Wednesday, February 24, 2016

Obama Wrong to Close Gitmo

Obama Wrong to Close Gitmo
Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
February 24, 2016

In yet another disastrous decision Barack Obama announced the closing of Guantanamo Bay detention camp (Gitmo) that has been incarcerating enemy combatants since its inception in January 2002.

“This is about closing a chapter in our history,” said Obama on Tuesday. In closing Gitmo and continuing to release captured terrorists, many of whom return to the battlefield, as well as planning to relocate others to the US mainland, it will only further remind people of the devastation visited upon New York City, Arlington, VA, and Shanksville, PA on a beautiful late summer morning 15 years ago.

The September 11, 2001 chapter in American history will no more be closed than the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 will ever be closed. Indelibly etched in the hearts and minds of Americans of all ages and stripes, closing Gitmo will only serve to remind people of the feckless nature of Obama and his administration. An administration that refuses to call the enemy what they are – Muslim/Islamic extremists and/or radical Muslims – even when they themselves, in the form of ISIS/ISIL call themselves the Islamic State.

During his announcement Obama linked himself to former President George W. Bush and Arizona Senator John McCain, both Republicans; by saying they too supported the shuttering of Gitmo. Unfortunately, both Bush and McCain were just as wrong as Obama remains today. Obama said that former bipartisan support for the closing of Gitmo turned into a partisan issue. That’s because those in favor of retaining Gitmo for the purpose of imprisoning the enemy seeking to kill Americans, Christians, Jews, and otherwise destroy the fabric of Western Civilization, got a clue, saw the light, and understand how dangerous these savages are.

Closing Gitmo “reflects our best thinking,” said Obama. Obviously, he is not thinking clearly at all. Only 91 detainees remain in Gitmo, said Obama, noting that 85 percent of the more than 800 have been returned to other countries. What Obama failed to indicate in his whitewashing of the story, is that many of the detainees have returned to the battlefield to continue their bloodthirsty quest of torture, car and bus bombing, beheading, and even immolation of those they deem infidels. Such “infidels” have recently included Christian children wanting to play soccer, Jewish mothers and children innocently riding buses in Israel, and Muslim children listening to so-called modern music.

Obama then attempted to make the case by saying there are “only 91 detainees” remaining in Gitmo, when he was guilty of releasing most of them in the first place. Of those, 35 are to be transferred to other countries – countries, that Obama said need to have strong security measures. How will Obama know? To which countries will these terrorists be sent? What assurances does he have? Such a thoughtless decision runs counterproductive to the continuing fight against terrorism, yet Obama said “we’ve examined all the options.”

How about the option of keeping Gtimo open and never having released the first terrorist?

Instead, Obama announced these terrorists will likely have new addresses in Colorado, Kansas, South Carolina, and six military bases, which he said would save money and lower costs by about $85 million a year. Save money by not building soccer fields for the terrorist prisoners. Save money by not giving terrorists cushy-tushy lives heeding to their demands for special food and housing conditions.

“The left portrays Gitmo as Treblinka with palm trees,” said Col. Ralph Peters on Fox News Wednesday morning. These terrorists have 300 channels of satellite television, a 20,000-plus book library, healthcare rivaling that which American citizens PAY for, thousands of video games, legal representation – all paid for by we the people – the taxpayers of the United States of America. The living conditions of these terrorists are far better than they would ever have in their third world toilets of countries. There are American veterans living on the streets who should be treated better than these terrorists, but they are not a priority to Obama. What is a priority to Obama is having normalized relations with Cuba as a legacy item.

Obama also advised that one of the most effective options is via the federal court system. These are enemy combatants, not common criminals – terrorists who want to see us, as a whole, dead, and Western Civilization a distant memory – just as they are attempting in Europe with the destruction of Christian religious antiquities.

