The mission of the NAACP is to ensure the political, educational, social, and economic equality of all citizens. We strive to achieve equality of rights and eliminate racial prejudice among U.S. citizens and remove all barriers of racial discrimination through democratic processes. We have worked toward this goal nationally for 112 years, and here in San Mateo County for the past 96 years.

The Rev. Lorrie Carter Owens

The Rev. Lorrie Carter Owens

The living embodiment of the opposite of all we stand for was scheduled to come to San Mateo County this past weekend. Thankfully, the event was canceled. Marjorie Taylor Greene (MTG), a hateful, racist House Representative from Georgia, was supposed to speak to San Francisco Republicans last Saturday. She was invited by San Franciscans but, because she refused to respect San Francisco’s COVID-19 protocol regarding wearing masks and being vaccinated, San Francisco was spared her vitriol. Somehow, the venue was moved to San Mateo County, where she would have spread one insidious disease — hatred — in our county, and possibly another, COVID 19.  

The NAACP San Mateo Branch wants to make crystal clear to Marjorie Taylor Greene and those that support her that her hatred and lies are not welcome here. There are a few San Mateo County residents who think as she thinks and support her venom. We will hear from them in their usual attacks in response to this piece — confusing us with BLM, saying that we are Antifa, calling us radical socialists and other names, and even suggesting that we are “lining our pockets” through our volunteer efforts to fight for justice for all people. I suppose the concept of African Americans actually working for a living is foreign to some people. These folks will demand proof for all of the statements made about MTG in this piece, while rarely providing proof for their own outlandish statements. However, these MTG-ish attitudes do not represent those of the majority of the residents of San Mateo County. 

Make no mistake about who Marjorie Taylor Greene is — a racist, anti-Semitic, homophobic menace to society. She promotes unfounded conspiracy theories, including the Big Lie about fraud in the 2020 elections, which is the same process that brought her to the House of Representatives. She has stated that our wildfires here on the West Coast are not due to climate change but to space lasers operated by Jews. She supported statements of violence against officials she disagrees with, including shooting Nancy Pelosi in the head, killing FBI agents she felt were working against Donald Trump, and hanging Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. She suggested that the 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas was staged, as well as the attack against our country on Sept. 11th, 2001. She said the same thing about the 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas in Parkland, Florida. She went one step further with this tragedy by ridiculing Parkland shooting survivor David Hogg for his advocacy of gun control legislation. Instead of compassion and empathy for the trauma that young man and his classmates endured that day, Greene chased the then 18-year-old while he was in Washington, D.C. lobbying for gun control. She has called him an “idiot,” a “coward,” a “dog” and “little Hitler.”

Greene disparaged Jewish people everywhere when she equated the tragedy of the Holocaust, when more than 6 million human beings were murdered, to mask mandates implemented during a pandemic, recommended by medical professions worldwide to keep people alive. She defends the violent, treasonous insurrection against the United States on Jan. 6 of this year. She insulted Gov. Newsom by calling him a “communist dictator.” I could go on and on, but these few examples show just how repugnant she is as a human being. Her behavior has resulted in her being stripped of all committee assignments in the House of Representatives, with both Democrats and Republicans supporting that action.

The NAACP fights for the rights of all people, and believes in doing so in a lawful and respectful way. Marjorie Taylor Greene represents the worst of humankind and stands against everything we stand for. Her statements about her Christian beliefs are laughable; they are so misaligned with her behavior that, for Christians, her profession of faith is actually blasphemous. Her politics and actions are deplorable and are driven by hate and her commitment to set our country back to the way things were before the civil rights movement. It was stated that this event will be rescheduled. We hope not. Marjorie Taylor Greene, the San Mateo NAACP and all San Mateo residents of peace and goodwill ask that you stay home. Please do not bring your poison to San Mateo County.

The Rev. Lorrie Owens is the president of the NAACP, San Mateo branch.

Recommended for you

(25) comments

Ray Fowler

Rev. Owens...

I agree... MTG has a history of saying outlandish, inflammatory and hateful things in the press. I also agree with some DJ readers who feel it looks a little odd for a minister to go toe-to-toe with Rep. Greene. Oh, of course, the clergy is absolutely entitled to political opinions, but when opinions are expressed as a minister... can those opinions really be separated from God's extension of grace to all... including MTG... just in the name of politics?

