Mist-AKIN' Decision to Remain in Race

Mist-AKIN’ Decision to Remain in Race
Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
August 22, 2012

My mother, of Blessed memory, used to say, “when two people tell you you’re drunk, lie down.”

Congressman Akin, Mitt Romney and Karl Rove have spoken.

Congressman Akin, your friend and colleague Paul Ryan has spoken – and to you personally.

Congressman Akin, Sarah Palin has quoted Kenny Rogers when she said you’ve “got to know when to hold ‘em [and] know when to fold ‘em.”

Congressman Akin, your fellow Show Me Staters John Ashcroft, Kit Bond, Roy Blunt, John Danforth and Jim Talent, senators past and present have spoken.

Congressman Akin, Senators Scott Brown (MA), John Cornyn (TX) and Ron Johnson (WI) have spoken.

Congressman Akin, conservative commentators and writers Charles Krauthammer, Mark Levin, and Sean Hannity have spoken.

Congressman Akin, the people with the big money have spoken.

Only, you’re not listening to the message, Congressman Akin: GET OUT NOW! Drop out of the race for the United States Senate or you may very well cost the Republican Party the opportunity it needs to regain a majority in that body that can end Obamacare; that can actually pass a budget, something that has not been done on over 1,100 days; and that can restore the dignity needed that has been missing under the so-called leadership of the pugilistic Harry Reid (D-NV).

Congressman Akin, sadly, your message has been heard loud and clear and is resonating nationwide like Bobby Thompson’s 1951 shot heard ‘round the world.

Congressman Akin, you did not misspeak, flub a word or two, or as you said, “get a word in the wrong place.” You got your whole statement about rape in the wrong place – from your head, to your mouth, to the ears of millions of voters.

On Sunday, August 19, six-term Congressman Todd Akin (R-MO), a staunchly pro-life House member opposing all abortions even in cases of rape, said pregnancies from rape are “really rare.”

“If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut the whole thing down. But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something: I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be of the rapist, and not attacking the child,” said Akin in an interview on KTVI-TV.

There are so many things wrong with Akin’s statement, it’s a wonder the television interviewer’s head didn’t explode trying to keep the incredulous laughter that should have burst out, on the inside. But this is not a funny matter at all.

Rape is rape – the forcing of unwanted sex upon someone, male or female. The legitimacy of rape is left to the courts to decide as per a he/she said, he/she said argument.

“Some punishment?” I have fervently held the view of the death penalty being the appropriate punishment for a rapist, a subhuman piece of filth who has inexorably altered a person’s life in perpetuity.

I am also pro-life; but who am I to tell a traumatized woman who has been impregnated, not by choice, to carry to term a child that will be the constant reminder of the violence besot upon her? Yes, the child could be put up for adoption, but for nine months, that violated woman still has the reminder of the ordeal to carry around furthering her pain.

I am not going to use this space to argue the merits of overturning Roe v. Wade, or whether or not a person approving of an abortion for a rape victim is truly pro-life.

The issue here is whether or not a sitting Congressman, who fully understands the implications of his bid for the United States Senate, should remain in a race that could have the ultimate impact on the direction the Senate goes in the 2012 elections.

Congressman Akin, you have made some outlandishly obtuse and unintelligent statements that are offensive and hurtful to many people. You understand the implications of remaining in a race necessary for the GOP to recapture the Senate and the risk at which you put that potential victory.

You have heard the words and messages of so many from your party. Now it is time to appreciate those words and heed those messages. Make the honorable decision, Congressman Akin; remove your name from consideration for the United States Senate as your party leaders have asked. Be the team player that will help your team win this fall.

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

Obama's True Colors Make Right See Red

“If you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own…. If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.” – Barack Hussein Obama

Obama’s True Colors Make Right See Red

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
July 16, 2012

Christmas and Chanukah have come early for the Mitt Romney campaign – as it is not about black and white, but instead it is about red and green.

This is Barak Obama’s Joe the Plumber moment. During the 2008 campaign, Obama spoke one on one with Ohio plumber Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, who has since become a candidate for Congress himself. Obama told Wurzelbacher that “when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

True colors, Obama outed himself as more than just a far left Democrat, but someone who believes in the redistribution of wealth. That the haves should give to the have nots. This is not a belief in capitalism, but instead, socialism bordering on communism – the red menace.

It’s all about context, will claim the left-wing, lame-stream media in defense of its hero, Obama, who unleashed a firestorm when he brazenly announced that all those successful businesses in the United States owe their success to the government and not the hard working men and women who risked their own capital, time, ingenuity and sanity in the quest for the next best – fill in the blank – widget, underwater phone, or intestinal camera.

