Friday, July 19, 2019

Sanders' Salary Hypocrisy

Sanders’ Salary Hypocrisy
Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
July 19, 2019 

“The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” - Margaret Thatcher (1925-2013) British Prime Minister (1979-90)

The trouble with Sen. Bernie Sanders (S-VT) is that he is an enormous hypocrite calling for a $15 minimum wage while not paying his own staff that much. Grassroots field staffers complain they are not being afforded the minimum that Sanders demands of the rest of the country.

Quite frankly, during the ‘80s when candidates would staff their campaigns, most people were just happy to be a part of a campaign, paying their dues as grassroots field staffers barely earning enough money to fill their gas tanks and living half a dozen in a two bedroom apartment. The reward would hopefully come at the end of the campaign with a victory and an invitation to join a Congressional, Senatorial, or even White House staff - working even longer hours for barely what they earned in the field. Some of you are reading this thinking, yeah, those were the days!

Now these young grassroots workers are unionized, making demands that if fulfilled on a nationwide basis could cripple the economy. While the current minimum wage of $7.25 clearly is not enough for a person to live on independently, a sudden boost to more than double that amount will actually cost people their jobs. Based upon an eight hour day, five day week, and 50 weeks of work per year, a $7.25 an hour worker would earn $14,500 before taxes. The $15 an hour employee would earn $30,000, which in quite a few places is still a challenge on which to make ends meet. Costs of living vary from state to state and even within states - New York City versus Elmira for example; Chicago versus Pittsfield; Dallas versus El Paso.

A gradual rate increase would make sense, but it must include qualifiers. Small businesses, size to be determined by the Commerce Department, would be exempt, as should part time, temporary, and seasonal employees. The $15 an hour rate would take effect in 2025, according to the proposal by House Democrats. Incremental raises should be implemented to soften the blow and keep costs and unemployment from rising too drastically instead of a potentially sudden rate increase.

Employers required to pay workers more than double what is currently mandated will cut those costs by eliminating and downsizing their workforce, thus raising unemployment, and ultimately, the need for government to pay greater unemployment benefits to more people, perhaps for a longer period of time. The rate increase could likely see prices rise if some businesses opt not to downsize the labor force. It then begs the question, will the rate increase offset the increase in unemployment and the rise in prices? Economists are divided on that question.

People should earn a living wage, but it should also be incumbent on the job one performs. This is based upon the concept of equal opportunity, not equal outcome. Equal opportunity begins with education and it is up to the family and the students to work as hard as they are able to ensure success. There are no entitlements, and affirmative action in education has proven a failure. A fast food worker or coffeehouse barista are literally not brain surgeons and should be paid what the market demands. Athletes and entertainers will continue to make multi-million dollar salaries as long as they fill stadia and theaters with people willing to pay the ticket prices - like anything else, it’s a matter of simple economics - supply and demand. 

Simultaneously, people must live within their means - make coffee and lunch at home instead of spending $5 for Starbucks ® and another $7-10 on food. Shop for new clothes when needed and wait for sales. Let supermarket circulars be the guide for weekly grocery shopping. Maintain vehicles regularly, get as much life out of them as possible. When a car loan is paid off, pay yourself the same monthly amount in savings toward the next car. These are simple ways to economize.

Yet, none of this matters to Sanders, the original socialist from the 2016 campaign. As long as he has the indoctrinated and ignorant from the colleges campuses, he can continue to make the case for more government running and ruining our lives with higher and higher taxes convincing them to vote against their own self-interests. This multi-millionaire, multiple home owner, is a hypocrite of the highest degree. This is not to disparage Sanders’ for his wealth - accumulated out of the pockets of the American people having never held a job not paying him from the people’s coffers - as a capitalist, it is his G-d given right to earn what he can and again, what the market will allow.

