Wednesday, April 30, 2014

NBA Commits Foul on Capitalism, Free Speech

NBA Commits Foul on Capitalism, Free Speech
Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
April 30, 2014

The NBA and its new commissioner, Adam Silver, have dealt capitalism and free speech a black eye with the lifetime ban imposed upon Donald Sterling, owner of the Los Angeles Clippers.

In addition to the lifetime ban, Sterling was also saddled with a fine of $2.5 million, the maximum allowable as per the NBA Constitution, and Silver indicated he would push to force the sale of the Clippers. The fine is negligible – roughly equivalent to $50 for Sterling, worth over $1.9 billion. The lifetime ban means Sterling can have no contact with players, or anyone else affiliated with the team, he may not attend games, play any role in transactions or drafting rookies, or anything else the NBA deems “contact.”

The harshness for which Sterling is being penalized comes on the heels of audio tape released just several days prior to Silver’s declaration with Sterling carrying on in a racist screed – telling his girlfriend/mistress not to attend “his” games with blacks and not to post photographs of herself with blacks on social media. Sterling further verbally eviscerated blacks in ways that might make a Klansman blush right through his hood.

But knowledge of Sterling’s unsavory opinions has been common knowledge for years, which begs the question, why now? Why has the world exploded in outrage now? Has Sterling changed his stripes since his 2009 housing discrimination case that cost him $2.7 million? (Yet another drop in the bucket to Sterling.) This is demonstrative of the NBA’s hypocrisy for not attempting to rid itself of Sterling, the league’s longest tenured owner, years ago.

Just as big a piece of hypocrisy is the NAACP, set to honor Sterling for the second time, with a lifetime achievement award but has since rescinded the honor. Yet, the civil rights organization continues marching forward with its plans to honor Al Sharpton, a racist in his own right, originally on the same dance card with Sterling.

The brash owner of the Clippers may be despicable for his views and opinions, but the First Amendment to the United States Constitution gives Sterling the right to be such a rapscallion. (

What is really daunting and quite frankly more than just a bit frightening, is that Sterling’s words were uttered within the confines and supposed privacy of his own home. Is the sanctity of a person’s home as his castle a faded memory for the dustbin of history? Is a person not free to say as he wishes behind closed doors?

There has been some debate regarding the procurement of the recordings. Did Sterling ask his girlfriend/mistress to record him because he claimed he was becoming forgetful? Did she do so under her own volition, thus, in California, making those recordings illegal? That may seem to be less than a minor point to those seeking Sterling’s head on a stick, as well as to those wanting to separate Sterling from his personal property – the Clippers basketball team.

Therein lies just part of the problem. Does anyone with any public standing now need to couch every utterance in a politically correct manner for fear of loss of livelihood? And what will be next, after racist rants? Will the ethnic jokes told at home cause people to lose jobs, income, and future employment? What about remarks about a person’s sexuality or gender? Are people only permitted to have opinions approved by the so-called tolerance cabal in the United States?

Why is acceptable for NBA players to use language worse than that of Sterling without castigation or forced retribution? After all, black ballplayers toss around the word “nigger,” akin to the word hello. NBA Hall of Famer Kareem Abdul-Jabbar took exception to these pronouncements. “I think black Americans should avoid using that word,” said Jabbar. He also said the current generation of players needs to be reminded what things were like during the Civil Rights Movement and challenges blacks endured.

And as for the potential loss of his team, Sterling should fight this as far as he can take it – he certainly has the resources, and he should do so if for no other reason, than principle. For while the NBA owners, according to its constitution, can force Sterling to sell the Clippers, with a three-fourths vote, the United States Constitution supersedes an NBA or corporate constitution.

How is it that Sterling can be stripped of his legally owned property simply for having privately uttered his opinion? Granted it is a distasteful and unacceptable opinion, but having distasteful and unacceptable opinions is not against the law.

With Sterling’s Clippers in the playoffs, an anomaly for this team, their value is sure to continue to rise. Currently worth an estimated more than $550 million, Sterling could reap a huge profit, considering he has owned the team since 1981. But money is not the issue with Sterling at this point; after all, the octogenarian has just become a pariah in his own league – persona non grata and if he chooses, he can make life difficult for the other owners and the image of the league as a whole just by dragging the NBA through the court system.