Those are Obama’s words above – direct from the Socialist in Chief’s mouth at a speech given in Roanoke, VA. The words that demonize personal wealth and investment; that denigrate those entrepreneurs who risked their personal capital, created something due to their own inventiveness, hired people to work and see that plan drawn up at the kitchen table become a three dimensional reality.

These entrepreneurs have earned their green and deserve to keep as much of it as possible. Those people who did not create businesses, wealth, or take the risks are not entitled to nickel one from those who earned their success.

One does not need a Ph.D. in political science to understand what Obama means, where he is coming from, and to where he is going. What little of his life known to the public has been a blueprint straight from the Saul Alinsky playbook Rules for Radicals (1971). Obama is a classic statist – the belief that government should control the economy and/or social policy – the complete antithesis of the creation by America’s Founding Fathers.

Obama’s conversation with Joe the Plumber and his speech in Virginia were not gaffes. He’s got Joe Biden for that. Those words, direct from Obama, is Obama in his truest incarnation. He damns success and wants people to be ashamed of it as he continues to be the Divider in Chief – playing the class warfare card to its utmost pinnacle.

Yes, roads, bridges, and tunnels are typically government projects. But they are funded with the people’s money – taxpaying Americans who have achieved success and are paying their fair share to ensure that people can get back and forth to work for that successful businessperson who pays their salaries and wages. The businessmen and women who pay their taxes to ensure the safety of the public domain so people can spend their money on the products that made that businessman and woman a success.

Obama cited Henry Ford as someone whose success was predicated upon government. Like the age old question, which came first, the chicken or the egg, did Henry Ford build cars for the existing roads, or were roads built to serve a growing need due to the new automobile industry? Ford’s expanding auto industry spawned the need for more roads to be built, not the other way around.

(Oh, FYI – the chicken came first. On the fourth day, “G-d created… all the winged birds of every kind.” [Genesis 1:21])

As for the claim by Obama that “there was a great teacher somewhere in your life,” that may be true. As an educator, there’s an enormous amount of pride to boast when a student succeeds. But make no mistake; those teachers are paid for with the property taxes afforded by successful Americans able to own their own homes. Again, no need to further prime the pump, Mr. Obama.

Obama is so anti-business, it’s no surprise he is calling for the raising of the tax rates on dividends and capital gains. Both are currently taxed at 15 percent, but if Obama has his way, the tax rate on capital gains will rise to 23.8 percent and dividends will be taxed at an astronomical rate of 43.3 percent. (www.foxnews.com) This will send the stock market into a tither just prior to those new rates kicking in. People will be less willing to risk their capital when the returns will be so diminished, thanks to Obama’s desire to punish the risk takers. Where is the reward for those people taking the risks?

With the potential for fewer people to take risks, invest, or open businesses, unemployment will continue to rise, and, eventually the economy will be crippled by more people being dependent upon government largesse which will ultimately dry up as the tax coffers progressively dissipate.

More investments and jobs will be driven overseas to more friendly economies as this administration continues to call for stark reductions in the defense budget and still refuses to balance its own budget as debt figures approach $16 trillion.

Obama should answer the following: if government is responsible for the success of business due to the existence of taxpayer funded public school teachers, is the same government responsible for the increasing numbers of drop outs?

If government is responsible for the success of business due to the existence of taxpayer funded roads, bridges, and tunnels, is government responsible for the drunk drivers that inhabit the same infrastructure?

If government is responsible for the success of business due to the existence of taxpayer funded research creating the internet, is government responsible for the cyber stalkers who prey on children?

Government is nothing without the entrepreneurs, inventors, and innovators, who erect, create, hire and fill the tax coffers to allow government to build the roads, bridges, tunnels, cyber infrastructure, public airwaves of television and radio and public schools.

Obama’s words were “insulting to every entrepreneur and innovator in America,” said Romney. Of course Romney is right in his assertion, and as a businessman who saved the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympics, he would know.

Government more often than not interferes with business. It overregulates business to the point of pushing it out of the United States. Even the simplest business – that of a child’s lemonade stand. In this era of uber-litigiousness, a permit costing more than the child might reasonably expect to earn is crushing young entrepreneurship.

Rugged individualism is the cornerstone upon which the United States was founded, built, and expanded from sea to shining sea. Yet, with the Obama administration, government is to be praised as the reason behind anyone’s success. According to the Obama blueprint, the only good jobs are government jobs. This is an abandonment of capitalism that could lead to the dilution of the Republic.

It is not too late to change course back to the direction intended by the Founding Fathers and give Romney, a proven business success, a chance to right the ship that is America.