I enjoy reading your political perspective as someone who speaks for the NAACP, and I would love to read one of your sermons. However, I'm scratching my head over today's op-ed piece that appears to be written from a strictly secular political point of view by a member of the clergy. How is religion connected to the theme of the op-ed piece? I may have missed the mark, but I am reminded of the guest perspective piece you submitted in April 2021 concerning police accountability. I posted in part, "... the Reverend's reference to 'state-sanctioned execution' is reckless and without foundation. I found it odd that an op-ed piece about life and death matters authored by a clergywoman makes no mention of God." Maybe that's just me...

Mr. Fowler, I appreciate the thoughtfulness of your responses. But I also am disappointed by the somewhat predictable approach you and others have taken, to focus on the messenger as opposed to the message. However, since my collar and my call seem to be of such concern as it relates to the message, I will address your comments and some others here. This is something Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King (read “Letters From A Birmingham Jail”) and other Christian clergy had to deal with , so I can expect no different. For one, I did make mention of God in the limited space I had to write, albeit not by name. I stated, but I will spell out more clearly this time, that MTG’s profession of her Christian faith is blasphemous – against God. You cannot spew hateful rhetoric supporting the shooting in the head of legislators you disagree with, the hanging of others, and try to intimidate and insult a traumatized 18 year-old and seriously call yourself a follower of Christ.

The piece I wrote was in my role as president of the San Mateo NAACP, not my role as assistant pastor of the church where I serve in that capacity. Had I written as a pastor, I would have been even more direct. I doubt you would want to read any of my sermons, because I am not a “feel good” preacher. Along with my sermons of encouragement and hope are sermons about sin – not just the sins of lying, stealing, adultery and murder, but also the sins of racism, of sexism, of anti-Semitism, of homophobia. I speak about the sin of hypocrisy – as in the hypocrisy of those who would protect the First Amendment right of a violence-promoting woman to spread her hatred here in our county (which is analogous to the First Amendment right of a person to yell “fire” in a theater), yet remain silent when a young quarterback in the NFL peacefully kneels in protest of unarmed black and brown people being killed by law enforcement. My sermons address the hypocrisy of those who cry out about BLM, which is not connected with the NAACP but comes up in the comments every time I write something, but who are mute when it comes to the death and destruction that occurred at our Capitol on January 6th or, even closer to home, the terrorism waged against San Mateo City Councilwoman Amourence Lee when a rock thrown through her bedroom window last year.

Changing the narrative is common with most people when they do not want to address the message but who want to try to negate it. One of the oldest tactics in American history has been to confront Christians of African ancestry with the accusation of not showing Christian love when calling out racist behavior. This tactic has been used to try to keep black people “in their place”. It does not work with me nor with those who are Christian who are also members of the NAACP. In all four of the Gospels (Matthew 21, Mark 15, Luke 19 and John 2), we read of Jesus driving out the money changers who defiled the Temple. We read in the Bible where Jesus called the Pharisees – those in positions of leadership who used their platform to oppress people – “vipers” and “snakes”. Was Jesus guilty of not showing the love of Jesus by confronting evil? Was He causing “division” by pointing out wrong? Did He fail to extend His grace by speaking out against hatred and oppression? Should He have taken off his robe because someone who didn’t want to hear what He had to say interpreted His actions as “angry”?

Christian clergy not only have a right but a responsibility to speak out against the wrong in our society. I wonder, had Christian clergy spoke out against Hitler in Nazi Germany, would 6 million Jew have died? Although there are a number of Christian clergy in San Mateo County who boldly stand against injustice and bigotry in our community, and I thank God for them, what makes me scratch my head is that all Christian clergy aren’t doing the same.

Ray Fowler

Good morning, Rev. Owens

Wow… a lot to unpack. Your op-ed piece predicted that some local MTG supporters would respond to your guest perspective by confusing the NAACP with BLM, saying the NAACP is Antifa, calling the NAACP radical socialists, and demanding proof of the statements made by you about MTG. I didn’t see any of that in the comments section. A fair question was asked about your thoughts on BLM and Antifa but the question did not suggest the NAACP was part of either of those organizations. Another comment added if the NAACP can promote its positions, then why can’t MTG do the same? The ad hominem attacks you predicted did not materialize. My reaction to your guest perspective? I posted the following, “I would not walk across the street to hear anything she (MTG) has to say, but she has the right to stand on that corner and say hateful things. The good news is that there is not much of an audience for MTG in our county.”