Dallas Mavericks’ owner Mark Cuban, while supporting the decision by Silver and the NBA, also expressed concern for a potential slippery slope. He questioned the length to which the league could go under any circumstance, and not just meting out the punishment for Sterling’s assumed offenses, but denying people their rights or attempts to commandeer their property.

This situation could have been self-correcting by letting the free market speak for itself, and not some imposed mandate. With Sterling still atop the Clippers’ corporate chart, advertisers would continue to abandon ship, as has been the case over the past four days. Fans would boycott the team, nary a ticket would be sold, and revenue would evaporate where food, beverage, and merchandise would have filled the coffers. Current players would demand trades, but who would want to play for the Clippers? How many rookies could be lured to Los Angeles and how productive could an all-rookie team be?

All or any combination of those variables would probably cause Sterling to sell the team under his own volition, and not because it is demanded of him. The vox populi would have spoken loud and clear, and short of driving the value of the team below the San Andreas Fault, Sterling would sell the remaining pieces for scrap.

Until the free market weighs in, Sterling is a victim, albeit one for whom one should not feel sorry, but one entitled to the same rights as every other American citizen. If Sterling’s livelihood be taken away for offering up his private thoughts at home, how far away from the thought police can this so-called civilization be?

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

Tuesday, April 29, 2014

Ignorance Should Be Kerry's Ouster

Ignorance Should Be Kerry’s Ouster
Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
April 29, 2014

“A unitary state either winds up being an apartheid state with second class citizens or it winds up being a state that destroys the capacity of Israel to be a Jewish state.” – US Secretary of State John F. Kerry

There’s that magic word, that lightening rod, much akin to calling someone a racist – apartheid. That Kerry would suggest Israel could become such a state is demonstrative of his sheer ignorance; his abject lack of knowledge of history of both apartheid and the Middle East.

For all the clamor for Kerry to resign, make no mistake, he will not be asked to step down by Barack Obama because Kerry speaks for Obama, represents the administration, and this has long been the belief of Obama, who has also proven to be obtuse pertaining to Israel and Middle East affairs. Remember this is the same Obama suggesting Israel return to its pre-1967 borders, an absolutely moronic notion. And the same Obama who appointed Chuck Hagel Secretary of Defense and Samantha Power US Ambassador to the United Nations – both virulently anti-Israel. And the same Obama who rudely disrespected Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on a recent visit to the United States.

The outrage against Kerry’s words has been bi-partisan – from Senator Mark Begich (D-AK) and Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) on the left to House Minority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), US Representative Michele Bachmann (R-MN), Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), and Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) on the right.

“Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East and any linkage between Israel and apartheid is nonsensical and ridiculous,” said Boxer.

Begich’s statement nailed it spot on, saying Kerry’s remark “implies Israel should ignore the pact between [Palestinian President Mahmoud] Abbas and the Hamas. Last time I checked, the U.S. didn’t negotiate with terrorist organizations and we shouldn’t expect the Israeli government to either.”

Kerry’s pronouncement that Israel needs to come to some sort of an agreement with the Palestinians completely exhibits his complete obliviousness to the continuing fact that, call them whatever you prefer, Hamas, Hezbollah, Palestinian Authority, or any other group, their main goal – it’s the several charters – is to eliminate Israel and the Jewish people. To wipe them from the face of the earth.

There is no negotiating with people whose end goal is total annihilation. There is no two-state solution with a people who first and foremost want the total eradication of a specific people and nation. Would the United States partner with an enemy that is a known terrorist group? Of course not. Neither should Israel.

As for the notion that Israel is in any way, shape, or form inching toward an apartheid state, that is ludicrous. Israel affords more rights – civil and legal to Arabs than any Arab nation. Women and gays have more rights and freedoms than in any Arab nation. Literacy and graduation rates, income, as well as medical availability and coverage are higher in Israel than in any Arab nation. There are even Arabs in the Israeli government and Supreme Court. Apartheid? Not even close.

“The use of the word ‘apartheid’ has routinely been dismissed as both offensive and inaccurate, and Secretary Kerry’s use of it makes peace even harder to achieve,” said Cantor, then calling on Kerry to “apologize to the Israeli government and people.”

Senator Cruz not only took Kerry to task but went a step further. “I fear with these most-recent ill-chosen remarks, Secretary Kerry has proven those concerns well founded. Secretary Kerry has thus proven himself unsuitable for his position and that before any further harm is done to our alliance with Israel, he should offer President Obama his resignation and the President should accept it.”