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

Hypocrite Holder Still Hopelessly Clueless

Hypocrite Holder Still Hopelessly Clueless
Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
July 12, 2012

Is it the collective sanity of the thinking American that is at question? Or does Eric Holder, the feckless attorney general of the United States simply does not have a grip on reality?

Is it racist when asked to produce a photo ID prior to boarding an airplane?

Is it racist when asked to produce a photo ID when purchasing alcohol? Tobacco? Firearms?

Is it racist when asked to produce a photo ID when writing a check? Making a bank deposit? Using a credit card?

Is it racist when asked to produce a photo ID when applying for a driver’s license? A library card?

Is it racist when asked to produce a photo ID when visiting a medical office for the first time as part of the paperwork regimen?

Is it racist when asked to produce a photo ID when entering a government building?

Is it racist when asked to produce a photo ID when applying for or signing a mortgage application?

Is it racist when asked to produce a photo ID when filling out the paperwork upon starting new employment?

Is it racist when asked to produce a photo ID when collecting lottery or casino winnings?

Is it racist when asked to produce a photo ID when registering for college as a freshman or transfer?

Is it racist when asked to produce a photo ID when picking up a package at the post office or UPS?

Is it racist when asked to produce a photo ID when claiming a prize at an events’ drawing?

Is it racist when asked to produce a photo ID when checking into a hotel, convention hall or other event with a roster of attendees?

Is there anyone reading this who has not suffered such an indignity? That someone should deign to quantify who is standing before him or her in any of the above circumstances and others not listed?

Yet, according to Holder, the attorney general refusing to prosecute members of the New Black Panther party for voter intimidation in Philadelphia in 2008, it is racist to expect voters to identify themselves at polling places making it akin to a poll tax, and an indignity to ones self-esteem.

It is Holder who is the racist for assuming blacks and Hispanics are unable to procure a photo ID. Really? Are all blacks and Hispanics so destitute and without means they are unable to find the means with which to identify themselves prior to casting a vote, one the most basic tenets of being an American? Sounds terribly stereotypical, pandering and a lowering of the bar.

That Holder has lowered the bar is in itself racist. As a supporter of affirmative action, Holder should know how racist that is – an admission that those groups being given an edge simply because of their race because they can’t accomplish – fill in the blank – earning admission into college, garnering employment, etc. on their own merits.

When states like Florida, Georgia and Texas, among others are advertising ways in which legally qualified voters are able to procure a standard government ID gratis, how can that be compared to a poll tax? There have even been mobile units willing to go to the voters themselves if they do not have the means with which to get to the ID producer. Securing a customary form of identification has never been easier, and yet, Holder continues to trumpet from the rooftops that to require a voter ID is a form of voter suppression by the GOP in an effort to steal elections.

Quite the opposite is true. Republicans supporting voter ID laws across the country are attempting to ensure that only legally qualified voting citizens are afforded the privilege of casting their ballot on Election Day. It is Holder and those who support his illogical notion that are willfully creating a circumstance by which illegals, the dead and those who simply have no right to vote in a particular polling location are enabled to do just that, That is voter fraud, pure and simple. That is Holder and his minions attempting to steal elections.

And by the way, those members of the press who covered Holder’s recent speaking engagements were denied admission without producing a federally issued photo ID. Further demonstrating his hypocrisy, attendees at his NAACP speech in Houston were also required to provide a photo ID, this in a state where Holder is fighting against Texas law requiring photo ID at polling places.

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

Pelosi Insanely Links Fast & Furious with Voter Suppression

Pelosi Insanely Links Fast & Furious with Voter Suppression
Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
June 21, 2012

US Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s cheese has finally slipped off its cracker. Her elevator is officially not rising to the top floor. She is without a doubt one taco shy of a full combination plate.

To understand what brought on this barrage of “platitudes” toward Pelosi, all one need do is listen to the absolutely convoluted speech she gave on Thursday in response to the decision made Wednesday by the Congressional Oversight and Government Reform Committee to charge Attorney General Eric Holder with contempt of Congress.

“They [the Republicans] are going after Eric Holder because he is trying to overturn voter suppression in the states. This is the plan,” said Pelosi, the House Minority Leader.

In continuing with what she called a “theory,” Pelosi made the illogical and emotional leap from a legitimate charge against a stonewalling Holder, who refuses to provide a congressional committee with the necessary documents to investigate the Fast and Furious gun scandal, to the accusation that the GOP is hell bent on stifling the vote of liberals and minorities.