How is socialism working out in Venezuela, once upon a time, one of the most successful, thriving countries in both South America and the Western Hemisphere? Or Angola? Or Cuba? Or the former East Germany? Or Vietnam? Socialism fails because it lacks consistency with human behavior. People inherently protect what is theirs - they work for a paycheck and want to keep as much of it as possible -  to spend as they wish and need. People are also generous when they see people in need - to help them as they choose - not as per government dictates. Take more money from people in taxes, the first to suffer, charitable contributions as people still have the necessities in their lives of paying mortgages/rent, electric, phone, cable, tuition, grocery bills. With more money in their pockets, people are more generous. It is government that needs to pare back and stick to what the Constitution requires.

Sanders can pay his people $15 an hour or not, but those employees knew their salary when they were offered the job. That doesn’t make Sanders any less a hypocrite who clearly does not understand economics. Pay no attention to the talking heads discussing their candidates seeking the Democrat nomination. Listen to the actual words of the actual candidates - they are far more truthful and dangerous.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and educator living in Westfield, IN.

Tuesday, July 9, 2019

The Holocaust is a Fact, Principal Obvious

The Holocaust is a Fact, Principal Obvious
Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
July 9, 2019

After only a half year of the moronics that is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and the anti-Semitism that is both Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) plaguing the United States Congress, there comes now all rolled into one, William Latson of Florida.

No, Latson is not a Congressman. He is far more dangerous - a high school principal - or at least he was until he was secretly spirited away to environs still unknown. Latson is a gutless moron, perhaps too stupid to be an anti-Semite, but until March and April of 2018, he apparently was able to fly under the radar as the principal of Spanish River a high school serving more than 2,300 students in Boca Raton. Why it took this long is incomprehensible.

A parent, the mother of a Spanish River student who wished to remain anonymous for the sake of her child, texted/e-mailed Latson asking if the Holocaust was being taught at the school. The simple answer should have been that Holocaust education is mandated in the Florida public schools, of which Spanish River is one.

Instead, Latson e-mailed the parent that Spanish River had “a variety of activities” for Holocaust education, without specifying any, adding, the “lessons are not forced upon individuals as we all have the same rights but not all the same beliefs.”

What is G-d’s name is that supposed to mean? Are students allowed to opt out of the class if they don’t believe the Holocaust as historical fact? If a student believes the earth is flat, he or she allowed to opt out of a geography class? If a student doesn’t believe in proper spelling and punctuation, can he or she opt out of an English class? This is a level of insanity even a teacher’s union could not have dreamed up.

Apparently the mother felt likewise as she was flummoxed regarding Latson’s response and wanted further clarification. “The Holocaust is a factual, historical event. It is not a right or a belief,” she wrote back.

“Not everyone believes the Holocaust happened. And you have your thoughts, but we are a public school and not all of our parents have the same beliefs,” came Latson’s even more incredulous response. Continuing to dig deeper, Latson wrote to the mother, that “as an educator [he] had the role to be politically neutral but support all groups in the school. I can’t say the Holocaust is a factual, historical event because I am not in a position to do so as a school district employee.” 

This is disturbing beyond words and reality. Politically neutral? Who was Latson afraid to offend? Anti-Semites? Supporting all groups in the school? To whom was Latson catering - the Holocaust deniers club? The Neo-Nazi association?

Latson’s remarks were obtained by The Palm Beach Post via a public records request.

“All students in every grade level in the district are taught a historically accurate Holocaust curriculum, one which leaves no room for erroneous revisions of fact or the scourge of anti-Semitism,” said school board chairman Frank A. Barbieri, Jr.

“It is incredibly concerning that someone charged with educating children would be unable to speak unequivocally on the realities and horrors of the Holocaust,” said Senator Rick Scott (FL-R), via Twitter.

Tell General Dwight D. Eisenhower, later president (1953-61) the Holocaust was not real as he and American and Soviet troops liberated concentration camps. Tell it to the local citizens in Germany, Poland, etc., forced to clean up what they allowed to occur.