For all his attempted back-tracking, Kerry offered nothing productive toward the peace process that, as long as annihilation is on the table, will never come to fruition. A two state solution is not the answer. Those who wish to live peacefully in Israel, under Israeli laws should be able to continue to do so. As for the so-called Palestinian peoples/Arab refugees, they should have been absorbed by the dozens of Arab countries decades and generations ago when they chose to flee Israel upon its founding in May 1948.

But for political purposes, they were not. Claims have been made that the land of Israel is “Palestine,” when in fact were the Palestinians to have a homeland it should be what is present day Jordan.

Yes, Kerry should resign because of his ignorance and inability to be the kind of Secretary of State the United States needs in dealing with friend and foe alike. As continues to be typical of the Obama administration, friends are too often admonished and foes bowed down to. Kerry’s suggestion of apartheid is deleterious to US-Israel relations as well as how other nations see and treat Israel. Even the hint is too much and Kerry must pay the price for the sake of diplomatic relations and the future of the Middle East peace process.

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

Monday, April 28, 2014

Donald Sterling - Tarnishing Only Himself

Donald Sterling – Tarnishing Only Himself
Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
April 28, 2014

Donald Sterling, owner of the Los Angeles Clippers NBA franchise, may not be a nice guy. Seems he is a narcissistic, cantankerous, lecherous, Neanderthal, blowhole, obsequious weasel of a racist, but as of yet, the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States still applies to him.

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,” is oft-attributed to Voltaire. In fact, what he wrote to someone named M. le Riche in 1770 was “I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write,” share the same sentiment.

Ironically, Voltaire was deemed an anti-Semite, but that may be more to the point. The answer to hate speech is not less speech, but more speech. And while folks may not like or agree with Sterling’s words or attitudes, his right to disseminate them remains intact, provided he is not calling for violence (shouting fire in a crowded theater).

The knee-jerk liberal, politically correct, hand-wringing, righteous indignation piling on demanding that Sterling be flogged, have his tongue removed, have his team taken from him, be fined, be banned from not just the NBA, but the planet, is far too over the top. While Sterling’s words are hateful and hurtful, they are not against the law.

The crux of Sterling’s most recent alleged remarks was that he told his girlfriend in a private, yet recorded conversation, not to bring her black friends to his games or to promote her relationships with them on social media. And this is not Sterling’s first ride on the racial bus having been accused of, and paid fines for, discriminating against blacks and Hispanics regarding fair housing practices in 2006.

Believe it or not, something Barack Obama said over the weekend resonated with me, and for those who read me with any regularity, I know you are shocked.

“When ignorant folks want to advertise their ignorance you don’t really have to do anything, you just let them talk,” said Obama, a master at taking his own advice.

Obama’s words make sense, and quite frankly should be all that is necessary. Let Sterling’s words speak for themselves and people will opine with their wallets. Will season ticket sales rise or fall due to his words? Will sale of Clippers merchandise rise or fall due to his words? Will advertisers clip the Clippers due to his words? This should be self-correcting - not mandated by outside forces such as the race hustlers.

Perhaps all the players on his team will seek to leave the Clippers and play elsewhere – that is their choice – if they can find a loophole in their contract. The players are just as entitled to offer their opinions, as they did prior to Sunday’s game by dumping their warm-up jackets to reveal tee-shirts turned inside out hiding the Clippers’ logo.

Hall of Famer Magic Johnson said he would not attend another Clippers game as long as Sterling is the owner – he is speaking with his wallet and there are many who admire Johnson and will follow suit.

The words from two USA Today sports writers also kicked in with their indignation calling for Sterling’s banishment, but they are both wrong on several levels.

Nancy Armour prefers to put the cart before the horse, shoot first and ask questions later, if at all in her screed “Easy Decision: Ban Sterling.” (April 27, 2014) She called out new NBA Commissioner Adam Silver saying he failed his first big test by not suspending Sterling.

Silver correctly said that “all members of the NBA family should be afforded due process and a fair opportunity to present their side of any controversy.”

Armour continued her cart-horse assassination of Sterling writing that there are no “sides” to this, and that “Silver should ban him from the NBA immediately. And permanently.” Should that disqualify anyone from a team ownership because they might have a distasteful opinion according to what is popular or politically correct?

Sam Amick went farther than Armour in his “NBA Must Stand Firm,” by dragging Sterling’s wife into the mix. “…the wife of the shamed Sterling, Shelly, made the inane and insensitive choice to not only attend the game but sit in her standard seats – directly across from the team on which 12 of 14 players are African American.” (April 28, 2014) As is head coach Doc Rivers.