I am very familiar with every reference mentioned in your response to my post, and I’m glad you mentioned Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King. The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference’s message was a lot different than the message offered by the Rev. Lorrie Owens and the NAACP. With respect to your op-ed piece, it is about the message not the messenger. That message is a condemnation of someone spewing hateful rhetoric, but that message cannot also condemn that speaker’s religiosity without allowing for even a scintilla of redemption. If we pray for MTG, do we not pray for God to open her eyes? When Jesus was asked, “And who is my neighbor?” Do you believe He would have excluded MTG as a possibility?

I’m somewhat disappointed that you doubt I would want to read any of your sermons. Try me, Rev. Owens, only try me. I agree that sermons should offer encouragement and hope while at the same time exposing sin and the temptation of sin that go beyond the Ten Commandments. What is confusing (to me) about your message is that you said you wrote the op-ed piece in your role as “president of the San Mateo NAACP” and not your role as a minister. Then why is there the condemnation of MTG as a person who “blasphemously” professes to be a Christian? Why is that part of a guest perspective coming from the NAACP? In my view, I believe if an NAACP rep submits a secular criticism of MTG’s hateful commentary, there would not be much if any push back against that position.

The First Amendment is not hypocritical, and neither are those who disagree with MTG but acknowledge she has the right to stand on the corner and say hateful things. As repugnant as her words may be, MTG spreading hatred is not analogous to yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater. It just isn’t. However, it would be hypocritical to use the freedom of expression protections we all enjoy to deny another person the same opportunity to express themselves… even when that other’s expression may be hateful.

You asked, “Was Jesus guilty of not showing the love of Jesus by confronting evil?” Jesus confronted evil with his message that the Kingdom of God is coming to Earth. Regarding MTG, while we can never know for sure, it’s probably not likely Jesus would have confronted MTG with an op-ed piece.

I’ll make a deal with you. I’ll swap you one of my guest perspective pieces for one of your sermons.

Mr. Fowler, I’m not sure where you get some of your information but we clearly get a lot of our information from different sources. Some of my predictions regarding the anticipated responses to my piece didn’t come to pass (perhaps because it doesn’t look good to publicly do exactly what someone said you would), but one guy did. He has serious issue with BLM; it comes up every time something I’ve written is published in the Daily Journal, even though the NAACP and the BLM are two separate organizations. Your earlier comment criticized me for not mentioning God, and now you’re criticizing me because I did. That’s fine; those who choose to attack, rather than try to understand what the author is saying, will always find fault with something. I also made two typos in my response to you. Regarding Dr. King – I’m not sure how you see his message and the message of the SCLC as different from the NAACP when Dr. King and the SCLC actually worked hand-in-hand with the NAACP. It might be helpful to familiarize yourself with the history of Dr. King and the NAACP.

I never said that MTG was unredeemable. My Bible tells me that God does not desire that anyone perish. God loves MTG as much as He loves me. I pray that MTG comes to a true knowledge of the redemptive power of Jesus Christ one day. But as it stands today, her behavior is reprehensible. What I wrote in no way deprives her of her First Amendment rights. I didn’t call for her to go to jail or be punished in any way for her vile statements. I don’t have the power to take her First Amendment rights away. But just like she has the First Amendment right to spew her vitriol from wherever she is, I and the members of the San Mateo NAACP have the First Amendment right to say we don’t want to hear it in San Mateo County. And you have the First Amendment right to criticize me in her defense. So be it. And, if Jesus publicly condemned the Pharisees for their hypocrisy, how do you know He wouldn’t have publicly condemned MTG for hers if He were living as a human in the 21st century?

To me, yelling “fire” in a crowded theater is a lie that has the potential to cause harm to the people who hear the message. The lies and the hatred that MTG promote have the potential to cause harm to the people who hear her messages, or worse yet, to the people who are the victims of those who hear, internalize and act on what she says. So, to me, it is the same danger. I understand you disagree. So, we agree to disagree.

Lastly, while I’m flattered that you are interested in reading one of my sermons, I’m afraid I have no written sermon to trade you. I’m not the type of preacher who writes out sermons and reads them to people from the pulpit. I preach in the tradition in which I was raised. If you want to know what I say in my sermons, you’re going to have to hear it for yourself. Be blessed.