Almost 10,000 people signed an on-line petition calling for Latson’s ousting. Latson has been reassigned to an unspecified district position, according to BuzzFeedNews - yet, still a paid employee of the school district. Akin to reassigning a priest to a new Diocese for questionable behavior. Let them be someone else’s problem, yet they are still a problem without a solution.

The school district said Latson “made a grave error in judgement,” and demanded he “further expand the Holocaust curriculum at Spanish River.” At the time, Holocaust education was reduced to reading Elie Wiesel’s Night, while it was nebulous why the variety of activities referenced above somehow never managed to come to fruition. Additionally, Latson spent several days at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in an effort to become more educated on the subject.

So, basically, a vacation, a reassignment, no loss of job or career, and no punishment for Latson who continues drawing a paycheck from the taxpayers of Florida for being both ignorant and a moron.

While Latson later apologized for his choice of words, a person in his responsible position requires more than a modicum of education, and certainly knowing the Holocaust is a historical fact is, at a bare minimum, basic information for which there can be no denying. For this level of ignorance and insensitivity, Latson should have been relieved of his position in the school system, not simply reassigned to sweep his inactions and words under the rug.

Had a principal deigned to suggest that not everyone believes American slavery as a historical fact, no question he or she would be on the unemployment line - and rightfully so. Facts are facts and remain irrefutable. One plus one will always equal two. It’s wrong to hear people applaud others for “speaking their truth.” There is only one truth - not a liberal truth, not a conservative truth, not a black truth, not a white truth - believe it.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and educator living in Westfield, IN. He is also a charter member of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.

Tuesday, July 2, 2019

Who's Running Nike?

Who’s Running Nike?
Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
July 2, 2019

Independence Day is approaching in these United States, except for Nike, which apparently can not or will not break free from football has been Colin Kaepernick. 

The sneaker company’s new launch, the Air Max 1 Quick Strike, adorned with the Betsy Ross flag, has been struck down due to the opinion of one anti-American, hypocritical malcontent. The flag, featuring 13 white, five-pointed stars on a field of blue in the upper left corner, and the traditional 13 stripes - seven red and six white dates back to the Revolutionary War-era. 

Kaepernick claims the Betsy Ross flag offends him because it is used by an alleged white supremacist group. Additionally, Kaepernick said the flag offends him as it comes from a time of slavery, according to The Wall Street Journal. Based upon that “logic,” only flags dating from 1865 would be acceptable to Kaepernick? Anyone offended by the American flag should not live in the United States.

And by the way, the Betsy Ross flag was the flag of the American colonies when the British surrendered at Saratoga. Additionally, that same flag adorned both of the Obama inaugurals, so evidently he did not see it as a symbol of racism. Old Glory is a symbol of unity, under which Americans of all colors, creeds, and orientations served and fought. This includes Crispus Attucks, a patriot of African and Native American descent, believed to be the first person killed in the Boston Massacre (March 5, 1770) and thus the first person killed in the Revolutionary war.

Nike’s long-standing slogan is “Just do it.” Kaepernick says just don’t do it, and Nike falls to its knees shuddering in a most cowardly manner, deferring to Kaepernick, giving him more power than he deserves. Nike folded like a cheap tent in an effort to pander to Kaepernick and his minions.

In a statement explaining why it pulled the shoes, Nike said it did not want to “unintentionally offend and detract from the patriotic holiday,” believing Kaepernick holds sway over more people than those who would purchase the Air Max 1.

Kaepernick is certainly entitled to his First Amendment right of free speech in expressing his opinion about Nike’s use of the Betsy Ross flag. Similarly, everyone else has the same rights afforded by the First Amendment to condemn Kaepernick and/or Nike. If Nike had any guts, it would stand up to Kaepernick, praise Betsy Ross, and defend the use of an American flag. Just because a supposed white nationalist group co-opted the Betsy Ross flag does not make it permanently theirs. Nike should commandeer the flag back to the side of the good and deny the evil its appropriation.