“These very same people are holding him in contempt are part of a nationwide scheme to suppress the vote. They are closely allied with those who are suffocating the system – unlimited special interests – secret money – and they are poisoning the debate. This is no accident. This is their plan,” said Pelosi in a rambling finger-pointing screed.

US Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) called Pelosi’s comments “beneath the office of Congress,” and “mind-numbingly stupid.”

There must be a separation between Holder’s involvement in the Fast and Furious scandal cover-up and the Holder that is attempting to prevent states from performing their duties of purging their voter rolls of those who should not be permitted to vote. In both cases Holder is wrong. Both cases are supremely significant, but the two are unrelated.

The case before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee pertains to the Fast and Furious gun scandal that put thousands of guns in the hands of Mexicans – criminals, drug dealers and cartel leaders and other miscreant thugs – from the United States government. Both AG Holder and Barack Obama claimed no knowledge of such a transaction. Holder continued his denials when questioned about who did have such knowledge, who did allow for such a criminal operation to occur. Taking a page out of the Bill Clinton playbook, Holder continued to deny, deny, deny.

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is chaired by US Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA). His repeated pressing for the thousands upon thousands of documents related to Fast and Furious were arrogantly rejected time and again by Holder, who not only owes answers to the committee, the American people, but to Josephine and Ken Terry.

Josephine and Ken Terry are the parents of the late Brian Terry, a heroic border agent murdered by guns linked to the Fast and Furious scandal in 2010. Two guns found at his body are linked to those firearms released into the hands of nefarious sources in the Obama administration’s Fast and Furious program. This administration is responsible for the murder of border agent Brian Terry.

“They’re lying and hiding it,” said Ken Terry, interviewed by Fox News’ Sean Hannity.

Compounding the scandal, Obama declared Executive Privilege, further impeding the Oversight and Government Reform Committee’s ability to collect the documents that Holder is obligated to present.

“The decision to invoke Executive Privilege is an admission that White House officials were involved in decisions that misled the Congress and have covered up the truth,” said Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH).

Meanwhile, the flip side of the Pelosi ramblings and illogical accusations, claim it is the GOP that is attempting to suppress votes by performing legal operations of purging the rolls. It is not, as Pelosi said, “suffocating the system,” to ensure voter fairness by preventing illegals from casting votes that would dilute the power of votes cast by citizens. Nor is it “a nationwide scheme to suppress the vote” when certain states are purging the names of the deceased to ensure their names are not used by people committing voter fraud by casting a ballot in those names.

It is neither a scheme to suppress the vote nor a plan to suffocate the system to require ALL voters to present a photo ID at the polling places – something Holder has been fighting calling such a requirement racist.

This is simply a scheme by the Obama administration to deflect from the disastrous economy, high rates of unemployment, high misery index, ever-rising gas prices and an unwillingness to do what is right by the American people.

The Fast and Furious scandal and subsequent cover-up is making Watergate look like child’s play and the “third rate burglary” as had been described as for the past 40 years. Watergate was wrong; but nobody died.

Clearly, there is blood on the hands of the Obama administration. Where is the openness and transparency promised by Obama ad nauseum?

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

Birth Control Thrust upon Catholics

Birth Control Thrust upon Catholics
Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
May 23, 2012

The Indianapolis Star smartly printed “Notre Dame joins suit over birth control” (May 23, 2012) written by AP’s Rachel Zoll.

With 42 other Catholic entities joining Notre Dame in a lawsuit to preserve religious freedom, this is not a local news item, but instead a national defining moment regarding the Constitutional rights not just of Catholics, but of all people of faith in the United States.

Yet, in spite of this national Constitutional issue, the national network news outlets remained virtually silent as they are deeply in the tank for the Obama administration. This story was ignored by ABC and NBC, and CBS devoted a mere 19 seconds to it according to Bill O’ Reilly on the Fox News Channel (May 23).

If birth control is thrust upon Catholic institutions counter to Church tenets, what will be next? Will ritual slaughter pertaining to the Jewish dietary laws of Kashrut be banned by the government as cruel to the animals, when it is in fact just the opposite in accordance with Jewish law?

Another sterling example of the deleterious effects the Obama mandate is already having on institutions connected to faith is a decision made by The Franciscan University, located in Steubenville, OH, to discontinue its student health care coverage. It will no longer require health insurance of fulltime undergraduate students, nor will it offer a student health insurance plan.

Franciscan’s basic cost of $600 to cover a student would double in the upcoming school year and then triple in 2013 all thanks to Obamacare. It is unconscionable to force students to purchase something they cannot afford. The university’s decision could be an important factor for potential future students when choosing a college to attend.

