At the outset, unlike some of my colleagues in the nonprofit sector who are ignoring IRS regulations that prohibit endorsement of candidates, these musings are personal in nature and in no way represent any of the organizations I represent nor the congregation I am privileged to serve. Further, this is simply a plea for our elective acts to be performed solely on relevant facts.
Having said that, I am deeply concerned with the tone and tenor of the campaign for judge of the Allen County Superior Court, primarily because the emphasis has been on personality and popularity at the expense of interpretation and interrogation. As an individual who spends an inordinate amount of time in our felony and misdemeanor courtrooms, I have the unique vantage point of viewing all three candidates on a weekly basis and encourage voters to do the same.
That remains one of the strengths of our democracy, that cases are not decided in private spaces. This would give you the opportunity to ignore all of their paid publicity and focus on whether they are engaging in legal duplicity. How can one intelligently vote without seeing how one presently commands their boat? It seems a bit presumptuous to offer someone your support without ever seeing them function in open court. I suggest the manner in which each of them approaches the docket will reveal the principles they carry in their pocket. At the minimum, ask for a recommendation from someone involved in daily felony litigation.
There's no requirement that you like a judge; the only thing that matters is whether their principles and adherence to the law never budge. It really matters very little to me whether or not a judge is polite; at the end of the day I simply want them to rule right. All I'm suggesting is that the only thing relevant is the nature of their legal temperament. We must consider how the incumbent has ruled from the bench, and how both his opponents have worked to resolve our justice system's stench.
Let's look at how they have served the court instead of focusing on their popularity report, because the position is far too critical to be judged on anything less than the analytical. Let's ignore the endorsements and focus on how they approach the law's enforcement.
Rev. Bill McGillLet me see if I can help you out Mr. Frantz. Some wars are fought to either establish or preserve freedom, as in the American Revolution or the American Civil War. Others are fought when other nations or peoples start killing or threaten to kill Americans, as in WWI, WWII and Korea.
Vietnam was less clear-cut, but considering what happened in Eastern Europe and China following WWII, who in their right mind would have ignored the threat of communism and the so-called domino theory? We were attacked on 9/11 by radicals with training bases in Afghanistan, and all the world believed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction we believed could fall into hands of those who would have used them to kill thousands if not millions of Americans.
I would respectfully contend that, ultimately, all of the wars and military actions listed above were entered into under the same criteria that govern any use of military force by the United States: the need to preserve freedom and national security. Deadly threats must be met with deadly force or the threat of deadly force. What do you suggest we should do? Challenge our enemies to a game of Parcheesi?
MonroevilleThe school board in Collier County, Fla., (Naples area) has announced Bibles do not provide any educational benefit.
Since the Bible has no educational value, I wonder why it continues to outsell every other book on the planet. Many of our founding fathers learned to read using the Bible. On “Religious Freedom Day” every Jan. 16, anyone was allowed to come on school grounds in Collier County after school hours to distribute literature. But this year everyone was welcome except for Christians, because they were passing out Bibles. As the educated school board members know, Bibles have no educational benefits.