Ray Fowler

Rev. Owens

Your predictions re: anticipated responses did not materialize. However, if a rebuttal would have appeared, your front-loaded predictions would have relegated any point of view that did not align with your op-ed piece to something hateful. There are other opinions out there. One reader asked you about your thoughts concerning BLM. Fair enough… but he did not connect the dots in a way that links BLM to the NAACP.

You have a way of infusing words with extra meaning. I did not criticize your April 23, 2021, guest perspective entitled, “Accountability versus justice,” for omitting any mention of God. However, I still find it odd that a member of the clergy makes no mention of God in matters involving the horrible deaths of young Black men. If you believe God is referenced in that earlier op-ed piece, even in an oblique manner, please point to that sentence. What I do find worthy of some healthy scrutiny… OK, criticism… in that earlier guest perspective is lining up Derek Chauvin, Kim Potter, and Johannes Mehserle as examples of what you termed “state sanctioned execution.” Police brutality needs to come to a screeching halt… reforms in law enforcement policies and procedures are absolutely necessary. However, police are not the threat to young Black men in the fashion suggested by your “state sanctioned execution” conclusion. More than 4000 persons have been shot in Chicago this year. Nearly 600 of those victims died… all Black. How many persons have Chicago police shot and killed in 2021? Seven. (Fourteen Chicago police officers have been shot during that same period of time.)

You are correct, we must get our information from different sources, but when it comes to the greatest threat to the lives of young Black men, I’m wondering why your sources don’t lead you to the conditions in Chicago and other American cities. As an aside… where does Nick Reardon fit into your model of state sanctioned execution? I also disagree with conflating the tragedy of Emmett Till with the circumstances surrounding George Floyd, Daunte Wright, Oscar Grant, and Ma’Khia Bryant. Emmett was a boy brutally tortured and murdered by white supremacists. The murderers escaped justice. That was not even close to what happened in those other cases.

You are correct. The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King and the NAACP did work together, however, they did not see eye to eye on all issues, e.g. the Vietnam War. I have familiarized myself with the history of Dr. King… in ways you’ll never know. You can check the op-ed link I sent to you earlier today for an example of my familiarization with Dr. King’s message.

We agree that MTG is redeemable, and we probably agree that it doesn’t look like she will be experiencing a hierophany any time soon. We also agree her behavior is reprehensible. Your suggestion that I am defending MTG’s rhetoric is completely inaccurate. Your commentary which likens MTG’s hateful speech to yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater is just flawed logic. Yelling “Fire!” in a manner that creates a danger to the public is not protected speech, and as much as we recoil from MTG’s hateful remarks, her remarks are not the equivalent of yelling “Fire!” in a theater. Acknowledging that such commentary is allowed is not an endorsement or defense of MTG’s speech. Coming full circle on MTG’s repugnant remarks… I stated, “… while we can never know for sure, it’s probably not likely Jesus would have confronted MTG with an op-ed piece.” You seem to suggest that He would. Again, I said we can never know for sure. That means I cannot say with certainty that He would not confront MTG with an op-ed piece, and it also means that you cannot say with certainty that He would do so.

Thank you for your blessing…

Terence Y

Rev. Owens – since another reader has commented on black-on-black crime (I’m not sure if the NAACP is aligned on that issue), let me get your opinion on a few NAACP-related issues … How about the Fairfax County NAACP VP (who may have resigned by now) Leete saying “Let them die” to PTA members who don’t support CRT. Has the NAACP commented on Senator Whitehouse belonging to an all-white club? How about Hunter Biden using the N-word in text messages, following the steps of his father Joe Biden who used that word multiple times in the Senate? Why is the NAACP silent when Senator Tim Scott is referred to as “Uncle Tim” on Twitter? Hmm, there seems to be a common theme… Maybe the NAACP only fights for the rights of Democrats. If you and the NAACP are not careful, the second “A” will represent “Alienation” as it appears those not aligned with your interests continue to be poisoned while those aligned with your interests get free passes, or silence. Of course, you have the freedom of speech to not say anything, but not a good look when it’s a one way street.

Rev. Lorrie Owens, NAACP San Mateo

Good afternoon Mr. Terence Y – although my response to your comment was delayed, I did want to respond. I know that you are very concerned about black-on-black crime; it ends up in your responses to my guest perspectives pretty much every time I write, no matter what the topic. I cannot and will not defend the actions of any person who murders another person, regardless of the race of the murderer or the person murdered. But I would invite you get a better understanding about how and why conditions exist in the inner city that incubate that type of violence. One good book to read is Richard Rothstein’s “The Color of Law”. After reading the book, I would invite you to consider how you, as an American citizen, can contribute to improving a situation that America had such a significant hand in creating. Black-on-black crime, as well as white-on-white crime is not a black problem or a white problem. It is an American problem.