On the very day Obama made his myopic announcement a former Gitmo detainee was arrested in Spain for plotting terrorist attacks. Also within hours of Obama’s statement Republican presidential hopefuls Senator Ted Cruz (TX), Senator Marco Rubio (FL), and Donald Trump decried it as misguided and dangerous, calling for Gitmo to not only remain open, but expand its numbers of terrorist detainees. On the flip side, and demonstrating their utter lack of understanding of this situation, both Democrats seeking their party’s nomination, Hillary Clinton and Senator Bernie Sanders (Socialist-VT) fully support Obama’s plan. As a former Secretary of State Clinton should know better, but her record proves otherwise.

Call your House members. Call your Senators. Implore them, politely, to block the closure of Gitmo and make the lives of those confined there less comfortable. Call 202-224-3121 for the Capitol switchboard. There is far too much at stake as this nation is at a crossroads with the White House up for grabs, and now, due to the untimely passing of judicial giant Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court also hangs in the balance. It is imperative that we the people make our voices heard now more than ever.

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

Friday, February 12, 2016

Cruz Campaign Lacks Christian Compassion

Cruz Campaign Lacks Christian Compassion
Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
February 12, 2016

Full disclosure, I support Senator Ted Cruz for President. The Texas Republican is the right brand of conservative supporting fiscal responsibility, is pro-life, staunchly an ally of Israel, and understands the United States Constitution better than most. Liberal jurist Alan Dershowitz has oft-praised Cruz’s constitutional acumen. The 2016 election is one of the most vital in generations as the next president may well have the responsibility to appoint three or four people to serve life terms to the Supreme Court.

That said, the Cruz campaign did its candidate a disservice, even in the Palmetto State of South Carolina boasting of a plethora of Evangelical Christian voters, by pulling the television advertisement that included amongst its cast a woman who acted in what are being labeled soft-core adult films.

Amy Lindsay, a Columbus, Ohio native raised in Houston, Texas, called herself a conservative Republican in more than one interview, and is hedging between Cruz and Donald Trump for president. Lindsay graduated from the University of Texas in 1995 majoring in journalism with a drama minor. Her film credits are predominantly in the realm of “late night Cinemax,” as one interviewer noted. She also appeared in the television crime drama Silk Stalkings, as well as more mainstream films Star Trek: Voyager and The Portrait of a Lady.

Lindsay responded to a casting call for actors for the political ad and earned a speaking role in the spot that aired one time prior to being pulled when she was noticed and identified for her previous film works.

“Unfortunately, she was not vetted by the casting company. Had the campaign known of her full filmography, we obviously would not have let her appear in the ad,” commented a spokesperson for the Cruz campaign, according to the Independent, a British publication.

Why is that “obvious?” Should a rehabilitated adult actress be punished for her previous choices and not be cast in any future work? Would not that relegate her to nothing but adult-themed roles? Why is Lindsay less qualified to appear in the Cruz commercial than any of the other actors?

And what of the person or people who “outed” her? If they are so virtuous how did they know who she is? What’s in their video library? Are they so perfect and pious that they can sit in judgment of Lindsay? Who are they to judge when they themselves are no doubt mortal, fallible people. Have they no regrets of their own past? Even if Lindsay does not regret her previous roles does she not deserve the same chance at mainstream work? If not, have they not condemned her to a life of unsavory options? Or even on the government dole – something Republicans claim they seek to eliminate? Can’t have it both ways.

For those who condemn Lindsay’s prior work as sinful, doesn’t their Christian faith preach to condemn the sin, but love the sinner? Where is their so-called Christian compassion? Lindsay seems to have not let this affect her adversely. When asked if her castigation is unchristian, she said, “I don’t think it’s unchristian. I think this is politics as usual.”

Have these so-called Evangelical Christians forgotten the story of Mary Magdalene? This sinner, some sources suggest repentant prostitute, touched the cloak of Jesus and was overcome by the power of G-d. The Apostles were supposedly disgusted that such a sinner would touch their savior, but Jesus welcomed Mary Magdalene. She purportedly washed Jesus’ feet with her hair and became a devout follower of Jesus remaining with him beyond his crucifixion.