Currently, Franciscan students may receive “cheap basic medical care,” without insurance for $5 a visit, and are on their own for anything more, according to Beltway Confidential (May 15). The school’s current plan expires August 15, 2012.

Obamacare requires insurance coverage for contraception, sterilization and abortions, currently not covered at Franciscan. “We will not participate in a plan that requires us to violate the consistent teachings of the Catholic Church on the sacredness of human life,” according to Beltway Confidential.

Such assaults on religious freedoms bring to mind the famous quote by Martin Niemoller (1892-1984), a German Protestant pastor and outspoken foe of Hitler.

          “First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out –

           Because I was not a Socialist.
           Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out –
           Because I was not a trade unionist.
           Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out –
           Because I was not a Jew.

           Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak for me.”

The government has no business interfering in religion in the United States – and the Constitution supports this notion. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” (Amendment I).

By imposing his liberal, secular schemes on the rank and file of America, Obama is not only attempting to circumvent the Constitution, but turn this into a modern day civil rights issue as a manner in which to cajole votes from women.

Obama must be stopped, the left-wing, mainstream media must stop carrying his water on this issue and actually tell the truth, and the Constitution must be upheld by preventing this administration from forcibly destroying centuries of religious dicta.

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

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.

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 5^th 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.” (www.foxnews.com) 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. (laws.lp.findlaw.com/getcase/us/5/137.html)

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.” (www.uslegal.com)

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.” (www.britannica.com)

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.

Robbing Peter to Pay Pablo

Robbing Peter to Pay Pablo  
Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
March 7, 2012

From the sublime to the absurd, it’s no wonder this country is such dire straits. When it comes to prioritizing its expenditures, the United States has it ass-backwards and it is more than just embarrassing.

When taxpaying citizens in uniform have their medical benefits sliced and diced beyond recognition and are required to pay more for them, that is simply unconscionable if not downright criminal.

Hearing the father’s impassioned plea to GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney on the Huckabee show about the required care his brain-damaged son needs since returning from combat in Afghanistan is merely one heartbreaking story out of myriad others that should not have to be told. It is an absolute disgrace that any member of the military or their family should have to beg or appear on national television hat in hand for services that should be a given simply because they have worn the uniform of their country  and put their lives on the line every day.

The flip side of this warped album is while the veterans are being treated shabbily and with utter disdain and disrespect by the Obama administration, illegal aliens are being treated to medical coverage not afforded American citizens as well as giving them tax credits they neither earned nor are entitled to receive.

Can anyone with a modicum of intelligence argue that people sneaking across the southern or northern borders into the United States without proper documentation or permission has broken the law. This should be a rhetorical question. Yet, with so many people – liberals who want to pad the voter rolls for the Democrats and even some conservatives who seek cheap labor, turning blind eyes to this pandemic, having millions of illegals in the United States has become a permanent problem with few in Washington, DC having guts enough to tackle it head on for risk of being called a racist or the bigger risk of their cushy-tushy job on Capitol Hill.

However, for the majority of folks outside of Washington, DC who understand what the word illegal means, we are beyond apoplectic over both the irresponsibility toward our men and women in uniform as well as the willingness to turn over billions of dollars in benefits to people who have no legal standing in the United States.

ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) confirmed, via Newsmax, that they are required to provide at taxpayer expense, abortions as well as hormone therapy for transgendered illegals – “services” not afforded at taxpayer expense to American citizens. Huh? Yes, you read that correctly.

“The government will pay for an abortion in cases of rape or incest, or if the mother’s life is in danger,” according to the 2011 Operations Manual ICE Performance-Based National Detention Standards. Without meaning to sound insensitive, upon who is the onus of proof, to determine illegal alien was raped or the victim of incest? Just on their word? The word of a criminal who broke the law simply by setting foot on US soil?

The regulations also say that “transgender detainees who were already receiving hormone therapy when taken into ICE custody shall have continued access,” including “access to mental health care, and other transgender-related health care and medication based on medical need.”

This is sheer insanity! Upon capture and detention, all illegals should be photographed, fingerprinted, identified and returned to their country of origin never to be allowed legal entry into the United States. This is a no-brainer.

Another issue involving illegals stealing from American taxpayers upon who light must be shed is that of those paying zero dollars in taxes for jobs they have illegally, and yet are qualified to receive the Child Tax Credit - $1,800 per child, costing taxpayers $4.2 billion. This is beyond outrageous.

If a person is here in the United States illegally, how does this person garner employment? It is illegal for an illegal alien to have a job in the United States. Then, since the illegal alien has a job, there is a fiduciary responsibility called taxes, which are not paid. How does an illegal alien paying no taxes and having no Social Security number, qualify for a tax credit? The illegal alien can’t file an income tax form without a Social Security number.