What does Shelly Sterling have to do with this? The allegedly offensive remarks were not even made to her, but instead to Donald Sterling’s girlfriend – who happens to be a minority. The salacious simply increases the story’s sleaze factor, as Amick went on to describe Shelly Sterling’s game day wardrobe, including interpreting what it might mean.

Amick further wrote that “…Sterling simply must get the message that he is no longer wanted in these parts.”

Other Hall of Famers such as Michael Jordan, current owner of the Charlotte Bobcats, and Charles Barkley, now an NBA TV analyst, both weighed in, not surprisingly, calling for Sterling’s permanent ouster from the fraternity of team owners. So too did Hall of Famer Elgin Baylor, a former Clippers General Manager, who called the environment of the team a “plantation mentality.”

If Armour, Amick, the host of NBA players past and present, and Obama are entitled to their opinions, why isn’t Sterling – as controversial as they may be?

But remember, Sterling pays his players, coaches, and staff – they are not volunteers, indentured servants, or slaves. He wants a winning team. A winning team sells more merchandise and puts more tuchuses in the seats buying overpriced food and beverages. Let the chips fall where they may through natural progression – perhaps all advertisers will take their business elsewhere – Los Angeles is a big city with other sports teams – even within the Staples Center.

Bottom line is, Donald Sterling owns the Los Angeles Clippers, and the league cannot take that away from him without violating his rights. They may try, and the legal skirmish will no doubt be as ugly as Sterling’s opinions, but that is the price paid for living in a reasonably free society. In fact, Sterling is the longest tenured owner having purchased the team in 1981.

While this is not much ado about nothing, more is being made of it than ought to be as this story is dominating the news cycle when there are bigger fish to fry. The death of veterans waiting to receive medical care is an outrage of epic proportions. Benghazi, the IRS scandal, poisonous food being imported from China, the Ukraine, as well as Holocaust Remembrance Week are all infinitely more important from the perspective of societal ills and national disgraces.

Donald Sterling may be a 14 karat schmuck, but the First Amendment still protects his right to be so and Barack Obama’s words should be heard, reminding people that Sterling’s words should speak for themselves. Any calls to strip Sterling of his team and deny him his livelihood are simply un-American, going beyond what even George Orwell could have imagined.

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

Sunday, April 13, 2014

Holder's Race Card Deflects from Bigger Issue

Holder’s Race Card Deflects from Bigger Issue
Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
April 13, 2014

Like Aesop’s little boy who cried wolf, Attorney General Eric Holder is once again crying racism, this time before the friendly audience of Al Sharpton’s National Action Network. Holder’s woe is me act is beyond long in the tooth and the more he and Barack Obama shout racism, it dilutes its actual power when it is necessary as well as deflects from more urgent issues.

Make no mistake, racism is not dead in the United States – it would be foolish to suggest that it is. That would be nice, and sure, that is the dream, but unlikely to ever become reality – but not for a lack of trying. Racism will likely never die in this nation, but this is still the country that elected a black man – Barack Obama – twice.

But as Holder claims racist treatment with the left side of his mouth, there is the slight of (hand) lip while attempting to deny rights to law abiding Americans with the right side of his mouth. He claims “unprecedented, unwarranted treatment.” Holder continues to obfuscate, delay, and outright deny Congressional committees and the American people true testimony pertaining to the IRS scandal as well as other incidents.

Holder and his Justice Department have turned a blind eye to voter fraud, voter intimidation by the New Black Panther party – see Pennsylvania 2008, while claiming he is being singled out because of the color of his skin. This is utter bilge that Holder would accuse the GOP of treating him infinitely harsher that his predecessors simply because he is black. Along with the above mentioned issues, could it be that Holder’s pronouncements are his attempt to deflect from a bigger, more incendiary problem?

The 2nd Amendment: Friend of the Patriot, Foe of the Despotic Administration

United States Constitution, Amendment II: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” (Ratified December 15, 1791)

At 27 words, and for 223 years, the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is one of the shortest and one of the most important. In no uncertain terms it guarantees the right of the people – the American citizen to take appropriate, legal measures to possess firearms.

Yet, AG Holder, who already behaves as though he is above the law – a proven failure by the likes of better men, such as Richard M. Nixon – is determined to criminalize guns, legal gun ownership, and legal gun owners. He proposed a bracelet/GPS-type monitor for gun owners and guns themselves for the government to monitor and track.