Yet, according to the Anti-Defamation League’s Mark Pitcavage, the Betsy Ross flag does not appear on its extensive list of hate symbols it tracks. “The Betsy Ross flag is not common among white supremacists,” said Pitcavage, a senior research fellow with the ADL’s Center on Extremism.

Arizona Governor Doug Ducey (R) rescinded a $1 million tax incentive for a Nike factory in the Grand Canyon State. “Instead of celebrating American history the week of our nation’s independence, Nike has apparently decided that Betsy Ross is unworthy, and has bowed to the current onslaught of political correctness and historical revisionism,” Tweeted Ducey. Ducey’s office later confirmed the cancelation of the $1 million from the Arizona Commerce Authority Competes Fund.

“The Betsy Ross flag is now a symbol of White Nationalism and slavery? Not defiance against a distant monarchy? PC madness is accelerating just in time for 2020,” Tweeted co-host of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” Joe Scarborough opposing the Nike decision. 

If Kaepernick doesn’t like the sneakers, he should not buy them. Who the hell is he to dictate what a corporation sells or does not sell? Let the free market system decide. Both Kaepernick, an attention whore who hasn’t suited up in the NFL since 2016, and Nike have embarrassed themselves. Stop giving Kaepernick a forum and perhaps he’ll quietly slink away. 

One of the great aspects of the United States is freedom of choice. I have exercised my right to shun Nike since they made the mistake of giving Kaepernick a platform, and will continue to speak with my wallet by shopping elsewhere. Celebrate your economic freedom by exercising your right to exercise in anything but a pair of Nikes. Happy Independence Day, my fellow Americans.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and educator living in Westfield, IN.

Wednesday, June 26, 2019

Eliminating College Debt Eliminates Personal Responsibility

Eliminating College Debt Eliminates Personal Responsibility
Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
June 25, 2019

“And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country.” 

It’s sad the author of those words need be identified, yet 58 years seems like ancient history to today’s students whose collective knowledge of American history is dismal at best. John F. Kennedy spoke those words on January 20, 1961 in his inaugural address the day he swore to uphold the Constitution as the 35th president of the United States.

The then liberal Democrat would probably be considered a conservative by today’s standards, or lack thereof, of the Democrat Party. Kennedy probably would not even recognize today’s Democrat Party that seeks to redistribute wealth, reduce health care to a single payer, non-competitive system, reduce free speech to what they believe, dominate the educational system through socialist indoctrination, strip gun rights from honest gun owners, raise taxes, thwart entrepreneurship via more stringent regulation, and punish success.

The Democrat Party of the Millennial generation is not about serving this great nation, but instead is about what can it get for free. The two dozen Democrats seeking their party’s nomination for 2020 are in an all out battle of who can out Socialist each other. Leading that parade, as he has been pounding that drum the longest and loudest, is Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders (S) with his mantra of free college for all and how Wall Street will be responsible for paying the $1.6 trillion in student loan debt.

While I fully support the notion of more affordable education costs, I also support more affordable housing and automobile costs. It would be nice to dine at five star restaurants, visit five star hotels, and own a private plane as the daily course of existence. But we live in the real world with a free market system, competition, and personal responsibility. With Sanders’ Utopian fantasy, he would remove the notion of personal responsibility from people’s lives giving them what they want with the so-called rich footing the bill.

Most of the rich got that way via hard work, education, invention, talent, and creativity. Most paid their dues climbing the corporate ladder, providing great service to grow a business they started, serving great food, being great singers, dancers, ballplayers, and/or rising through the ranks in a professional field. The American dream is not dead, but it is being taxed and regulated to the point of being on life support.

This outrageous notion of absolving people of their student loan debt is not only irresponsible, but it teaches them that personal responsibility is inconsequential. No one forced students to incur massive amounts of debt to go to school. Students knew what they were doing when they made the choice to accept the terms and conditions of these loans. And isn’t that what Democrats, liberals, and progressives clamor for - choice? 

