that the PAC opposes. 'We believe that the rhetoric in some of these campaigns, including Zev Cook, creates a permission structure for antisemitism that results in issues in our own communities, in Tacoma, in this case, where the Jewish community feels unwelcome and sometimes unsafe,' Basker told The News Tribune. Basker said the PAC's concerns also go beyond those of the Jewish community, to what she described as Cook's support for abolishing the police and prisons. 'She's also a leader of an organization that advocates for abolishing prisons and all incarceration releasing, even violent criminals, murderers, rapists, back into our communities,' Basker said. 'We believe that that is unsafe for everyone.' Cook, according to her website, has served as an officer for the Tacoma Democratic Socialists of America. The group also endorsed her in the District 5 race. The Democratic Socialists of America's political platform calls for the 'abolition of the carceral state.' 'For all of the working class to achieve collective liberation we must constrain, diminish, and abolish the carceral forces of the state — from prisons and police themselves, to their manifestations in all forms throughout society,' the platform reads. Cook told The News Tribune that she doesn't think that defunding the police 'is a very good framework for understanding public policy' and instead supports specific policies like increasing funding for Tacoma's non-police crisis response team. 'Generally, I think that we as a community need to be focused more on not just addressing the symptoms, but addressing root causes when it comes to crime, which is why our platform is so focused on addressing income and housing inequality in our community,' Cook said. She said she wasn't surprised to see the PAC's efforts to oppose her campaign and said the group wouldn't have sent out the mailer if they didn't think Cook had a real shot at winning. Some commenters on Reddit said that the anti-Cook flyer made them want to vote for her even more. 'Getting an attack ad like this just tells me that they've seen how effective our campaign has been at mobilizing the support of working class Tacomans,' she added. 'It tells me that they're scared that we might win this year.' Solve the daily Crossword
