Given the religious, family-oriented nature of Nampa, I assumed all candidates running to replace Rep. Collins would be conservatives we could trust to defend our values, regardless of who won. After researching, I’m surprised to discover that might not necessarily be true. And I certainly want to know.
The one that surprised me was Kim Keller. Remember that another candidate, Randy Jackson, objected a while back to “The Joy of Gay Sex” being available in the public section of the Nampa library, including to children. As a library board member, Dr. Keller initially did the right thing, supporting removing the book, but when the ACLU threatened the board, Keller capitulated and voted to make the book accessible again to children. Would he similarly yield our rights and values to pressure from liberal lobbyists in Boise? I know Randy Jackson wouldn’t.
As a community member of the editorial board at Idaho Press, Dr Keller and the rest of the board have endorsed so-called “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” laws as well as other such laws used to discriminate against Christians and violate the privacy rights of women and girls.
Sadly, I’m not surprised the Idaho Press endorsed such laws, but I was surprised to see Keller’s name listed on the editorial as a community member of the paper’s editorial board lending is name to the endorsement.
I’m writing, in fairness to Dr. Keller, because the editorial said it was “based on the majority opinions” of the paper’s editorial board,” which means Dr. Keller either supported the editorial, or opposed it and got outvoted.
Obviously, I want to know which, I know Randy Jackson wouldn’t vote for legislation that threatens our individual religious freedom, but I want to hear from Dr. Keller and other candidates how they would vote on that legislation.
Stefan Yarnot, Nampa
Editor's note: The Idaho Press editorial referenced in this letter was written Dec. 2, 2012, in support of ordinances preventing discrimination against people for their sexuality or gender identity.
Some opinions illustrate the power of proclamations shaped by the selective use of facts to benefit either political party. Facts that seem contradictory are often separated by just one variable; time. It is true that Dr. Fauci stated in early January, operating with the same information known then by most of the world, that the SARS virus in this case was one we could control. But in mid to late January after more facts were obtained, Dr. Fauci made another factual statement that COVID-19 was a major concern.
It is a fact that President Trump authorized an exception-based travel restriction, not a ban, with China on January 31 after learning the latest about COVID-19 from his HHS staff. A lot has become known since then but the fact remains that limited travel restrictions were put in place by the administration by February 3. But before and since then he has said many things factually not true.
Many question how we could pay for Senator Sander's Medicare for All plan. But it's another when President Trump takes a whack-a-mole approach in finding scapegoats for the pandemic, and blatantly lies about his response. He takes no responsibility, in any sense of the word. When politicians accept responsibility for any situation facing their constituents, they appear trustworthy.
Looking at governors across this country, many have earned their constituent's trust, Governor Little included. It's clear he is concerned about all Idaho citizens, not just Idaho Republicans. He's earned my trust in his leadership in helping Idahoans cope with this pandemic. The Trump administration can only look for any and all scapegoats to place blame upon for his administration's documented failures. And because of that fact, neither Trump nor his devotees in congress and his administration, have earned my trust in their leadership.
Ray Polzin, Meridian
Whatever happened to the WASPS? No. No. Not the kind that sting. I mean the White Anglo Saxon Protestants—the kind who used to sit on the US Supreme Court. The present Court consists of six jurists of the Catholic persuasion and three of the Jewish persuasion. Not a single WASP!
No doubt, each jurist considers each case on its merits, but those merits may be filtered through one’s religious persuasion. I’d like to see a Supreme Court representative of many of the faith traditions in our country—not just two. Maybe even a WASP.
Elisabeth Ratcliff, Garden City
Vote for Keri
I would like to show my support for Keri Sigman for Canyon County Commissioner District 2, John Hess for Canyon County Commissioner District 1, and Kieran Donahue for Canyon County Sheriff. It is important that we have people in office who understand the community and its needs. All three of these people are in tune with Canyon County, its obligations and its fate.
Autumn Short, Meridian
Vote for Ben
42 years ago my grandfather, Scott McKnight, ran for the State Senate in Nampa. He ran on strong conservative values including his staunch defense of the 2nd Amendment, a fierce advocate for family values, and an entrenched duty to serve his community.
Like my grandfather, Ben Adams is now running to represent the citizens of Nampa in Legislative District 13 House Seat B.
Ben is retired United States Marine and served two combat tours in Afghanistan. I have watched Ben as he works with advocacy groups supporting fellow combat veterans…especially those with PTSD. I know Ben is fierce defender of our inalienable rights and he reveres the right-to-life for all of God's children...born and not yet born.
Ben Adams is a fighter...and he will never relent to the outside pressures constantly attacking and chipping away at our individual liberty. The "never-quit" attitude that Ben developed in the United States Marine Corps will serve the people of Nampa well.
Ben and Becca Adams ARE Nampa. Their family reflects Nampa and the values that make it such a strong family community. I strongly support Ben Adams for Idaho House of Representatives in District 13 Seat B.
Dan McKnight, Meridian
244 years ago, our forefathers rejected rule by monarchy. Today, I continue to reject rule by monarchy, specifically Donald Trump’s claim of monarchical authority in Monday’s “news conference.” He said, “When somebody is the President of the United States, the authority is total. And that’s the way it’s gonna be. It’s total. It’s total.”
That claim of authority is nothing short of a claim of the absolute power of a monarch. A King Donald is no less noxious to me and to America at large than was King George III. I reject absolutely his claim of such power, and all Americans should join me in that, regardless of party. We threw off the monarchy in 1776, and we don’t want it back. We must say, “No King Donald!”
Everett Wohlers, Meridian