G-d forbid the government should actually do its job, and pursue the real criminals instead of marking the legal, law abiding owners of firearms for potential prosecution and clearly for persecution. Legal, law abiding gun owners do not need tracking by the government, nor do they deserve such a violation of their right of privacy or a violation of their Fourth Amendment rights of illegal search and seizure. The potentiality of a wrist monitor – a la a criminal’s ankle monitor – smacks of a warrantless search. Such a tracking device seems akin to stalking. This seems beyond unreasonable.

It is positively frightening, but not surprising, that the Second Amendment continues to endure such assaults by the Obama administration. But this is a classic attempt of a despot, dictator, or authoritarian ruler to control the populous. After all, consider Germany’s Adolf Hitler, Russia’s Josef Stalin, China’s Mao Tze Tung, Uganda’s Idi Amin, and Cambodia’s Pol Pot. They had the collective goal of disarming their citizenry in order to control the lemmings as slaves or lambs led to slaughter by the millions.

Germany was considered a civilized and intelligent society, yet it allowed itself to be overrun by a hoard of fanatical hate mongers with the animalistic taste for blood. Hitler, a charismatic figure who was legally elected, said in 1942, “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared for their own downfall by so doing.” (

The greater the gun control, the greater the gun-related crime statistics pile up. Look at cities like Chicago with one of the strictest gun control policies and people are being slaughtered in Second City. Mayors like Rahm Emanuel are obtuse to believe that keeping firearms out of the hands of the innocent, law abiding citizens will diminish gun violence.

Remember, in order to control the populous, government must strip the people of their ability to protect and defend themselves, their families, their businesses, and their private property. (Then said government takes over health care and outlaws private property.)

Ronald Reagan said it best when referencing foreign policy, “peace through strength.” The same sentiment holds true regarding the safety and security of the domestic population of the United States of America. The Second Amendment ensures all the other amendments remain ensconced in the American fabric. It is up to we the people to ensure the Second Amendment remains the strength that upholds the peace.

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

Monday, April 7, 2014

1st Amendment Stops at Mozilla's Front Door

1st Amendment Stops at Mozilla’s Front Door
Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
April 7, 2014

Once again political correctness and hypocrisy rear their ugly head as the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and the right of free expression is under assault by the extreme left thought police.

The hypocrisy comes from Mozilla, the Mountain View, CA producer of the web browser Firefox for pushing out its CEO Brendan Eich under threats and intimidation and a feckless, gutless inability to stand by its own corporate belief system.

Mitchell Baker, the executive chairwoman of Mozilla issued a completely hypocritical statement. “We know why people are hurt, and they are right: It’s because we haven’t stayed true to ourselves. We have employees with a wide diversity of views. Our culture of openness extends to encouraging staff and community to share their beliefs and opinions in public.”

Not so fast, Ms. Baker.

Brendan Eich was an employee – he did not own the company. Eich has views that differ from others within the company. Eich shared his beliefs and opinions with the public. And yet, he is on the outside of Mozilla looking for another employer simply because he dared have a different set of beliefs. But wait, wasn’t that encouraged? Apparently at Mozilla it is only encouraged if it is popular and politically correct. Otherwise it is frowned upon – virulently.

What heinous sin did Eich commit? In 2008 he contributed $1,000 to support California’s ban on gay marriage. That non job related activity, funded out of his own wallet, not Mozilla funds, has now put Eich on the unemployment line in a de facto firing.

If a person can’t be fired for his or her sexual orientation, how can a different person be forced out of a job for sharing his or her beliefs on that same very subject?

Threats of boycott by an on-line dating service called OKCupid also helped Mozilla push the panic button in shoving Eich out the door.

Demonstrating its hypocrisy was Sarah Kate Ellis, president and CEO of GLAAD (Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders) who issued this statement: “Mozilla’s strong statement in favor of equality today reflects where corporate America is: inclusive, safe and welcoming to all.”

Ellis could not be more wrong. Welcoming to all? Apparently not welcoming to Mr. Eich. No equality for Eich. No inclusivity for Eich either.