What is also disturbing is that there are supporters who believe paying this tax credit to the illegals is not just acceptable, but appropriate in an effort to prevent them from living in poverty. They should not be living in the United States at all in the first place, let alone sucking off the government teat!

When and where will this all end? This is beyond the theater of the absurd. We are robbing Peter to pay Pablo when Pablo is here illegally and not entitled to anything. Meanwhile, Peter is risking his life wearing the uniform of his country, the United States, and being shunned upon his return stateside.

This nation has a moral responsibility to its soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines. They, Mr. Obama, have done more than their fair share. Do what’s right by them and stop encouraging more miscreant behavior by those with no right to be here in the United States.

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

Obama Wants To Be Judged By His Deeds

Obama Wants To Be Judged By His DeedsCommentary by Sanford D. Horn
March 4, 2012

Am I the only one who felt a little bit ill watching Barack Hussein Obama read his speech before AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) on Sunday, March 04? OK, a lot ill.

First Israeli President Shimon Peres applauded Obama in a speech that was akin to a big wet kiss on the mouth – and an open mouth at that. Yuck. Sorry for the visual, but it has to be said. Peres, a great Israeli patriot, who has seen his time come and go, extolled the virtues of Obama as if he were the savior of all things – much like Obama himself believes. Peres has been reading too many of Obama’s speeches.

Obama bloviated about how he has stood shoulder to shoulder unwaveringly with Israel more than any other American president and how he is looking forward to another pleasant meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. While neither of which couldn’t be further from the truth, Obama was right about one thing. On more than one occasion Obama said man is to be judged by his deeds and not by his words. That is absolutely correct and worthy of review.

Obama’s relationship with Israel has been tepid at best, and that’s with much generosity. He has yet to visit Israel, while the first excursion to the Middle East was to Saudi Arabia and Egypt, June 3 and 4, 2009.

During the 2008 primary campaign Obama often said he would sit down with Iranian dictator Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who repeatedly said it was the goal of the Islamic nation to wipe Israel from the map as well as deny the occurrence of the Holocaust. Where can one go from there when those are the hard and fast beliefs of a despot who is feverishly moving toward nuclear capabilities for the purpose of carrying out his promise?

While Obama has said he opposes a nuclear Iran, he also madly attempts to thwart Israel’s efforts to eradicate such a possibility as it did against Iraq in 1982. And while Obama turns a blind eye to a possible nuclear Iran, he is feverishly working to drastically reduce the nuclear capabilities of the United States from over 5,000 to fewer than 300. Apparently Obama did not learn from Ronald Reagan’s credo of peace through strength.

Nor does Obama have a sense of history, calling for Israel to return to their 1967 borders. This would have been certain suicide for the Jewish state as their enemies, by which they are surrounded, would be even closer still to the tiny nation, leaving its defenses even more tenuous. Does this sound like the suggestion of an ally and supporter?

On a more personal front, Obama’s relationship with Netanyahu has also been distant and difficult. From abandoning Netanyahu during a prior White House meeting to an open microphone conversation with French President Nicolas Sarkozy in November 2011 where Obama spoke shabbily of the Israeli Prime Minister.

Responding to Sarkozy calling Netanyahu a liar, Obama said “You’re fed up with him, but I have to deal with him even more often than you.” While supporting a Palestinian state, thus rewarding the continual bad behavior of terror, Obama has been hostile toward the United States’ only reliable ally in the region – Israel.

Sadly, judging by the fervor of the applause, having watched the Peres and Obama speeches from the annual AIPAC gathering on C-SPAN, it was painfully obvious that the audience gobbled up Obama’s disingenuous, tuchus-kissing words like lox and bagels following the Yom Kippur fast.

Pay attention to Obama’s deeds. He has not earned your vote this November. Please don’t blindly throw it away.

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

Ode on a Grecian Future

Ode on a Grecian Future

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

February 24, 2012

With apologies to English Romantic poet John Keats (1795-1821) for bastardizing his Grecian Urn title, the United States economy will resemble Greece more and more due to soaring gasoline prices and the arrogance and stubbornness of one Barack Hussein Obama.

For Obama to declare in a speech this week that there is “no silver bullet” answer or cure to what ails this nation on the energy front is myopically disingenuous. Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper called the deal for the XL Keystone pipeline “a no brainer.” Yet, Obama, deeply entrenched in the pockets of the extreme environmentalists, unilaterally rejected the plan that would have brought thousands of shovel ready jobs to the United States, more domestic oil and an opportunity to tell the Saudis no thank you to any more of their oil. And no more bowing to Saudi princes and emirs.

