[Editor’s note: After receiving several letters regarding the headline and subhead of last month’s Navajo Canyon Republican Women of California’s column, the Mission Times Courier has changed them in our online edition. They now read “A call to action” rather than “A call to arms.” The paper has always taken a more hands-off approach to editing the Opinion and Politics page as to not let our our personal biases be reflected in editing other people’s opinions. After some reflection of our own, this policy will be under review and in the meantime all language that could be construed as violent will be edited, after giving the authors a chance to make the corrections themselves. Furthermore, the Politics section that normally includes the political clubs and news from elected officials will from now on fall under the broader section of Opinion. As stated elsewhere, all opinions printed in the paper — wether guest editorials, political columns or letters to the editor — are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the paper, the publisher or the editors.]
A bad ‘call’
Re: “A call to arms and reflection” [Volume 27, Issue 1, or bit.ly/3ro1JQX]
I just wanted to share my disbelief and disgust that the Navajo Canyon Republican Women of California chose such an incredibly tone-deaf heading to their article in the Jan. 15- Feb. 11, 2021 paper: “Call to arms and reflection.” After the domestic terrorism we all witnessed on Jan. 6, their use of the phrase “Call to arms…,” as well as your paper’s willingness to accept the same, is far more than disappointing.
— Susana Whitaker, San Carlos
I read with shock and dismay first the title of the article “Call to arms and reflection” by the Navajo Republican Women of California and then the article itself.
Less than 10 days after an armed invasion of the United States Capitol, these women are issuing a “call to arms.” Is the author endorsing the previous days activity? I read the article to find out if there was any reflection about the events on Jan. 6. Nothing was mentioned. Instead, the first line pointed to the need to purge dead people from the voter rolls. There has been no evidence that dead people voted in any significant numbers. The purpose of this line was an attempt to delegitimize the November election. The only so-called reflection in this article was that radical, leftist, socialists are destroying this country and that “spineless and indolent” Republicans are letting this happen.
I would like the author to reflect on her words, “We have been bloodied and it’s our charge to rise and take back the America we love” in light of Jan. 6. As has been said many times, words have consequences. This is the same rhetoric that inspired the storming of the Capitol. In light of Jan. 6, we need to tone down the inflammatory rhetoric and realize that we are all Americans.
— Ron Gardner
Jan. 15’s Navajo Canyon Republican Women’s column was absolutely reprehensible and a total stain on your paper.
The very title is an incitement, and given the recent violent attempted takeover of our Capitol, it’s very irresponsible of you to print that. The last thing our nation needs is more armed nut jobs being called to “take back America,” whatever the heck that means.
“No more dead people voting”? Extensive vetting by election officials has proved this assertion dead wrong, pun intended.
“We have been bloodied”? It wasn’t Democrats fatally battering a cop with a fire extinguisher. It wasn’t Democrats who crushed to death one of their own supporters in the melee. It wasn’t Democrats who took a crap in the Capitol halls and walked it all over the place. It wasn’t Democrats who defaced statues and stole lecterns.
Your advertisers should be made aware of the garbage to which you’re giving print space. If you’re going to print lies and calls to violence like this one, you should at least put it on the Opinion page and add a notice that it’s not based on any facts.
— Callie Mack
In light of the recent domestic terrorist attack on our Capitol and on our democratic traditions, Jamesa Selleck might want to rethink titling her option piece “Call to Arms and Reflection”. I would suggest a better title would have been “A Time for Reflection”.
— Dave Kiley, San Carlos
I understand there are two main political parties in this country but especially in light of the events in the nation’s Capitol Jan 6, it was implicit of you and irresponsible to publish an article with a bolded paragraph entitled “A call to arms …” – No excuse for this! And to allow the inclusion by Ms. Selleck of her salacious false narrative “No more dead people voting” was also enabling.
For her and your edification, there were only three incidents of voter fraud uncovered in the 2020 election and they were all found to be committed by Republicans. Further, in her penultimate paragraph, you allow Ms. Selleck to further incite violence by printing her words “..it’s our charge to rise and take back the America we love.”
I also ask which form of socialism she is “looking in the eye?” There are four types. Does she know this? And it seems from the world’s happiness index, the citizens of Scandinavia have chosen one that works quite well. How does Ms. Selleck define “socialism”? The kind when the 1% get a multi-billion dollar tax cut while taxes on the middle class go up and the national debt soars to pay for it, thereby taking money away from infrastructure, education and health programs? Or perhaps, she means the plans for part of the second stimulus payments to go to restaurant owners so that monies can, in true Romanesque fashion, partially “trickle down” to workers rather than having the payments go directly to workers?
Somewhere the editor of your publication took the day off.
— Bruce Wilbat, Del Cerro
Pro church project
Re: “Conflict and confusion over All Peoples Church project” [Volume 26, Issue 11 or bit.ly/3cB52jl]
My husband and I are business owners in the Grantville-San Carlos area. We have been members of All People’s Church since 2015. The church has helped me turn my life around. I can now lead my employees in confidence with compassion. With the church’s help, I have seen marriages restored, people come off drugs, trust rebuilt, depression lifted, the poor provided for, single mothers cared for, financial needs met, and a variety of other personal needs met. All of this, plus more, is available to the community through All Peoples Church. Having a church building in Del Cerro means we can put our efforts more fully into supporting and helping the community. I am excited to see the church building become a reality.