That said, let me directly answer your questions. First of all, I condemn hate speech from anyone, be it MTG, a fellow NAACP member, or anyone else. In the case of the Fairfax County NAACP official, although I wholeheartedly agree with the statements she made about the false narrative about teaching CRT in K-12 schools – another topic I will write a guest perspective about at a future date – it was unacceptable for her to say “let them die” if that is what she said. Hate speech has no place in our society nor our county, including the hateful mail and the threat I personally received in response to my piece last week. Would you care to comment on that? Regarding comments regarding Senator Tim Scott being referred to as “Uncle Tim” on Twitter – unless the NAACP itself made those comments, what does that have to do with anything? Some people don’t like Senator Scott’s views. The NAACP is mostly a volunteer organization; it hardly has the resources to monitor and respond to mean statements about Senator Scott on Twitter. Was Senator Scott threatened with physical harm? Next - Senator Whitehouse belonging to an all-white club or the Bidens using the “n” word – what does that have to do with my piece on MTG? All Republicans are not racist, nor are all Democrats non-racist. I’ve been called the “n” word by both. The NAACP supports more Democratic policies overall than Republican right now not because the Democrats and good and the Republican bad, but simply because of the effects those policies have on African Americans and other minority groups. The NAACP is not a partisan organization. Right here in California, I have several counterparts (NAACP branch presidents) who are Republicans. The NAACP is not into left and right; it is into wrong and right, as in fighting against wrong, fighting against oppression, fighting against racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, and homophobic hatred. If that alienates you, so be it.

Terence Y

Rev. Owens, thank you for taking the time to respond. Unfortunately, I see a disconnect… you claim to condemn hate speech from anyone, yet in your letter, you call MTG hateful, racist, anti-Semitic, homophobic menace to society and quite a few other choice words. So I guess you don’t consider that hate speech? You appear to be giving folks a pass when they call Tim Scott “Uncle Tim” and you appear to be okay with Hunter and Uncle Joe using the “n” word without condemnation. So I guess those words are also not hate speech and people should not be offended by its use? I can only wish the NAACP is not into left and right and is into wrong and right but recent history shows us that the NAACP is more wrong than right. Hopefully, things will change, but the intolerance in this column isn’t pushing us forward, only backward. Looking forward to your future columns.

Rev. Lorrie Owens, NAACP San Mateo

Good evening Mr. Y - responding to your latest comment, you and I agree that there is a huge disconnect in our views. I see hate speech and offensive speech as two completely different things. Offensive speech, to me, is just that -- things that people may say that may be unkind, could even be racist, but the person has a First Amendment right to say whatever they said, To that end, the Bidens using the "n" word or Tim Scott being called Uncle Tim is offensive, but it is not hate speech. A lot of what you say, to me, is offensive, but it is not hate speech. And you have every right to say it. Hate speech is when you are threatening people, when you agree that people should be shot in the head, or the former president hanged - aka MTG. When anyone calls for violence, whether they are right-wing, left wing, or no wing, that is hate speech. That is what I stand against. I am unapologetically intolerant against hate speech. I don't know what kind of world you are trying to push us forward into by supporting hateful people like MTG but is looks like your forward is backwards to me. Going "back to the future" may be fine for you, but it is not for people who look like me. I will fight with everything in me to ensure that is not the world my grandkids will inherit. Lastly, the NAACP exists to ensure the political, educational, social, and economic equality of all citizens. That is straight out of our mission statement. The only people who would consider the NAACP to be "wrong" would be someone who does not believe in extending the political, educational, social and economic equality of all citizens in this country, just to the white ones. I'm look forward to your criticism of my next guest perspective.

Terence Y

Rev. Owens – thank you for the continued dialog and defining your positions. Supposedly, there is a general definition for hate speech but there is none defining offensive speech. It’s important we remember both are protected by the First Amendment. What you consider offensive may not be offensive to others. That being said, would you be okay with someone saying that you’re not welcome in their city, state, or country because what you say offends them? Applying your same intolerance towards MTG to you? Even if I were truly offended by anyone, I wouldn’t attempt to “cancel” anyone from visiting our area or saying what they wish. Once you commit to a personal (not general) “standard” of canceling someone, where does it end? What’s next, canceling Terence Y because in your opinion, I’ve graduated to hateful? Looking forward to your next guest perspective where criticism is always a risk when one is published. Have a great Thanksgiving. And please feel free to call me Terence in the future.