Ultimately, it will be the price of gas that will drive this economy – pun intended.

Not to get mired in the weeds of statistics, but they do tell part of the story. When Obama was inaugurated in 2009, the national average cost for a gallon of gas was $1.83. On February 23, 2012 that average reached $3.61 and a day later it hit $3.65, with no ceiling in sight.

Twenty states are above the national average: Alaska, California, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and West Virginia. The average price per gallon in those states is $3.79 with 54 percent of the US population residing there. The five states being hit the hardest are Connecticut at $3.90, New York at $3.91, Alaska at $4.05, California at $4.20 and Hawaii at $4.28.

Since last year each driver has spent $840 more to fill their tanks than the year before. That’s $230 billion in disposable income lost. That’s vacations cancelled, stretching last year’s school wardrobe another year, postponing purchasing that new car or other big ticket items, dining out less frequently, buying fewer gifts at Christmas and Chanukah time and even stretching the supermarket dollars farther.

With the aforementioned purchases moving to the back burner for an undetermined amount of time, consider what millions and millions of Americans making those same decisions will do to the economy out of dire necessity. Production drops, thus raising unemployment in both manufacturing and sales. Increased unemployment puts increased demands on the government coffers for unemployment benefits, thus the need for government to derive other sources of revenue. Government revenue comes from the taxes paid by the workers of America. With less revenue entering the government coffers and more needing to be paid out, as well as covering the already committed for expenditures, the debt rises higher and higher.

The current debt in the United States is above $15 trillion and is projected to reach $16.4 trillion by Election Day. The per capita debt for every man, woman and child in the United States is currently $44,215 and will reach $75,000 by 2020, should Obama’s budget become law, according to Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee and supported by Matt McCall, president of the Penn Financial Group, LLC. Sessions also attributes his numbers to the IMF.

Consider the riots in Greece and the civil unrest in many other European countries tethered to the EU and the stumbling Euro, which never should have been implemented in the first place. Per capita debt in Spain is $18,395; in Portugal it is $19,989; in France it is $33,491; in Greece it is $38,937; in Italy it is $40,475 and in Ireland it is $43,887 – all lower than the US figure.

With $4 a gallon of gas inevitable and $5 a distinct possibility by mid-summer, think about what you won’t be able to do with the additional money going into your tanks and not into the aforementioned purchases. Daydream about the rounds of golf you won’t play or the swim club your family won’t join, or the summer camps your children won’t go to or the baseball games you won’t attend. Think about the sweaty house you will endure because the cost of energy to air condition your home will also skyrocket.

While doing those things and sweating through the stifling heat this summer, remember as you watch the Democrat and Republican conventions who to thank – the party rejecting XL Keystone or the party clamoring for domestic drilling to end our reliance upon unfriendly nations for their oil. End our reliance upon those nations and cripple their economies at the same time.

There is enough oil domestically via the XL Keystone pipeline, ANWR, the Gulf of Mexico and the shale in the Rockies and Pennsylvania to sustain the United States for what experts say should be centuries. While drilling at home, continued research and development should be conducted to provide wind, solar and bio-fuel energy at competitive prices, without government investment and side by side with gas and oil.

                                                                                                       

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

Food, Glorious Slop

“FOOD FIGHT!” – John “Bluto” Blutarsky

Food, Glorious Slop

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

February 16, 2012

The hypocrisy of the Obama administration continues to march on like the Nazis in 1939 Poland. This time they have invaded the lunch boxes of school children.

Thanks to government edicts from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the food police are inspecting the lunch boxes and brown bags to see if mom or dad has packed what government deems an appropriate midday repast.

Since when is a turkey and cheese sandwich, a banana, potato chips and apple juice an unacceptable lunch? Sounds like a good lunch to me – except for the turkey and cheese combo – but then I keep kosher, so either the turkey or the cheese would work independently.

Apparently in Hoke County, NC, such a lunch did not pass muster, as a four-year-old preschooler attending West Hoke Elementary School was terrorized by the food police being told her lunch was substandard while having a government-authorized school lunch thrust upon her. Terrorized, because a four-year-old is being told the lunch packed by mom is wrong.

Just what did the government determine was a better alternative for this four-year-old? Chicken nuggets – processed, battered, fried pieces of unidentifiable chicken parts. And adding insult to injury, the school sent the girl home with her original lunch in tact with a note telling mom she would also be charged $1.25 for the food forced upon her daughter. Apparently the mom-made lunch lacked vegetables, which was given to her daughter, was in turn were rejected.