Be fiscally responsible - attend a community college for a year or two and complete prerequisites and non-major coursework. Live at home. When transferring to a four-year school, again, choose prudently and opt for an in-state institution. Major in subject matter that won’t leave you wondering why you can’t secure employment following graduation. There are myriad ways of keeping college costs to an almost reasonable amount. Apply for scholarships and grants.

To be fair, were government student loans to suddenly dry up and disappear, colleges would have no choice but to lower tuition rates. This is also about supply and demand and there are plenty of schools complicit in the runaway student loan debt “crisis.” (Everything is a crisis, according to liberals, except the genuine crisis of the illegals running amok invading the southern border of the United States.) Don’t forget, cancelling student loan debt does nothing to lower the cost of college. In fact, it will simply be the impetus for universities to raise their prices - and further implicate them in this rampant pattern of irresponsbility.

Universities could reduce costs by limiting the abundance of food offered in their dining halls. They could offer numerous so-called student services on an a la carte basis, instead of rolling them into tuition costs - athletic fees, health/medical centers, workout facilities, etc. Does anyone actually parse their tuition bills for these hidden costs and fees? It’s akin to interpreting a cell phone or cable bill.

If a student is the picture of good health and never sets foot in the campus medical center, why pay for it? Students should be subject to those costs on an as needed basis - just like visiting a doctor off campus - with insurance and a co-pay. For those who suggest that all students pay the same fees for that service whether or not they take advantage of it, that’s called socialism. Same with the athletics fees - some people spend four years on campus and never once set foot in a football stadium or a basketball arena, yet they are paying for others to do so.

Then there’s the almost usurious rates of interest the government and private lenders heap upon students. While lenders certainly have the right to make money - that’s what keeps them in business - interest should be capped at five percent and only be compounded upon the commencement of student remuneration after graduation. Instead of saddling students with such high rates that reach double digits, go after the scofflaws who default on their loans and punish them, not those who make their payments on time.

Why eliminate college loan debt? Why not eliminate car loan debt? Why not eliminate mortgage loan debt? If students can attend colleges with costs beyond their ability to repay, why not sell Rolls Royces to everyone, regardless of their ability to pay, instead of selling them a Saturn. Why not sell people houses they can’t afford… oh, wait, that failed in the last decade. It’s called personal responsibility and living within one's means.

Next, former students who paid for college on their own and/or completed their loan payments are going to demand a refund on all that money - and why shouldn’t they? Why are the irresponsible being rewarded?

And just who will pay for those rewards? We the people. Sanders said Wall Street will pay the freight, but that simply means the taxpayers. How many of us have already been to college and paid our bills and now we are expected to pay for those who are either irresponsible with their finances or with the choices they made on campus. My children are in college - that’s our responsibility - not the taxpayers - they have their own responsibilities.

By absolving students of their college debt, in effect, the millions of students who have paid their loans diligently are being punished for doing the right thing. This is the same liberal, progressive M.O. of punishing the success of hardworking Americans with higher taxes. The slothful are rewarded, while the industrious pay the price. This is backward thinking, yet this is the work of the liberal progressive. JFK would hardly approve.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and educator living in Westfield, IN.

Tuesday, June 18, 2019

AOC is an Insensitive Moron

AOC is an Insensitive Moron
Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
June 18, 2019

On the very far outside chance Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez actually reads this, I will use simple language to say that she is an insensitive moron.

“The United States is running concentration camps on our southern border - that is what they are,” said US Rep. Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY). “The fact that concentration camps are now an institutionalized practice in the land of the free is extraordinarily disturbing,” she continued in an Instagram on Monday, June 17.

What is extraordinarily disturbing is that those are Ocasio-Cortez’s actual words - comparing migrant detention centers to Holocaust concentration camps where millions of Jewish people were murdered simply for being Jewish. Such chutzpah!