Good morning Terence; thank you for the Thanksgiving wish. It was great; I hope yours was as well. I stand corrected, in that you are right about both hate speech and offensive speech both protected by the First Amendment. Technically, neither are legally defined. However, the First Amendment does not protect everything. Let me better clarify what I and my branch stand against. We stand against anyone who advocates for or supports those who advocate for physical violence against people who do not look like or think like them. MTG has done that, more than once. That is why I stand by the statement that this is not something (which I defined as hate speech) that is welcome here. If that is what you are defining as "cancel", then that is what I am doing, and I don't apologize for it. Although I don't like much of what you have to say, I defend your right to say it. I will do so up until you start advocating for or supporting hanging people or shooting them in the head. At that point, I would attempt to "cancel" Terence Y as well. And as far as my being o.k. with someone saying that I was not welcome in their city, state or country -- that has already happened more times than I can count, without my even uttering a single word. I'm an African American woman in the United States of America. I've been told to go back to Africa numerous times (once by an European immigrant), although I am an American; my parents were American and their parents before them, and I had never even visited an African country until I was middle-aged. I was called the "n" word in September 2019 at 400 County Center in Redwood City by a Trump supporter (I extrapolated that he was a Trump supporter because his next words after calling me and my colleague the "n" word were "thank God for Donald Trump), right here in liberal San Mateo County. Needless to say, I didn't feel so welcome by that person, not that I really cared. I don't have the luxury of MTG who faces the unwelcome mat from some of us because of what she has said and supported. People who look like me, as well as others who may be Jewish or gay face the unwelcome mat in many places by some people simply because we exist. That is what we in the NAACP fights against. If hateful people feel they are being canceled because we stand against their hatred, so be it.

Rev. Lorrie Owens, NAACP San Mateo

Good afternoon Mr. Fowler – my response to your latest comment is delayed, but I did want to respond. I’m not sure I’m the one infusing words with extra meaning here. I never referenced my April 23, 2021 guest perspective, nor any other previous ones when commenting on your scrutinizing/criticizing my November 9, 2021 piece for omitting God in the original piece and then including Him in subsequent comments. I have no need to go any further than this one guest perspective to point out the incongruities of your and some other people’s responses. One thing that I would ask that you not do is to not lecture me on is what is and is not a threat to young black men. I could be wrong but I don’t think you have ever given birth to and/or raised a young black man. You don’t know what it is like to have to teach them, from an early age, how this society, including many police officers (some who are black police officers) will automatically see them as a threat unless proven otherwise. I have raised two phenomenal young black men; one a minister, husband-to-be, UC graduate who is attending grad school at another UC institution; the other a junior at a UC institution. Neither has ever been in trouble with the law. Although anything can happen at any time, neither of my boys live the type of lifestyles that would put them in locations where they may be killed by another young black male. But I can’t protect them from the police. They get pulled over significantly more frequently than their white and Asian friends. They are never cited because they didn’t do anything wrong. The officer just wants to know who they were and where they were going. I experienced that myself, right here in San Mateo, even as a female, when I was young. My husband really got a dose of it when he was younger. Racial profiling is real; it still exists, and although most officers feel like they’re just doing their jobs when they engage in this behavior, it is wrong. All it takes is one hyper-active, maladjusted, racist police officer to put one of my boys in a casket. I reiterate that most police officers are good, hard-working men and women who are doing a job the rest of us cannot do. But there are still a few bad apples in many police departments. All it takes is one. One of my greatest fears is that one of my boys has the misfortune of meeting up with one of those bad apples. Some police shootings are justified. But when a person killed by law enforcement is unarmed and posed no reasonable threat to the officer to justify lethal force used, and no one is ever held accountable, it is state sanctioned execution, no matter how distasteful you find that phrase.

