10 Questions to Determine if Your Religious Liberty Is Being Threatened

Mutiple Choice. "A" or "B" for each question.

1. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to go to a religious service of my own choosing.

B) Others are allowed to go to religious services of their own choosing.

2. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to legally marry the person I love, even though my religious community blesses my marriage.

B) Some states refuse to enforce my own particular religious beliefs on marriage on those two guys in line down at the courthouse.

3. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am forced to use birth control.

B) I am unable to force others to not use birth control.

4. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to pray privately.

B) I am not allowed to force others to pray the prayers of my faith publicly.

5. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) Being a member of my faith I can be bullied without legal recourse.

B) I am no longer allowed to use my faith to bully gay kids with impunity.

6. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to purchase, read or possess religious books or material.

B) Others are allowed to have access books, movies and websites that I do not like.

7. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) My religious group is not allowed equal protection under the establishment clause.

B) My religious group is not allowed to use public funds, buildings and resources as we like for whatever purposes we like.

8. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) Another religious group has been declared the official faith of my country.

B) My own religious group is not given status as the official faith of my country.

9. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) My religious community is not allowed to build a house of worship in my community.

B) A religious community I do not like wants to build a house of worship in my community.

10. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to teach my children the creation stories of our faith at home.

B) Public school science classes are teaching science.

Scoring key:

If  "A" is your answer then perhaps your religious liberty is indeed at stake. You and your faith group have every right to now advocate for equal protection under the law. Fight for equality -- not superiority. If you answered "B" to any question, there is a strong chance you're oppressing the religious liberties of others. Refer back to the tenets of your faith, especially the ones about neighbors.

Failed Election; Failed Process

The Costa Mesa 'insiders' are certainly confident of their ability to manipulate a process to get the results they want.

• Katrina Foley=>School Board; 
• Alan Mansoor=>State Assembly; 
• Jim Righiemer=>Costa Mesa Mayor. 

Katrina Foley never publicly endorsed Mensinger or McEvoy and that is a mystery. She certainly didn't let her voice be heard at the city council meeting where the task of choosing her successor was the main topic.

That process I saw used to choose a city councilman in the November 2010 election in Costa Mesa stinks. We need to change that.

Why not just go to this simple rule: "If an elected official resigns the vacancy will be filled by the person that recieved the most votes". 

Can we get a referndum or even a city council motion? I'm waiting for you to get started.

A Best Man

Is America a meritocracy. Is it always 'obvious' who the best man is? What qualities do we voters actually value when we choose a representative? It's just not that clear is it.

Maybe Steve Munsinger is the best man. If he is, then why not replace the whole lineup at the city council. Surely there are women and men living in this town that merit being on the city council. Does Jim Righiemer believe that only the 'best' men in any town can be on the city council. One would have to ask: Is Jim Righiemer one of the best in town?

Jim didn't get to be mayor pro tem (an archaic title if ever there was one) by not working the system. As a voter it would be good to know the system being worked. Jim is working the O.C. Republican party system. Jim was Dana Rohrbachers campaign manager. Jim knows where the money is and who to ask and what to do in return. That makes him valuable. Jim is doing the job he came to town to do. When its done, he'll move on. I doubt he wants to get stuck in 'Goat Hill'.

Elections. We Don't Need No Stinking Elections!

Elections are not coronations. We live in a republican democracy. That means we elect people to do our work for us. We use our vote to express our choice of people to represent us. Or do we really have that power?

After the November elections in Costa Mesa, Jim Righiemer (with a little help from Gary Monahan and Eric Bever) appointed Steve Mensinger to the Costa Mesa city council. There was a 'dog and pony show' at the Tuesday night city council meeting. The outcome was published in the Daily Pilot two weeks prior. Long before the city council meeting.

On that Tuesday night Jim Righiemer chose to ignore 10,876 voters in Costa Mesa. Those were the citizens that voted for Chris McEvoy. Jim appointed Steve Mensinger to the city council. Steve hasn't run for dog catcher, let alone city council. When one makes the statement "Look at this resume!", one should actually look at it.

The city council is elected and not appointed. That means to get on the city council it is expected that candidates will register, campaign, and answer questions and meet every Tom, Dick, and Harriet that wants to know who is decides how to spend the tax dollars they supply. Jim R. shouldn't be making that decision. We the voters have that right.

That night Jim Righeimer told the citizens who vote in Costa Mesa that their votes don't count.

How Jim Righiemer Lost the Election

Here's the election results for the 2010 Costa Mesa city council elections.

JIM RIGHEIMER 12,997 31.7% WENDY LEECE 11,572 28.2% CHRIS MCEVOY 10,846 26.4% SUE LESTER 3,881 9.5% CHAD W PETSCHL 1,721 4.2%

Now, looking at the numbers it's pretty clear that more citizens voted against Jim Righiemer than for him. Jim actually lost the election.

That must be bother him. One way he seems to cope with this rejection is to focus on a single bit of information. In his words "Don't rewrite history. More than $200,000 was spent to discredit me in the past election. Most of it by the police association and the fire dept union". The first three words are telling. Jim believes that the voters of Costa Mesa just didn't know the truth, that there were lied to and just couldn't think for themselves.

The Chain of Command

Hierarchy of the Costa Mesa 'insiders' goes something like this: Dana Rohrbacher, John Moorlach, Peter Buffa, Alan Mansoor, Jim Righiemer, Steve Mensinger, Shawn Dewane, Jim Fitzpatrick. There are a few others but their stars are in decline or they are on probationary status. The closer you get to the top, the less the names change. The idea is, to move up the ladder. Sometimes a guy tries to 'jump' a step and if he isn't sucessful, well, lets just say there are plenty of commissions and boards filled with those folks.

University of Costa Mesa - Costa Mesa Medical Center

The city council and the city managers offices haven't been doing any thinking about 'new manufacturing faciltities', 'medical centers', 'universities' or other uses of the available land around. What the council is doing is spending time and money on partnering with real estate developers. The two projects they spend the most time and money on are the Banning Ranch and the Orange County Fairground property. Thats the game folks. The focus of the city council mirrors the interests of those with the most influence on the city council, and that would be developers - folks that don't, and won't be living in Costa Mesa.

The problem is that the interest of the real estate developers may not coincide with the interest of the voters.