News-Sentinel.com Your Town. Your Voice.
Local Business Search
Stock Summary
Dow16563.30-317.06
Nasdaq4369.77-93.13
S&P 5001930.67-39.4
AEP51.99-1.01
Comcast53.73-1.68
GE25.15-0.49
ITT Exelis16.84-0.19
LNC52.39-0.62
Navistar35.17-1.43
Raytheon90.77-1.85
SDI21.21-0.27
Verizon50.42-1.34

Letters to the editor

Thursday, October 25, 2012 - 12:01 am

Morris should be voted out of Indiana House

This letter is for mothers and fathers and former leaders of the Girl Scouts of America, and other voters who appreciate the positive value of the Girl Scouts for young girls in our community and the whole state of Indiana.

If you are a voting resident of state House of Representatives District 84, you will have the opportunity to vote for Lee Jordan, a moderate, reasonable and sensible candidate for House District 84. Therefore, now is the opportunity to defeat and retire Rep. Bob Morris from the House.

On the occasion of the Girls Scouts of America's 100th anniversary Morris made a proclamation stating that the Girl Scouts are a radical organization that promotes homosexuality. And abortion. Later he sent his views to the media in Washington, D.C., which reflected badly on the whole state of Indiana and its citizens.

I urge you to recognize proudly the Girl Scouts and their long history of their positive work with our youth by selecting Lee Jordan for the Indiana House of Representatives District 84 on Election Day Nov. 6.

Jack Spindler

New SACS candidates are highly qualified

In this year's Southwest Allen County Schools election, voters can cast their votes for three new, highly qualified candidates for school board: Joe Greco, Jason Kuchmay and Meagan Milne.

Not only are they responsible parents, they possess outstanding professional credentials. When elected, expect them to be fiscally diligent and to work tirelessly for the SACS constituency to avoid unnecessary expenditures while maintaining very strong commitments to quality education in every SACS district school.

This election offers a special opportunity to introduce fresh faces to a very long-sitting board. The current board has become unresponsive to public input, projecting at its meetings a “we-know-best, you-know-nothing” attitude. I personally witnessed the president of the SACS board admonish a concerned parent who asked a very responsible question about board budget process at the early October meeting. The board president answered the concerned parent's question in this way: “Sir, this is a meeting held in public, not a public meeting.”

Remarkably, the SACS board president made his statement shortly after requesting a motion to open the meeting for public comment on the budget, then asking for a second on that motion, which he received, and then asking for a board vote to open the meeting to public discussion, which he also received.

The challengers to the SACS board incumbents would promote fiscal responsibility, transparency and openness. They would address the very important issue of SACS board conflicts of interest, and they will listen to and improve communications with the SACS community of families.

Three of five school board seats are on the ballot, and all SACS voters can vote in all three races. Two of the SACS board incumbents, elected first in 2000, have never faced a challenger. A third person, defeated in 2010 after serving eight years on the board, seeks to rejoin her former trustees.

If re-elected, these three candidates would continue terms that, when combined, exceed 44 total years as seated SACS trustees. That's way too long for any school district to go without change. Instead of dated incumbents, we have the unique opportunity on Nov. 6 to elect three new, well-qualified, competent board members possessing bright, fresh energies and family-centric philosophies. We owe it to every SACS district child not to pass up this unique opportunity.

More information is available on their respective websites: Joe Greco, www.josephagreco.com; Jason Kuchmay, www.kuchmay.com; and Meagan Milne, www.milneforschoolboard.com.

John Nolan

Leadership is our weak link in the chain

It has been a month since the president's personal representative and three diplomats were brutally killed in Benghazi (Libya). Yet, the American people still do not know what happened to them. Officials of the administration, from the top down, downplaying the bloody attack disregard the facts that are now clear to everyone but those who took an oath to “protect and defend the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

Yes, the ground upon which the four Americans were killed was infecting U.S. soil. Yet, the vice president still ignores the facts, and with a grin on his face hides behind those who serve our country anonymously in dangerous places, for what?

The V.P. and the president are on the same ballot, expected to think alike and lead alike as one is only a heartbeat away from the other. So why is there double talk, conflict of explanations and hiding? There can be only one explanation to the confusion. That is, if the American people would be told in a timely fashion of the truth, they would surely demand an appropriate action in response to the atrocities committed against our country and against those who serve. Of course, the administration knew who and how this attack took place. We have one of the best intelligence collection capabilities. But it takes real leadership to use them wisely. That is the weak link in the chain.

I remember that at one time there was a sign in the president's office: “The Buck Stops Here.” I also remember someone stated: “Lead, follow or get out of the way.” Something worth remembering and that sign must be re-instituted on Nov. 6.

God bless America.

Tibor Bierbaum

Third parties more than a 'distraction'

I was highly offended by your editorial concerning third parties in debates. To say that (Libertarian candidate) Andrew Horning was a “distraction for voters who took their duties seriously” insults me and anyone else who believes there might be a better way of doing things.

I could care less if a Communist was being included in a debate. At least it would be an honest inclusion to the transparently lop-sided “debates” that we now have — debates that have degenerated into little more than job interviews. All sides should be able to be heard so that the “voters who took their duties seriously” can decide for themselves.