There are other comments you make that I disagree with but I’m not going to waste your time nor mine debating point by point. But I will say this – regarding my “fire in a crowded theatre” analogy, I can understand how you think my logic is flawed. However, you’re not the person who would get trampled. Unless you are a person of color, gay or Jewish, you may find MTG’s hate speech reprehensible, but you wouldn’t be on the receiving end of the abhorrent actions committed by unstable people urged on by her rhetoric. I, my family, people who look like me, and people who are in other groups singled out by MTG are the targets. I’ve personally received threatening communications from MTG fans right here in San Mateo County in reaction to my perspective last week. That is the very reason I speak out against that type of speech, and will continue to do so. Hate speech is not free speech. Hate speech has no place in our society and it certainly does not have a place here in San Mateo County. And, again, be blessed.


You should take off your collar when you spread so much anger. This could have been a good lesson in loving your enemies. .

Terence Y

Reverend Owens - are you speaking as an individual or in your official capacity as a reverend? Because if it’s as a reverend, I guess being a reverend doesn’t carry as much cachet as it used to. I don’t recall most reverends fomenting hate and sowing division, but maybe we’re in a new normal. Suffice it to say that I do thank you for exposing your true colors for readers to see. I guess fighting “for the rights of all people” include only those people who agree with you. BTW, what are your thoughts on the death and destruction, to the tune of $1 billion, wrought by BLM and Antifa? Not much law and respect there. More importantly, did the NAACP fight for the victims?

Mr. Terence Y - maybe reverends in your church or denomination don't carry much cachet. That is unfortunate. I don't promote hate; I speak out against it. Not once can you ever say that I called for, or supported those who call for violence against anyone. My and my branch's stance against hate speech is automatically going to cause division between those who hate and those who are hated. So be it. Jesus Himself speaks about this in Matthew 10:34 (if you're not a self-proclaimed Christian, that citation would have no meaning for you so ignore it). We fight for the rights of all people whose rights have been violated. Not all people in the United States have had their rights violated. I do not support violence at protests, regardless of who the protestor is, be it BLM, Antifa (two groups that seem to haunt you), or the insurrectionists who attempted a coup of our government at our nation's Capitol, which has been estimated by some to have cost the American taxpayer more the $1 billion. As I watched footage of police officers being chased and beaten, I didn't see much law or respect there either. The NAACP did not fight for the victims of the violence coming out of the BLM/Antifa protests (which, by the way, weren't always BLM/Antifa members committing these acts), no more than we fought for the victims of the Capitol riots because that is not our mission. Our mission is to primarily fight racism. However, if we have benefactors who wish to contribute to our cause to help us broaden our mission, that would be great.

Tommy Tee

MTG is a certifiable wing-nut, but should be allowed to come here and spout her nonsense.

Ray Fowler

Tommy... you and I rarely agree, but we do agree on MTG. I would not walk across the street to hear anything she has to say, but she has the right to stand on that corner and say hateful things. The good news is that there is not much of an audience for MTG in our county.


Ray & Tommy,

Count me in on this one.[thumbup]

Tommy Tee

Ray: Well, well--a common bond!! For now, anyway. LOL :)

Ray Fowler

Let's not get carried away...



Stranger things have happened. Terence and I have actually agreed on two things in the past year. One was a proposition on last years ballot and the other was garlic bread about a month or two ago.

Dirk van Ulden

OK Reverend, so our First Amendment rights are only applicable for those who agree with you? I don't accept everything she stands for either but that does not mean she should/cannot be heard. There are many who do not agree with the positions of the NAACP either, yet you get space in the DJ. As a self proclaimed Christian you ought to accept her ability to speak without prejudice.


Thank you, Reverend, for your clear comments. MTG certainly has the right to express her opinions. However, that does not require all of us to provide a venue. MTG has demonstrated that she has plenty of places to make her statements - her first amendment rights are not blocked.

Dirk van Ulden

OK Cynthia - did you mean some us, of or all of us? Since when do you speak for 'all of us'?

Mr. van Ulden -- I disagree that hate speech is protected by the First Amendment, especially when it is coming from an official of the US Government. Hate speech is not free speech. If there wasn't a distinction, why would you and I get arrested for publicly suggesting someone should carry a bomb onto an airplane, or killing the president? As a self-proclaimed Christian, it is my responsibility to condemn speech that promotes hatred and violence, as MTG's rhetoric does. And regarding your comment about my getting space in the DJ -- are you suggesting that only people who share your point of view should be heard?

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Thank you for visiting the Daily Journal.

Please purchase an Enhanced Subscription to continue reading. To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.

We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.

A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!