Letters to the Editor | July 12, 2023

As our members reflect on our highly successful summit in Philadelphia, what we feel leaving this beautiful city is hope. Hope that once you pull back the layers of misrepresentation and misinformation, we can agree that all Americans essentially want the same thing.

When we announced that our 2023 summit would be held in Philadelphia, the response was always, “You should go to a ‘red’ city instead. Philly isn’t safe.” Our reply to that suggestion was twofold. First, parental rights are nonpartisan, they are not “red” or “blue” — they are fundamental. These rights come from our creator, and every parent of every color, creed, and background has the right to direct the upbringing of their children. We have a vision of an America thriving in a culture of liberty, and our vision includes all Americans.

Second, despite the hundreds of protesters that were paid, bused in, and strategically set up around our events, we felt welcomed and safe during our stay. From the moment we announced our summit would be in Philadelphia, the Police Department’s civil affairs unit began working with our security team. Hundreds of law enforcement officers worked to make sure safety was paramount during our summit.

Our event hosts — the Philadelphia Marriott Downtown and the Museum of the American Revolution — were targeted by weeks of protests and campaigns to cancel our event, yet they were exceptionally gracious and displayed the utmost professionalism. We toured the city, visited historical sites, and found the best food and the best of people everywhere we went.

The city where the Declaration of Independence, our Constitution, and our Bill of Rights were created is still the best place in the nation to celebrate American independence and the founding of our country. From massive fireworks shows to historical characters interacting around the city, Philadelphia still captivates patriots young and old 247 years later.

We would like to say thank you to the people of Philadelphia — we experienced Philly firsthand as a diverse community that truly is the City of Brotherly Love.

Tina Descovich, cofounder, Moms for Liberty

I am in shock — I agree with something Donald Trump said (sort of). After his (second) indictment, the former president said, “They’re coming after you.” He’s right, if by “they” he meant his right-wing contingent is coming after women, their partners, teens who are struggling with their gender and the parents who love them, people of color and their supporters, librarians and teachers, health providers, Medicaid-insured individuals, performers who make a living as drag queens, the entire LGBTQ community, police officers who defended the U.S. Capitol, immigrants and their families fleeing abuse and poverty, and even members of our military.

Oh yes, they are coming to get us. Fueled by hatred in words and deeds, MAGA followers convince themselves they are the ones wronged like their leader. As Chris Christie said (better late than never), maybe Trump and his followers should look hard in that mirror, just like the wicked queen in Snow White, and face reality before it is too late for all of us.

Patricia Ford Roegner, Glen Mills

Gov. John Carney’s extreme proposal to ban the sale of new gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles in 2035 will fundamentally change how Delaware travels. This shortsighted proposal also contradicts the beliefs held by the majority of Delawareans, who vehemently oppose these efforts as they cannot afford electric vehicles. They also know this proposal will eliminate thousands of family-sustaining union jobs throughout the region and bolster foreign adversaries who control EV production.

Following the announcement of this proposed mandate, the auto industry noted that EVs barely make up 3.75% of Delaware’s new vehicle sales and that sales would need to increase by more than 5,000% to meet this requirement successfully. The hard truth is that EVs are not affordable enough for everyday consumers, and this misguided mandate puts the Northeast’s few remaining independent refineries and the union jobs they support at risk. Since 2019, the East Coast has lost as much as 70% of its total refining capacity. Now more than ever, we cannot afford to let these vital facilities shutter, jeopardizing the nation’s energy security.

Banning traditional vehicles ignores real-world issues concerning EV cost concerns, threatens thousands of good-paying union jobs, and forces America to rely more on imported fuel. The Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control must reverse course on its dangerous car ban and protect Delaware families who stand to be harmed the most by its effects.

Michael B. Hackendorn, business manager, Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 74, vice president, Delaware Building Trades

The spirit of liberty, in Jonathan Zimmerman’s column, contradicts the spirit of truth. The “central” issue to protesting the Moms for Liberty is not quite as Zimmerman poses. What if the free speech of an organization is not objectively true? That is, evidence exists to prove they are making false and misleading claims. What if the free speech of an organization demeans and demonizes other groups? Do we let members of the Moms for Liberty shout fire in a crowded theater? Once upon a time, the U.S. Supreme Court thought that was not an acceptable use of speech. What then is the proper form of protest against the organization when a public protest is impotent? The organization continues to spew untruths and disinformation, and that is not acceptable.

The proper way to protest constitutionally is to not officially offer such organizations a stage. Don’t inhibit them from making their own stage and shouting their nonsense. Just don’t invite them to my neighborhood museum for an event. Forcing such an organization to defend its claim, such as targeting LGBTQ-themed books as “grooming,” is a debate, not an assertion. Perhaps such literature falls under the notion “all people are created equal?” How do they argue against that? We can debate book censorship when the censorship is based on political, racist, or demeaning points of view. But what we cannot debate is hate and people who hate.

William Saidel, Cherry Hill

There was a missed opportunity in the recent Inquirer Q&A with Palestinian American chef Anan Jardali Zahr to bring together two diaspora communities who are perceived to be in tremendous conflict because those with whom they share ethnicity are in conflict thousands of miles away. The subject of this piece could work side by side with the celebrated Israeli chefs of Philadelphia to create and talk about food traditions that transcend ethnoreligious conflict and borders, physical and otherwise.

Instead, the piece mentions the alleged Israeli appropriation of Palestinian cuisine, mirroring the discursive playbook of Palestinian hard-liners who have zero interest in a two-state solution. It’s ours, say the radical activists. It’s all ours. We share nothing. Everything and anything that influences this land is, always has been, and forever more shall be, from the river to the sea, Palestinian. Therefore, any part of Jewish culture that bears any resemblance to our own — instead of underscoring the fundamental human similarities between us — must’ve been stolen.

It doesn’t take an anthropologist to understand the obvious: Arabs and Jews have both lived on that most contested strip of land for thousands of years, with culinary traditions developing alongside one another, intersecting and comingling with enough frequency for each to materially inform the other. Claiming otherwise is an exercise in bad journalism and bad faith.

Matt Silver, Ventnor, silvmatt@gmail.com

Join the conversation: Send letters to letters@inquirer.com. Limit length to 150 words and include home address and day and evening phone number. Letters run in The Inquirer six days a week on the editorial pages and online.