If you feel you are wasting your vote by voting for a Libertarian or any other third party, just what do you think you are doing

Dan Headlee

Editorial about third parties short-sighted

Your recent editorial “Must third parties be in the debates?” seems rather short-sighted.

While it may be true that the Libertarian Party candidates are not likely to be elected in this election cycle, the ideas they present represent the thoughts of a very significant portion of the voting public. If those ideas are not expressed and debated, this portion of the voting public will feel even more disenfranchised and will drop out of the voting cohort, leading to a vicious death-spiral of the two major party candidates “debating” a smaller and smaller subset of relevant issues.

How can this be good for the long-term health of our society?

Dale Wedel

Democratic Party has changed over years

When did it happen that John F. Kennedy fell from Camelot in the eyes of Democrats? Could you picture any of that bunch at the convention in Charlotte saying:

“A rising tide lifts all boats”

“Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country”

“We will go to the moon ... not because it is easy but because it is hard”?

When I was a kid in the '60s and '70s, people talked in admiration about JFK, not Roosevelt. Bill Clinton wanted to be JFK. LBJ was just a clown.

When Bea Arthur talked with reverence about FDR on “All in the Family,” it was humorous because it was such an anachronism.

Why has the party now gone hard over for central planning and redistribution and lifelong dependence? Ten, 20 or 30 years ago the idea of a candidate wanting to be the second coming of Franklin Roosevelt would have been a belly laugh.

Human beings haven't fundamentally changed in 50 years; the Democratic Party has.

Tom Jaquish

Twelve reasons not to vote for President Obama

U.S. military has been downsized, while Iran is on the verge of nuclear capability.

Four Americans murdered in Benghazi (Libya) after being denied more security — Obama denies it's a terrorist attack for two weeks.

Gave taxpayer money to Solyndra and other green projects that supported his campaign, which went bankrupt.

EPA will dictate the ruin of American coal and natural gas industries. Obama stopped Keystone pipeline that would have created jobs and help U.S. become independent from foreign oil.

Obamacare — a panel of 15 people who are unelected and unanswerable to American people will determine who will get health care and how much.

Obama voted for partial-birth abortion, where a third-trimester baby is deliberately killed during the birth process, and voted against the born-alive bill, so that a baby who survives an abortion is denied any medical care.

Religious freedom that is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights will be denied. Catholic and other religious hospitals, schools, universities, soup kitchens and charitable organizations will be forced to close or pay a “tax.” Took advice from his daughters instead of the Bible to accept and embrace gay marriage.

Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in America, will continue to receive a half-billion dollars of taxpayer money.

U.S. lost its Triple A credit rating for the first time.

Welfare rolls and people on entitlements increasing, rather than being empowered with jobs.

National debt is $16 trillion, families are earning less, gas prices have doubled and unemployment is up since Obama took office.

Got jobs? If the rich get poorer, who will provide jobs? The government doesn't make any money, but takes money from a person who earned it and gives it to another.

This election is a clear choice between good and evil. Your vote will be recorded in eternity.

Joanne Tippmann

Biden's stance on life is a poor imitation of Catholic

Shame on Vice President Biden for not standing up for life and the unborn child (at the debate). He is a poor imitation of a Catholic. The state-sanctioned slaughter of unborn babies should be enough to vote his administration out of business.

The next president will most likely appoint two more justices (Biden's words). Do we want two more liberal justices who will interpret the Constitution as a “living document” subject to change on a whim of the court? That's exactly how we got legal permission to abort 20 million babies in the first place. We are all accomplices.

I want a president who with his Cabinet will not commit to a gun-running folly that involves the killing of two border guards and then keeps it secret.

I want a president who will examine and then revise the loopholes that allow the National Football League's ability to avoid $40 million in taxes.

I want a president who will allow the American public the right to decide whether we want Chinese teachers (paid by the Chinese) to come in and teach our children Mandarin Chinese. They have already found one way they are propagandizing with their lessons by calling America the “aggressors” (costing the Chinese millions of dollars a year, this since 2006). I want a president who will stop calling Social Security an “entitlement” and look in his own backyard at the ballooning salaries, perks, pork and fraud. Congress is still wasting as much money as ever, regardless of the promises. Seems to me theirs are the entitlements.

I want a president who will encourage abstinence so we can stop the increase of illegitimate babies and new “sexually transmitted diseases.” Obama's way is not working!

Jayne Stabler

P.S. The Declaration of Independence says that these truths are self-evident. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness belong to every person. The child in it mother's womb is not part of the mother. The child is its own entity.

Milne good choice for SACS

The Southwest Allen County Schools district, which serves approximately 7,000 students with an annual budget of $65 million, faces challenges requiring an intelligent, experienced and transparent board. Voters have a chance to elect Meagan Milne, an intelligent, experienced, fiscally responsible professional for the “at large” SACS board position.

Milne's background uniquely qualifies her for this position. Raised by teachers, she values education, graduating with highest honors from the University of Illinois. After graduating from Indiana University School of Law, Milne served for over 12 years as a lawyer for four Indiana Court of Appeals judges, including the chief judge. Milne handled hundreds of cases involving school law, employment law, business disputes and contracts with consequences worth millions of dollars or severe criminal penalties.

