.
.
.
.
.
Swearing-In Ceremony for Orange County Treasurer-Tax Collector Shari L. Freidenrich
It was my deepest honor and privilege to perform the Invocation/Prayer at Shari’s Swearing-in Ceremony in my official capacity as Commander of UMAVA (United Mexican-American Veterans Association), in front of many distinguished guests (which included current and past Elected and Appointed leaders), and family and friends of Shari Freidenrich.
1) I was also honored that Honorable Bill Campbell, Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, who presided over the Swearing-In ceremony, also asked for a copy of my Invocation/Prayer to include in his Newsletter, which he did last last week.
2) PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR INVOCATION/PRAYER delivered by me.
Whoa, who’s that unhinged VETERAN, foaming at the mouth there? Is Shari safe? Shouldn’t he be scanned for weapons?
http://newsantaana.com/2011/01/20/shouldnt-those-who-attend-santa-ana-city-council-meetings-be-scanned-for-weapons/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NewSantaAna+%28New+Santa+Ana%29
Vern,
So you are opposed to increased public safety measures at city meetings?
I don’t want to be dragged in to Santa Ana disputes, or continue to hijack this thread which should be about our promising new Treasurer and Francisco’s fine invocation.
But I have to say that our good friend Art really jumped a bigger shark than he’s ever jumped before, when he suggested in that post that VETERANS are people we need to be especially afraid of.
Ya think that’s not what he meant? That’s what it sounded like.
Vern,
It is not a “Santa Ana dispute”. Increasing security at public meetings is a national issue that we need to seriously discuss. In light of the Tucson incident and the threats made to Governor Brown right here in Santa Ana we need to do something.
Art’s point is not that much different than that of the Department of Homeland Security’s warning regarding veterans and domestic terrorism. Here is a Wall Street Journal article about that: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123992665198727459.html
Francisco continues to use his veterans status to push forth a political agenda that has nothing to do with veterans issues.
“It is not a “Santa Ana dispute”
Liar. The Tuscon incident and the Brown graffiti simply give you a faux pretext for engaging in not-so-subtle character assassination against anyone who would dare to criticize the Council or Mayor.
anon,
I’ll ask you again, why are you against increasing public safety at city meetings?
Because it could have a chilling effect on public participation.
That, and because your motivation for wanting this is entirely bogus. And obvious.
anon,
How exactly does making the public and our elected officials safer have a “chilling effect on public participation”?
If it keeps people with weapons from showing up than that is a good thing.
My motivation is simple, make city meetings safer for all. Why on earth would you be opposed to that?
Sean, please spare me the ridiculous posturing…it isn’t the “making safer” that is the problem…it’s the “means” of accomplishing that which could deter people from participating in Council/Commission meetings. The means. Get it? The “way” that you do it. Do you understand that? Stop acting like that doesn’t matter.
If you’re suggesting that some of the over-reactions to events like this and the potential losses in civil liberties and freedoms is not at all a concern, well, you don’t have much of a grasp of recent history.
anon,
Well the last time I checked people were still going to the bank, getting on airplanes, going to the courthouse and even attending sporting events. That’s right a hand held scanner was used on spectators the last time I went to a Chargers game and the last time I went to a Ducks game.
I don’t think anyone was detered in participating in those events except perhaps those that were planning on bringing weapons to the games.
Increasing public safety should be tantamount. In light of what we have seen happen recently, including threats to our Governor right here in Santa Ana, I don’t see how any law abiding citizen would not approve of such measures.
The public and our elected officials should feel safe at all times when they are attending public meetings. Making sure folks don’t have weapons is a key element. Would you rather we wait until some unhinged person erupts and someone is injured or God forbid killed as a result?
I cannot believe that anyone would be against making our city meetings safer. Shocking!
“I cannot believe that anyone would be against making our city meetings safer.”
Did you read the part where I said it wasn’t the “making safer” that was the problem? No, you didn’t. Or you ignored it. Not shocking. Please do not ascribe beliefs to me that I actually don’t have.
anon,
How do you propose we make city meetings safer? You oppose our suggestion that we have folks checked for weapons upon entering. Lets hear your idea for how to increase public safety at our city meetings.
Your real quick to criticize but real slow to provide any ideas of your own.
How about an armed police officer in Council chambers. There’s an idea. Oh wait, we already have that.
Post one outside chambers too. Metal detectors and checking bags is heavy-handed and repressive. It’s an over-reaction and I disagree with such a move. I’ve made it crystal clear why.
And as for the Wall Street Journal article (not to mention numerous other events of domestic terrorism in recent history), it’s almost 2 years old…why weren’t Art and Sean calling for heightened security measures at Council meetings back then? I think most people with a couple neurons to rub together know the answer to that. Can I get an amen?
anon,
Obviously the issue of uncivil behavior and vitriol has come to the forefront in recent weeks. I actually called for increased security measures at city council meetings quite some time ago when we began to see more and more bad behavior and acting out by some of the folks that regularly attend the meetings.
When you couple that with the death threats against our Governor taking place right here in Santa Ana this is a no brainer. We must do something now.
The only reason you oppose this is because Mr. Pedroza and myself are calling for this and that is what is clear.
Lets hear your solutions. If you have any.