There are stark differences between an American detention center and Nazi concentration camps. Migrant detention centers in the Unites States are housing refugees and/or asylum seekers - people who have chosen to flee their country of origin specifically heading to the United States, when they could seek refuge in many other countries. These people were not forced to come to the United States, they are not being held beyond their will - they are free to return to their country, nor are they being forcibly put to hard labor, tortured, or murdered.

Concentration camps, some constructed as labor and/or prison camps, but mostly designed as death camps to slaughter, en masse, entire populations of Jews as well as gays and Gypsies. More than seven million were murdered. Millions of Jews were forcibly deported from their legal residences where they were citizens in the various European countries they inhabited. Tens of thousands of Jews were arrested on false charges of various so-called crimes and remanded to concentration camps never to be seen again by their families and friends. Concentration camps held millions of Jews beyond their will with inhumanely less than adequate food, clothing, and medical attention. Jews were tortured for no reason, shot for no reason, stripped naked for the amusement of guards, heads shaven - hair to fill pillows, skin tattooed - skin used for lamp shades, the victims of medical “experiments,” then ultimately gassed to death and incinerated in crematoria as part of Hitler’s plot to rid the world of the Jewish people.

The people held in detention centers are receiving food, health and medical care, opportunities for exercise, reading materials, and are not being tortured and murdered. This may not be the most ideal circumstance for these migrants, but it is vital that they be vetted and a determination made whether or not they are a national security risk or if they should be permitted to remain in the United States. They are not prisoners, but they must be detained to insure the safety of the American people while their background is under investigation. After all, the United States is a sovereign nation and has the absolute right to determine who is permitted within its borders. Because there are so many people flooding the southern border of the United States, it will take a lengthy period of time to thoroughly complete the vetting and investigations.

For Ocasio-Cortez to call these detention centers concentration camps is demonstrative of her complete lack of knowledge of history - both American history and Holocaust history. Her words, intentionally chosen, are disgraceful and an insult specifically to Holocaust survivors, demeaning the memories of the six million Jews slaughtered, and offensive to the Jewish community as a whole. Ocasio-Cortez, who has not visited the border or a detention center, is ignorant. Has she ever learned anything about the Holocaust? Comparing President Trump to Hitler also proves how little Ocasio-Cortez knows about history.

Ocasio-Cortez is also offending the members of the Border Patrol who are working difficult jobs under very challenging circumstances. “It’s disgusting to compare concentration camps to what the men and women are doing here protecting our country,” said Art Del Cueto, vice president of the National Border Patrol Council. “It is definitely a slap in the face to a lot of those people who had family members who actually went through concentration camps,” continued Del Cueto. Del Cueto offered to personally escort Ocasio-Cortez through a detention center to prove the level of humane treatment the refugees are receiving while awaiting their vetting results and asylum hearings.

It is careless and irresponsible for Ocasio-Cortez, who supports the dismantling of ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement), to use such language, particularly when those Holocaust survivors had precious little option in their disposition. If she really wants to point fingers, crack open an American history book and lay blame at the feet of President Franklin Roosevelt (D) for the internment, from 1942 through 1945, of between 110,000 and 120,000 Japanese-Americans in concentration camps via his Executive Order 9066. 

For more recent history, don’t forget Barack Obama (D) had detention centers, only the Obama-friendly media did not shine the light of day on them as they do at present. Why are there more people seeking asylum in 2019? Perhaps more people are trying to enter the United States because of a stronger economy and this country is simply a better place then that of their countries of origin. Plus, more people have been trying to enter the United States before stricter immigration laws are enacted.

Regardless, none of that excuses Ocasio-Cortez and her insensitive and ignorant use of language. She owes numerous apologies - to Holocaust survivors and the members of the Border Patrol at the very least, but such apologies would be disingenuous at best. Ocasio-Cortez continues to engage mouth prior to engaging brain and has many lessons still to learn.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and educator living in Westfield, IN. He is also a Charter Member of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, DC.