— Jamie Conner
As a resident of the San Carlos-Navajo community, I value the importance of our close-knit and hometown demeanor, as well as the spirit of giving back to the community. As a proponent of All Peoples Church, I believe this church would actively give back and bring light and positivity to our community, which is certainly something we need during this time of crisis in our country. Upon hearing about the proposed site, I visited the church to see what it was like. From what I saw, All Peoples prides itself on being a church for all peoples and that includes all nationalities, all sexual orientations and all races. The location will not impact the typical resident on a day-to-day basis. From an engineering standpoint, looking at the potential impacts of a new church, traffic and noise are unlikely to be a disturbance for a church this size. Our community will benefit from a new church, especially a church like All Peoples.
— Lexi Kammeyer, San Carlos
As a resident of Del Cerro, I have been surprised by the opposition to the proposed All Peoples Church building project. Del Cerro is a wonderful community where people appreciate and respect each other’s different beliefs and views. It is made even more wonderful by the presence of places of community worship, service and learning centers. I would claim that these very places are a big part of what makes this community so special.
Schools and places of worship are vital for healthy communities and I strongly support all efforts to increase their presence and influence. In the wake of these special places is hope, healing and help. This is what is needed more than ever. If we truly care about our community and each other, we will encourage rather than discourage these efforts.
All Peoples Church is a community-sized church (not a “mega” church), similar to St. Therese Catholic Church, with many vital community outreach projects (e.g. teen programs, food drives and financial assistance to those suffering job loss due to COVID-19).
In regard to traffic concerns, Sunday morning is the lightest traffic time of the week so there will be little negative impact on residents. (There will likely be a positive impact on local businesses, though!) Also, a nicely situated and attractive place of worship will improve the aesthetics and abate some of the freeway noise.
For these and many more reasons I strongly support this project.
— Molly Williamson, Del Cerro
Del Cerro representation?
Re: “Letter: Questions about new Save Del Cerro Group, All Peoples Church” [Volume 27, Issue 1 or bit.ly/39MkSpM]
I was really disappointed to see Mark Rawlins publish as “news” from the Del Cerro Action Council on its website the same opinion letter published in the Mission Times Courier. Mark was expressing his own opinion and in no way represents the community of Del Cerro. He is personally an evangelical Christian and sees Save Del Cerro as anti-church, which it is not. This is about land use and for Mark to publish under the banner of DCAC shows he is not interested in presenting the community’s preferences. In fact, we are asking Mark to step down from DCAC as he has attacked Save Del Cerro as spreading “propaganda” and half-truths. Since he is moving to Idaho, he has no right to make agreements with anyone for our community.
His need to relate his history of DCAC from 2007 has no bearing on the situation now. In fact, others who were involved during that time have documents that directly contradict what Mark has claimed, so he may not be the most reliable source.
In his description of the mega-project, for instance, his assertion that installing another traffic light on College (in addition to the five already there) will “mitigate” traffic. Of course it will not do so, but only contribute to the congestion. Additionally, stating that the church and its lobbyist have gone through each step of the approval steps fails to mention that the owner of Atlantis Group was the director of the Planning Department and has shown she knows how to pressure current employees to produce the results she promises her clients.
Any and all information about the church and its plans is taken directly from the APC website. We have tried to communicate with Herber and APC, but they refuse to have even a conversation. Herber has stated that he doesn’t answer emails or phone calls, but “prays” for his opponents. The Atlantis Group and APC have met only with the homeowners on Marne and have not gotten approval for anything from them. Eight homeowners should not be determining land-use policy for the community. As you are well aware, meetings of the DCAC and NCPI have become very contentious because the residents do not feel their voices count for anything in this process.
Rawlins does not represent Del Cerro, but rather his own interests. As a member of Friends of Del Cerro he has spear-headed an agreement with the church to “beautify” the College Avenue median. All without notice, discussion, or permission to enter any such agreement.
This mega-project is wrong for the land, wrong for the community and those who supposedly represent Del Cerro should have the best interests of the community as their guiding principle. I hope you will write more articles on what seems to be a rigged process.
— Mardine Davis, Del Cerro
You would think that the Del Cerro Action Council would represent the residents of Del Cerro, but the president of this committee, Mark Rawlins, has instead made it a platform for his views on the All People’s Church coming to Del Cerro. His opinion that was written in the Times Courier is actually a betrayal to the community that I thought he would represent.
The community of Del Cerro opposes this project strictly on the issue on changing the zoning for this project from single-family housing to a large-scale project being proposed. This is in exact opposite of what residents want.
The impact to traffic is totally unacceptable and should be loudly and consistently expressed by our president. Elections are forthcoming and our new president who supports our community will be voted in.
— Bob Martin, Del Cerro