Film provides spark for violent actions
The president is faced with a dynamic situation that has expressed itself in the Middle East this past week. This reaction that we see is the result of increasing food costs in states that have growing populations. This film that inflamed the Muslims acted like a match in a gas tank. Skillful propaganda agents of al-Qaida whipped up mobs who then attacked American diplomatic properties.
It is the expressed desire of President Obama to reduce the American military presence in the Middle East. He has ended our military role in Iraq, and seeks to withdraw from Afghanistan in the near future. The military presence in the oil-producing states like Saudi Arabia is downplayed at present. It is hoped by President Obama that the oil needs of other nations such as China, Japan, Indian, South Korea and the European Union will hinder the spread of unrest in the region.
The dynamic nature of chaos then self-organization is at work here. The war against al-Qaida and terrorism is changing into a war between haves and have-nots. This fear on the part of advisers to President Obama has led to an ambiguous policy that defies public expression and confusion as to its purpose.
A sudden shift in policy by President Obama could lead to widespread instability in the Middle East. If President Obama shifts policy from recognition of Muslim economic goals to containment of Muslim aspirations, the world could divide into into economic camps. This could lead states as we know them into self-destruction. Then the idea of private enemies to be preferred to public enemies destroys itself. In this situation, signals are more important than noise.
Ken Kumler, Logansport
Moral foundation should be restored
America’s moral foundation is being shaken! Liberal politicians are spitting in the face of God and biblical moral values by redefining marriage to include homosexual couples. The traditional family is the bedrock of any society.
By writing laws that embrace, legitimize and encourage the deviant lifestyle of homosexual marriage, our government is destroying the moral foundation of our country. God’s people are not helpless to solve this problem. Every Christian should refuse to cast a vote for any political candidate who supports gay marriage. Christian people must stop compromising their biblical Judeo-Christian values at the voting booth by casting their vote for politicians who unashamedly endorse gay marriage.
America’s moral foundation also continues to be destroyed by immoral and unethical politicians who proudly stand for the systematic murder of millions of innocent, unborn children. Our political leaders are elected to serve, defend and protect, and yet many continue to sponsor and vote for legislation that supports and federally funds the murder of our nation’s unborn children. It is unthinkable that any Christian would knowingly cast their vote for a political candidate who is pro-abortion. As Christians, we have a responsibility to act and vote righteously and a pro-abortion vote is not righteous.
If God’s people will act and vote righteously, America’s moral foundation can begin to be restored.
Ben Yantis, Logansport
Donnelly qualifies as real extremist
Extremist? That is a catch word used by Joe Donnelly to describe Richard Mourdock. Donnelly, like Obama, cannot run on his failed record, and failed it did! This is why Donnelly is compelled to mislead and brand his opponent with blatant falsehoods. This is simply a ploy to deceive Hoosier voters by distracting them from the real issues. Frankly, Donnelly should understand that Hoosiers are fully aware, more than most, of the issues plaguing them, as well as the nation as a whole.
Donnelly declared that the stimulus would create 75,000 jobs. In fact, Hoosiers lost nearly 9,000 jobs. Also, Donnelly has what I refer to as an identity crisis; at one time he referred to himself as an “Independent,” and another time he referred to himself as a “fiscal conservative.” Obviously, Donnelly doesn’t know what he is other than an opportunist!
Nevertheles, while Mourdock was fighting to save the pension plans of thousands of Hoosiers, Donnelly was busy in D.C. passing legislation that would ultimately sell Hoosier retirement investments for pennies on the dollar.
Twisting and taking phrases out of context to make a point is apparently the only way for Donnelly to gain favorability among Hoosier voters. For example, Richard Mourdock’s position on Medicare and Medicaid is valid, if one views it through the framework of the Constitution. Mourdock explained that it was a privilege and not a constitutional right and further explained that it would not even exist as a privilege if both parties fail to work in a bipartisan manner to save it now before it becomes insolvent.
Unfortunately, under the Democrats, the expansion of government entitlements has left millions of Americans to deem it as a right and thus dependent on entitlements for their subsistence.
Mourdock, as state treasurer, worked diligently with both parties in his quest to keep Indiana from becoming insolvent and to date, Indiana is one of the very few states that can show what can be achieved if both parties work together for the common good.
In 2009, Joe Donnelly was named “a partner in Congress,” by President Obama. So, Hoosiers, I ask you, would you rather have Richard Mourdock, a proven leader with private-sector experience, or Joe Donnelly, who is just another smooth-talking politician from D.C. with hedonistic tendencies and a voting record that undoubtedly illustrates that he is, in fact, the extremist?
Mike Shepherd, Carmel
Gregg deserves a closer look
I am a Hoosier. Politically I am right of center. I have typically voted to the right, but I have never voted straight ticket. In my opinion, Indiana has always been a moderate state. We have had great senators who were both left of center and right of center. It seems that lately the moderate people on either side are being drowned out by either the far left or the far right.
This year is no different and maybe the worst that I remember. I am writing this not as an advocate of either party, but as a Hoosier who hears constantly about deeply partisan politics.
Everyone should vote on the issues that are important to them. In order to do that, you have to take the time to look at the candidates. Very rarely do you have the opportunity to personally know the candidates that are running for office. This is one of those rare exceptions for me.
John Gregg is running for governor on the Democratic ticket. If I did not know him personally, I might have been too busy to dig into his candidacy and make an informed decision. I might have seen the political party and voted one way or another. Sometimes someone just left of center might be closer to your views than you realize. His views that I find that I agree with are: using Indiana’s coal responsibly, positioning Indiana for a global economy and his willingness to compromise to get to a real solution. What ones might you agree with?
Regardless of how you vote in the national election, please do yourself a favor and see if John fits closer to your values than you expected. I know he fits closer to mine.
Tom Thompson, Delphi