Thursday, June 6, 2019

Remembering D-Day - 75 Years Later

Remembering D-Day - 75 Years Later
Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
June 6, 2019

Against seemingly insurmountable odds, fighting an enemy so vicious, the survival of civilization and all humanity were at stake, Allied forces, under the leadership of General Dwight David Eisenhower stormed the beaches at Normandy on June 6, 1944 in one of the greatest displays of bravery in the history of mankind.

D-Day; the Longest Day; Operation Overlord; Omaha Beach; Pointe du Hoc - all synonymous with the largest amphibious assault over the English Channel into France to fight the battle proving to be the turning point of World War II - the battle and war for the soul of humanity - and that is not hyperbole.

“These were people who knew they were going to die,” said President Donald Trump, speaking on the 75th anniversary of this battle that should never be forgotten and should be seared into the minds of every freedom loving person on the face of the earth. The first wave off the essential, yet little remembered Higgins Boats, suffered severe casualties in a necessary push enabling the succeeding waves of military forces to triumph in their vital quest.

Eisenhower, Supreme Allied Commander, sent his troops off on the all-important mission with these words: 

“Soldiers, Sailors, and Airmen of the Allied Expeditionary Force: You are about to embark upon the Great Crusade, toward which we have striven these many months. The eyes of the world are upon you. The hope and prayers of liberty-loving people everywhere march with you.

In company with our brave Allies and brothers-in-arms on other Fronts you will bring about the destruction of the German war machine, the elimination of Nazi tyranny over oppressed peoples of Europe, and security for ourselves in a free world.

Your task will not be an easy one. Your enemy is well trained, well equipped, and battle-hardened. He will fight savagely.

But this is the year 1944! The tide has turned! The free men of the world are marching together to victory.

I have full confidence in your courage, devotion to duty, and skill in battle.

We will accept nothing less than full victory!

Good luck! And let us beseech the blessing of Almighty G-d upon this great and noble undertaking.”

The complete text of Eisenhower’s speech: 

The level of bravery and valor exhibited by the men who stormed the beaches at Normandy on June 6, 1944 is virtually unmeasurable and incomparable to any other battle - and that is to take nothing away from every man and woman who has worn the uniform past or present. Yet D-Day veterans themselves downplay their own heroism in typical Greatest Generation stoicism - “the heroes were the ones who never came back.”

But Eisenhower understood their importance with his pre-battle words. And he would later walk through the depths of hell when liberating Nazi concentration camps, where “conditions of indescribable horror prevail,” Eisenhower wrote to George C. Marshall. Eisenhower’s invocation of prayers and of G-d also demonstrated the visceral importance and urgency of the times.

President Franklin Roosevelt also offered a D-Day prayer, which he read over national radio. 

On the 40th anniversary of D-Day, June 6, 1984, at Pointe du Hoc, President Ronald Reagan also offered prayers of thanksgiving and praised G-d in one of the great speeches of any presidency. 

President Trump also invoked G-d in his speech this morning - something no one should be afraid to do. Part of the greater problem from which the United States, and quite frankly, the world suffers, is straying from a belief in G-d. The D-Day messages transcend the battlefields. There are battlefields here at home in the United States - gang wars, invasions at the border, the life and death debate over abortion (it’s murder) and more than a modicum of prayer is most definitely needed. There are no atheists in foxholes nor on final exam days!

“You are among the very greatest Americans who will ever live. You are the pride of our nation. You are the glory of our republic and we thank you from the bottom of our hearts,” said Trump, speaking before more than 170 World War II veterans at the Normandy American Cemetery and Memorial where 9,388 Americans are laid to rest. Their sacrifice should not have been in vain. Trump’s full speech: 

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and educator living in Westfield, IN. His cousin Seymour was killed in the Battle of the Bulge in Belgium and maternal grandfather Leon worked on the Manhattan Project.

