Rep. Huffman refuses to disclose his positions
Many of us may be surprised to know that, due to redistricting, we have a new congressman. Jared Huffman of San Raphael now represents Del Norte County in District 2.
I frequently wrote to Rep. Mike Thompson when he was our representative and I always received a reply. I did not always agree with Mike, but at least he took the time to share his positions with me. Mr. Huffman, not so much.
I have written several letters to Rep. Huffman since he was sworn in. I received no response to any of my written inquiries. Understanding that the congressman may not have established a system for reviewing consitutent mail as of yet, I called his office is Washington, D.C., to obtain a better understanding of where he stood on three particular issues.
The specif issues were gun control, deficit reduction and federal funding for Planned Parenthood. I spoke to a staffer in the congressman’s office who informed me that, although the congressman had opinions on these issues, his staff were not allowed to share these with me.
When I pushed for answers, I was told someone knowledgeable from his staff would respond via email. A few days later I received an email that said the congressman was involved in setting up his office and was unable to provide answers to the issues I had requested.
I called the congressman’s office again, demanding an answer to my questions and was transferred to a gentleman who refused to inform me of what the congressman’s position was on any of the issues important to me. I reiterated that I was a constituent and entitled to know what his position was and again was rebuffed.
I fail to understand under what pretense our congressional representative refuses to disclose his stance on the major political iisues of the day. It simply must be that his political masters have yet to tell him what he thinks.
Dan Smith, Crescent City
Anti-gun agenda to leave public defenseless
Regarding the Jan. 12 Editor’s Note column, “Newtown: There are myriad ways to fight back,” kudos for your suggestion that schools and other public places could be protected with designated trained and armed employees.
This is a reasonable and logical idea that could very well provide some actual protection. It could be a practical application of the NRA spokesman’s comment to the effect that “the only way to stop a bad man with a gun is with a good man with a gun.”
The anti-gun crowd will object, of course. I think the thing to remember about that is their purpose is not to protect the children nor anyone else. Their agenda is to remove guns from the general population, thereby leaving guns only in the hands of government and other criminals.
To what purpose, I can only guess.
Clif Shephard, Hiouchi