If Jesus accepted Mary Magdalene, and these so-called fervent followers of Jesus accept him as their savior, should they not accept Amy Lindsay into the fold as well? What would Jesus do, is a common question asked by Christians. Would Jesus have shunned Amy Lindsay? He accepted Mary Magdalene, not to mention the lepers he cured according to the Book of Luke.

Amy Lindsay is an actress who may actually vote for Ted Cruz. She could bring supporters into the fold for the Texas Senator. Cruz himself should order the advertisement be reinstated as part of the campaign. He should meet Lindsay to offer an apology because those who reject her for her prior works, which broke no laws, are pompous hypocrites. She has a right to work and she earned the part. The Republicans claim to be a big tent party. It’s time the GOP open all its flaps, welcome its supporters, and be humble while walking with G-d.

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

Monday, February 8, 2016

More Hyphenated -isms from the Dems

“There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other.” – Madeline Albright, former Secretary of State in support of Hillary Clinton

More Hyphenated –isms from the Dems

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

February 8, 2016

Another Ronald Reagan “There you go again” moment where Democrat Party hypocrisy is concerned as former Secretary of State Madeline Albright pigeon-holed an entire gender and relegating many to the infernal Hades simply for making the choice of not supporting Hillary Clinton for president.

At a campaign event supporting female candidate Hillary Clinton – Albright started it – Albright said “There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other.”

Hmm. Is Clinton running to be president of the United States of Women or the United States of America? Are voters to be issued pink and blue ballots on Election Day so the women will vote for Clinton and the men will vote for Vermont Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders? Does Albright, who is really not all bright, want the campaign to be run based upon gender and not the issues? Perhaps she does, for that may be the only way Clinton would win.

Based upon Albright’s assertion, where was she before Saturday night’s Republican debate demanding that former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina be allowed to participate in that event? Why didn’t Albright cry sexism on ABC for excluding the woman who outpaced Governor Chris Christie and Governor John Kasich in Iowa just five days earlier? Where is Albright’s endorsement for Fiorina in the GOP primary? Right – women should only help other women if they are liberal, progressive, Socialist, or Democrats.

How much help did Clinton give the multitude of women claiming abuse and sexual assault by her husband while he was governor of Arkansas as well as the occupant at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue?

“Shame on Madeline Albright and Hillary Clinton,” said Fiorina, citing the pandering, patronizing attitudes of these two women, assuming women voters are not able to think for themselves. I thought Democrats believed in choice.

Choice of candidate? Not according to Albright and Clinton. School choice? Nope – not Democrats. They must control the future electorate through the brainwashing of the failing public school system. Medical choice? Not there either – the government knows better as Obamacare dictates to the people there as well. Let’s not forget had Clinton had her way as First Lady Hillarycare would have been the law of the land long before the birth of the behemoth currently in place. The only choice Democrats embrace with any alacrity is the choice to murder their own babies.

And just how helpful to other women is Clinton, not just pro-choice, but a supporter of partial birth abortion and abortion on demand? Is it helpful to women to support the right to murder their unborn child? Women supporting abortion are not supporting the birth and life of the next generation of women.

Using Albright’s logic, all cranky white men should vote for Sanders. All Jewish voters should cast their ballots for Sanders. All Hispanics should split their votes for Texas Senator Ted Cruz and Florida Senator Marco Rubio. All black voters should cast their ballots for Dr. Ben Carson. I guess pasty white guys should be voting for Governor Jeb Bush, Christie, or Kasich. How should black women vote Mrs. Albright? Should they vote with their gender and Clinton or with their race and Carson? Such the conundrum.

This is typical of the Democrats – segregate the people by their hyphenated backgrounds. I’m an American, not a hyphenated-American, and I vote for who I determine to be the most qualified candidate regardless of race, religion, or gender. What Albright bellowed for on the campaign trail with Clinton is nothing less than pure, unadulterated sexism. These are not the methods of the Republicans – the real party of the people – the American people.

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