Friday, March 22, 2019

2020 Democrats Shunning AIPAC

2020 Democrats Shunning AIPAC
Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
March 22, 2019

It seems these days that the Democrat hopefuls for president in 2020 are taking their marching orders from beyond the far left, in the likes of and Code Pink, and shame on them for doing so, as they are squandering an important opportunity.

Both of these fringe leftist operations have petitioned, demanded, and cajoled, to great effect, 16 Democrats to shun the upcoming AIPAC Policy Conference being held in Washington, DC Sunday through Tuesday, March 24-26. AIPAC has been in the news quite a bit lately, thanks to the false accusations leveled by US Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN). 

AIPAC - the American Israel Public Affairs Committee - is a 501(c)(4) bi-partisan advocacy organization founded in 1951 promoting strong relations between the United States and Israel. ( Don’t confuse the PAC in AIPAC with a PAC - political action committee, which far too many people do. AIPAC, of which I am a proud member, does not endorse or contribute to political candidates. Some of my most conservative friends are members of AIPAC, as are some of my most liberal friends. AIPAC truly exemplifies what bipartisanship is all about and perhaps Congress could take a few lessons there.

The following Democrats are slated to speak at the AIPAC conference: Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD), Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), US Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY), and US Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY). While I do not endorse their politics, I applaud them for planning to speak at AIPAC, and for understanding the importance of such an organization - that of furthering a strong and fruitful relationship between the United States and the only democracy in the Middle East, Israel.

On the other hand, the ever growing list of Democrat candidates seeking their party’s nomination, matches the list of those choosing to eschew the upcoming AIPAC Policy Conference. The who’s who of cowards includes:

US Senator Cory Booker - New Jersey
Former South Bend, IN Mayor Pete Buttigieg
Former San Antonio, TX Mayor Julian Castro
Former US Representative John Delaney - Maryland
US Representative Tulsi Gabbard - Hawaii
US Senator Kirsten Gillibrand - New York
US Senator Kamala Harris - California
Former Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper
Washington Governor Jay Inslee
US Senator Amy Klobuchar - Minnesota
Former US Representative Robert Francis O’ Rourke - Texas
US Senator Bernie Sanders - Vermont - a Socialist masquerading as a Democrat
Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz - a Democrat masquerading as an Independent
US Senator Elizabeth Warren - Massachusetts
Author Marianne Williamson
Former Tech Executive Andrew Yang

With whom are these recalcitrant Democrats attempting to curry favor? Anti-Israelis? Anti-Semites? Anti-Zionists? The candidates certainly want the financial contributions and votes of the Jewish people. And for decades the Democrat Party and its candidates have taken and still take the votes of the Jewish people for granted. 

What do the these Democrats fear? Do they fear the loss of support from far left organizations such as and Code Pink simply for speaking before a mainstream, politically agnostic organization such as AIPAC? Or is it because AIPAC is a Jewish-themed organization? Or is it because President Donald Trump supports Israel, and has been one of its greatest allies since its founding in 1948?

After all, in addition to moving the United States embassy to Jerusalem after decades and numerous administrations promised, then balked at the notion, President Trump just this week acknowledged and supports Israel’s legitimate claim to the Golan Heights, saying “this is about sovereignty and security.”

“After 52 years it is time for the United States to fully recognize Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights, which is of critical strategic and security importance to the State of Israel and Regional Stability!” tweeted Trump.

The Golan Heights, at Israel’s northern border, was captured during the Six-Day War in June 1967 - a war initiated by Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria, culminating in victory by Israel. Israel officially annexed the Golan in 1981.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu expressed his joy in Trump’s support on the Golan. “Trump has made history. He did it again - first Jerusalem,” and then he pulled out of the Iran deal, said Netanyahu. 

Yet, none of this should be relevant, as AIPAC is bi-partisan, and the Democrat candidates should speak at AIPAC because they support the strengthening relations between the United States and Israel. Apparently their hatred of Trump, trumps the alliance between the two countries that will long outlive this administration. Shame on the Democrat candidates for their pettiness. 

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and educator living in Westfield, IN.