Thursday, April 12, 2012

Proud of My Country & Mrs. Romney

Proud of My Country & Mrs. Romney
Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
April 12, 2012

“His wife has actually never worked a day in her life. She’s never really dealt with the kind of economic issues that a majority of the women in the country are facing in terms of how do we feed our kids, how do we send them to school,” said lobbyist and Democratic pundit Hilary Rosen of Ann Romney, wife of presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney.

Rosen, also an advisor for the Democratic National Committee, stirred up a firestorm with her incendiary and insensitive remarks about the values of stay at home moms who make the sacrifice, albeit of their choosing, to put a career on hold or even abandon it entirely for the supremely more important JOB of raising children.

Children that are the next generation of American citizens to further the American dream, the American way of life and extol the virtues of freedom, capitalism and democracy. And one of the best ways to produce such potentially stellar citizens – future leaders, doctors, nurses, lawyers, teachers, soldiers, engineers, and yes, the next generation of stay at home mothers, is by having a parent at home to raise the children – not day care or nannies, which some deem necessary to having children.

This is not a condemnation of working women, but instead, a deleterious lifestyle brought about by permissiveness and irresponsible behavior – by men and women alike.

Some women say they must work in order to support their children. While they are working, they are spending a huge percentage of that salary to pay for others to raise those children. Trade the salary for raising the children themselves and it’s a virtual financial wash. If you can’t afford children, don’t have them until you can.

Government, and more specifically former President Lyndon Johnson’s so-called Great Society, allowed for a welfare check to replace a father in the home. Thus began the great descent into the rising percentages of out of wedlock births and the expectation that government would provide for the children when the single mother didn’t.

Reality dictates that a two-parent family is better equipped to provide for the needs of children. With the loosening of morality in the United States and teenaged parents being glorified on cable television along with single-parent families more the norm than the exception, there is a level of expectation by society that government owes these people something of a life and a living. There is a paucity of personal responsibility.

According to Fox News in 2008 there were 5.3 million stay at home moms, down to 5.1 million in 2009 and down yet again in 2010 to five million, with 23 percent of married couples with children under 15 years of age having a stay at home mom.

And, when a woman such as Ann Romney decides to stay at home and raise her five sons, there is criticism by women such as Hilary Rosen that Romney’s way is archaic and Rosen’s is the accepted norm. Yet, Romney did not take to web, blogosphere or editorial pages to condemn Rosen’s lifestyle as a single lesbian raising her adopted children. Instead, Romney, in her classy style, took the high road.

“She should have come to my house when those five boys were causing so much trouble,” said Romney, as she chuckled when asked her gut reaction to Rosen’s comments. “It wasn’t so easy.” The Romneys have been married 42 years with five children and 16 grandchildren.

“Ann Romney is one of the smartest, hard working women I know. [She] could have done anything with her life, [but] chose to raise me,” said Josh Romney of his mother, via Twitter.

“My career choice was to be a mother. We need to respect choices women make,” said Romney adding that she respects the choices other women such as Rosen made of being both a parent and having her career. “And let me give a shout out to all those dads at home raising kids – this is obviously an awesome responsibility. To me it’s the most important thing we can do,” said Romney.

“Mitt said to me, your job is more important than mine,” continued Romney, adding that while Mitt was earning money, he admitted that his job was temporary, telling his wife that her job is a forever job. “So he had perspective on this,” said Romney. “Mitt respects women who make those choices.”

Addressing Rosen’s claim that the former Massachusetts governor seems old fashioned when it comes to women and that “he doesn’t see us as equals,” Ann Romney shot that notion down quickly, noting her husband’s chief of staff when governor was a woman as was his lieutenant governor – Kerry Healy.

“Women are talking about economic issues,” said Ann Romney, adding that the economy is weak with a huge debt burden “that will strangle our kids.” Women are also talking about their own job security as well as the security of their husbands’ jobs, she said, noting that Mitt is “listening and he cares.”

Ann Romney reminded Rosen that, while not financial, “I have had struggles in life. We care about those people that are struggling.” A survivor of breast cancer and fighting the ills of Multiple Sclerosis, Romney wants to find cures of these diseases and no doubt will make those her signature issues should she ascend to the White House as First Lady.