On the other hand, if a company can force out its CEO for supporting a belief antithetical to the corporate mantra, that same concept should work just as easily for the Hobby Lobbys of the world. Its ownership, the Green family should be able to fire all the employees who believe contraceptives ought to be part of the corporate health insurance policy. After all, those employees do not share the same belief as the corporate heads, and just as Mozilla forced out Eich, Hobby Lobby could force out those who possess contrary beliefs. Sounds truly dangerous were that to commence nationwide. It should not, nor should Eich be out of a job.

This action by Mozilla sets a scary precedent that anyone could be fired for their off the clock actions, opinions, ideas, or comments. That anyone could be fired if they don’t tow the company line of political correctness. That anyone could be fired for having contrary beliefs. That anyone could be fired for assuming the First Amendment exists within the confines of the corporate boundaries. Shame on them, shame on the lemmings who fall prey to this, most of all shame on America for allowing George Orwell’s 1984 to become reality where the thought police really do put the kibosh on free thinking and free expression. May G-d save the Republic.

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

Friday, April 4, 2014

Fort Hood - Lesson Not Learned

Fort Hood – Lesson Not Learned
Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
April 4, 2014

Fort Hood, Washington Navy Yard, Sandy Hook Elementary School, Sikh Temple (Oak Creek, WI), Aurora Movie Theater, Fort Hood, and Virginia Tech. The bells toll for them. Blood stains littered across America’s landscape have become more common along with a concomitant devaluing of life as a whole having become less disconcerting.

Once again tragedy has struck a “gun free zone.” While now may not be the most optimum time to lay blame as the nation mourns a second slaughter at Fort Hood in Killeen, TX, if not now, then when.

Certainly the liberal, anti-gun crowd will decry a lack of gun control as the reason Fort Hood is once again bleeding as Ivan Lopez, 34, an Iraq war veteran murdered three innocents before turning the gun on himself. Yet, that is precisely the reason for the unnecessary deaths of three American soldiers and wounding of 16 more on Wednesday, April 2.

Army Sgt. Danny Ferguson, 39, of Florida, Army Sgt. Timothy Owens, 37, of Illinois, and Staff Sgt. Carlos Lazaney Rodriguez, 38, of Puerto Rico were the victims whose names should be long remembered instead of that of the killer’s.

Because of a Clinton administration decision, Federal law, via the Department of Defense dictates that military bases are “gun free zones.” The same is true of all the aforementioned sites. Undoubtedly President George W. Bush could have pushed for a repeal of this misbegotten law. But more responsibility falls on the narrow shoulders of Barack Obama who could have demanded its revocation following the November 5, 2009 terror attack at Fort Hood by Nidal Hasan. Yes, that’s right, terror attack, not that weak-kneed, politically correct “work place violence” nonsense traipsed out by Obama for fear of offending Muslims.

“To call it work place violence is disgusting,” said Sgt. Howard Ray, who saved nine lives during the 2009 Fort Hood massacre.

These gun free zones should go the way of the Edsel – and just as quickly. For as long as they exist, members of the military, students and staff at schools, as well as employees and patrons of other such businesses are and will be sitting ducks – vulnerable at such soft targets.

“Our troops are being sacrificed at the altar of political correctness,” said former Navy SEAL Carl Higbie, a Connecticut Republican seeking election in the fourth Congressional District.

Many lives have in fact been sacrificed because the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution apparently is not recognized on military bases or schools. Members of the United States armed forces should absolutely be permitted, nay, required to carry their sidearm on the bases. Schools should be armed by reservists, retired police officers, or retired servicemen.

Clearly, the gun free zone is a concept ignored by the murderers and terrorists who seek to commit mayhem and destroy the fabric of American life. After all, criminals flout the law at every turn and it is the law abiding who suffer. Time is long overdue to turn those tables, reaffirm people’s rights and freedoms and save lives as well.

The continuing saga of mass shootings in “gun free zones:”

April 2, 2014 – Fort Hood, Killeen, TX – three killed
September 13, 2013 – Washington Navy Yard, DC – 12 killed
December 14, 2012 – Sandy Hook Elementary School, Newtown, CT – 26 killed
August 5, 2012 – Sikh Temple, Oak Creek, WI – six killed
July 20, 2012 – Aurora Movie Theater, Aurora, CO – 12 killed
November 5, 2009 – Fort Hood, Killeen, TX – 14 killed*
April 16, 2007 – Virginia Tech University, Blacksburg, VA – 32 killed
*This number includes the unborn baby of PFC Francheska Velez, 21.

At times like this, remember Ronald Reagan’s foreign policy mantra – “Peace through strength,” it is just as effective at home.

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