Milne also has a personal record of commitment and experience, having served as PTO co-president of a Carmel school and on the PTC at both Aboite and Woodside in SACS. As a parent married to a Homestead graduate and having two children now enrolled in SACS, she has immediate knowledge of issues facing students and can best evaluate the practical impact of potential board policies.

SACS hires experienced, qualified people to serve in important roles. Why elect someone lacking relevant credentials to supervise the administration? Milne offers SACS voters an unmatched level of experience, background and commitment to ethical leadership. She is the best choice in this race.

Karen Kirby

Mourdock, not Donnelly, will defend our interests

Joe Donnelly said in 2010, “I am not going to Washington to represent any special interests, extreme political agenda, or be a 'yes man' for anyone.”

Also, while campaigning in 2004 and 2006 he stated, “The debt was one of my top priorities.” Obviously, it is a top priority, as he voted seven times to increase the debt limit while serving as your congressman in the 2nd District. The national debt has increased to a mammoth $7 trillion since Donnelly took office in 2007, thus, to date, outspending every administration combined since its conception.

Also, in a 2011 debate he openly criticized his Republican opponents for raising the debt limit and being “fiscally irresponsible.” Donnelly has proved himself to be a walking, talking contradiction. He'll say and do anything to be the victor; even going as far as accusing Richard Mourdock of saying anything to get elected. In addition, Donnelly blasted the influence of special interest money in campaigns, but since taking office, Donnelly has taken millions from special interest groups: 47 percent of his money has come directly from PACs.

He has received $27,500 from Nancy Pelosi's PAC and $10,000 from Harry Reid's PAC, and within the last few days, Donnelly had received an additional $800,000 from Reid. Unbelievable!

To date, Donnelly has received over $1.4 million in union contributions, in which 14 out of 20 of his top contributors were unions. Could this conceivably be why he voted for the auto bailout, not to save the auto industry or jobs per se as he would want Hoosiers to believe, but rather, truth be known, to collect union dues off the backs of auto workers so he could then preserve his main contributor in order to subsidize his political campaigns?

Remember, Donnelly isn't going to Washington to represent any “special interests, extreme political agenda or be a 'yes man' for anyone” as he clearly stated in 2010 while campaigning for Congress. Mourdock, on the other hand, has openly called for term limits and even stated there is no place in Washington, D.C., for lobbyists or anything of the kind.

Donnelly voted for the health care bill without a single Republican vote, voted for the auto bailout, received thousands of dollars from special interest groups and, lastly, called for and received nearly $32 million in earmarks, which he earlier opposed while campaigning for Congress. Hoosiers, at this critical time in our history; the choice should be clear; let's send Mourdock to Washington, D.C., to defend our values, interests and principles.

Stephen Butler

Ossian

Obama takes a solid step

According to the Alliance for American Manufacturing, we stand to lose 1.6 million auto parts jobs to China if we don't stop their violations of our trade laws.

The Obama administration's recent announcement that it is pursuing a WTO case on autos and auto parts is a solid first step in confronting China with its lawlessness.

We can't stand to lose any more manufacturing jobs in this country. Lots of smart people now agree that unless we bring manufacturing back, we will have a stalled-out economy for a long, long time. Even if you're not voting for Obama, give him some credit for doing the right thing on fighting for manufacturing jobs.

Randy Zollinger,

Woodburn

Voters should look at any other choice but Mourdock

In regard to Linda Zimmerman's letter to the editor in the Oct. 22 News-Sentinel and her support for Richard Mourdock: First of all, he hasn't been all that stellar as treasurer. He lost track of $300 million, not once, but twice in the same year.

His stance on continuing the partisan politics that has slowed the economy

almost to a stall is another reason why Indiana voters should look at any other candidates first before selecting him.

I, personally, do not want him representing me in Washington and would rather he not represent me in Indiana, either.

And, finally, someone should inform Mr. Mourdock that the word Washington does not contain the letter “r.”

Gregg Schmitz

Least we can do is give Obama 8 years to fix this

The great philosopher-historian Will Durant, reflecting on his own mortality, once wrote: “Who would want to live forever — and have to endure a presidential election every four years.” To paraphrase Ronald Reagan’s words to Jimmy Carter in 1980, here we go again!

I’m for Obama. The George W. Bush administration took eight years to get us into this economic mess. The least we can do is give Obama eight years, if necessary, to get us out of it.

By the way, I belong to the 47 percent that Mitt spoke about — all paranoid freeloaders.

Obama’s accomplishments are substantial. He saved the auto industry, so vital to the American economy. He passed a national health plan covering all Americans. Every president since Harry Truman tried but failed.

Now the Republicans want to repeal — or at least eviscerate — that law. He ended the illegal and immoral war in Iraq. He defends the human rights of all Americans — male, female, black, white, gay, straight, Christian, non-Christian, poor, wealthy. He believes in one nation under God with liberty and justice for all.

Obama deserves my vote, and he will get it. Go thou and do likewise.

Jerome A. Welch