Ann Romney defined the 2012 presidential election as “a battle for the soul of America.”

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

Wednesday, April 4, 2012

Is Obama Intimidating the Supremes?

Is Obama Intimidating the Supremes?  
Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
April 3, 2012

No, Diana Ross has nothing about which to worry. But perhaps Obama himself does, in light of demeaning, disrespectful and ignorant remarks toward and about the current members of the High Court as well as its treasured history.

For better or worse, the Supreme Court is the final word pertaining to legal disputes, and contrary to Obama’s description, the court is an equal branch in the federal triumvirate of the legislature, executive and judiciary.

In slamming the Supreme Court over the possibility of rejecting his signature piece of legislation known infamously as Obama-care, Obama expressed shock “that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.” This is both rude and disrespectful, but not out of character for Obama, who lashes out at anyone or any entity that dare challenge his will.

Obama also wrongly stated that his health care plan “was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” The margin of victory, two years ago, prior to the GOP sweep of the House, was a mere 219-212.

So outrageous is it that a three-judge panel from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has ordered the Obama Justice Department to pen a three-page, single-spaced, minimum, specific answer to “whether the administration believes judges have the power to strike down a federal law.” ( The administration’s homework assignment is due by noon Thursday CDT.

Treating his office as a monarchy/dictatorship, Obama said it would be unprecedented for the Supreme Court to somehow overturn the will of Congress, demonstrating his ignorance that it could be done at all. This, sadly, coming from a person who graduated from Harvard Law School, was head of the Harvard Law review and taught Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School. This “oversight” is more than just a little disturbing.

In fact, the will of Congress, as Obama stated, has been overturned more than 160 times, by the Supreme Court, according to Fox News. The precedent setting case of Marbury v. Madison (1803) is classic Con Law 101. (

And of course there is the debate over judicial review versus judicial activism. Obama, sensing defeat at the hands of the Supremes come June in what is likely to be a 5-4 verdict with the liberal justices Ruth Bader-Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor siding with Obama and the conservative justices siding with the Constitution. Obama is calling the Roberts court an activist court, which by definition couldn’t be further from the truth.

“Judicial activism is the view that the Supreme Court and other judges can and should (re)interpret the texts of the Constitution and the laws in order to serve the judges’ own visions regarding the needs of contemporary society…. [J]udges assume a role as independent policy makers or independent “trustees” on behalf of society that goes beyond their traditional role as interpreters of the Constitution and the laws.” (

The liberal justices are seeking to uphold an unconstitutional policy requiring the American people to purchase a product as demanded of them by the federal government – health insurance. This is direct violation of the Commerce Clause as indicated in the Constitution.

The conservative justices, Samuel Alito, Chief Justice John Roberts, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, by declaring Obama-care unconstitutional will be exhibiting judicial restraint, the opposite of judicial activism by using their power of judicial review.

Judicial review is the “power of the courts of a country to examine the actions of the legislative, executive, and administrative arms of the government and to determine whether such actions are consistent with the constitution. Actions judged inconsistent are declared unconstitutional and, therefore, null and void.” (

Government should be less intrusive in the people’s lives, not more; and as such, the use of judicial review to strike down legislation that reaches too far into the people’s private lives is both appropriate and expected.

However, Obama, forever seeking greater governmental authority over the people’s lives called it a “surprising reach” for the High Court to consider rejecting his legislative baby. This coming from the same so-called leader who referred to Obama-care as “not an abstract exercise,” while all but referring to the Constitution as “abstract.”

That Obama could refer to the Constitution as “abstract,” is demonstrative of his complete lack of understanding of the purpose of this document as well as its significance. The genius of the Founding Fathers was such that this founding document, aside from the Bill of Rights, has been changed but a mere 17 times, and considering prohibition and its repeal cancelling each other out, 15 times.

The Constitution is the foundation of what makes the United States a great nation and no president will be allowed to destroy it and replace it with a system of anti-business, anti-free market socialism where the government steals from its citizenry in an effort to provide for the illegals, shiftless and ne’er-do-wells. It is incumbent upon us to send Obama a message that this will never be tolerated, and that message must be sent this November 6 as we the people reclaim our nation.

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