The mother emphasized her daughter does not like vegetables, but under her supervision she can get the child to eat some. Yet, the lunch had fruit – a banana, which even my niece, when she was three-years-old, knew is high in potassium. And sliced turkey and cheese versus processed and fried chicken nuggets is a no-brainer as well.

Did the food police ever stop to contemplate potential allergies this four-year-old girl might have? Is a four-year-old equipped to tell the food police what she can’t eat or drink? Perhaps she was on a gluten-free diet – the sandwich eliminates that notion. Perhaps she was lactose intolerant – the food police gave her milk. Perhaps she observed kashrut – the turkey and cheese excludes that idea. Perhaps she has a nut allergy. What kind of oil were the chicken nuggets fried in – peanut, canola, vegetable?

Full disclosure, I was a foodie before the word existed. In fact, I was almost thrown out of junior high school as a seventh grader for authoring a petition against the school cafeteria food, calling it “slop.” My parents, both of Blessed memory, were called into school to meet with the principal due to my disruptive and scurrilous activities – I dared question authority.

My father wasn’t sure which tact to take – either kick my ass for having my parents summonsed to the principal’s office or congratulate me for using my First Amendment rights of speech and petition as taught to me at that very school.

It’s no wonder the following year in our eighth grade musical I was given “Food, Glorious Food,” from Oliver to sing throughout our three day run.

Having taught in urban public and charter schools, I can attest first hand to what is passing as school lunches. Fried, oil-laden, carb-rich offerings riddled with salt and sugary desserts. Sure there is some fruit – canned or fresh, but rarely consumed. One school at which I taught had a salad bar – but, alas, for teachers and staff only.

The invasion by the food police is just another sterling example of government overreaching into places it does not belong. Our freedoms are being eroded one by one and far too many Americans are standing idly by allowing their freedoms to be stripped away. This administration continues to count on ignorance and apathy in order to ensure full governmental control of our lives, from the bedroom to the board room and from the school house to G-d’s house.

We the people are ignorant because we do not know the law and the Constitution. We the people are apathetic because outside of our little corner of the world we realize how little control we have, and therefore we do not speak up.

Well, it’s high time we raise our voices in unison and tell the government to STOP. The Obama administration, nor any other administration, cannot spend our money better than we can. Nor can they make better food choices than we can. Nor can they tell us how to pray. And they certainly can’t raise our children better than we can.

This is an administration run by ultra-liberals who don’t want anyone peering into their bedrooms, or being asked for photo identification when voting, but they’re real quick to inspect children’s lunch boxes, tell us what light bulbs to use and what kind of cars to drive. Yet, this is the same Obama administration smashing the Constitution to smithereens by forcing religion-run institutions to violate their principles, and demanding under financial penalty that we the people must buy a product we may not want.

When will it end? If it does not end on November 6 this year, it may never end. If this regime is not turned out of office this year, we may not recognize this country in another four years. Certainly the Founding Fathers won’t; and that’s not hyperbole.

Now, before I enjoy my lunch of a turkey sandwich on a bagel, a banana, some b-b-q potato chips and a cup of green tea – don’t report me to the food police – I offer this quote from one of our great Founding Fathers, Patrick Henry:

“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people; it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government.”

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

Romney the Capitalist is the American Way

Romney the Capitalist is the American Way

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

January 11, 2012

In order to make a tasty omelet, you’ve got to crack some eggs.

Full disclosure: I have supported Herman Cain before he withdrew from the GOP nominating process; I have supported Michele Bachmann prior to her departure from the GOP cavalcade of candidates; and currently I support Newt Gingrich to be the GOP standard bearer this year in the most important fight for the White House this nation has seen perhaps since 1860.

One name not on my list has been Mitt Romney. Twice, once in 2007 and again in 2011, I have written columns defending Romney the Mormon when he was attacked for not being a Christian and when Mormonism was called a cult by a supporter of Texas Governor Rick Perry. Full disclosure II: I am not a Christian, but as a religious minority, such attacks could easily be levied upon me and my fellow religionists.

But I am a capitalist and a patriot who, once again, feels compelled to support the former Massachusetts governor against the slings and arrows of both Perry and former House Speaker Gingrich.

While I still hope Gingrich will be the GOP nominee for president, and have the utmost confidence in his ability to dismantle Obama in a debate leaving the apologizer in chief whimpering in a corner wondering from where the stains in his pants emerged, he and Perry are violating Ronald Reagan’s vaunted 11^th Commandment – thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican.

Truth, yes; but soiling a reputation in a scorched earth scenario that will leave the potential nominee too battered and bloodied to take on the real opponent, Obama, serves no one’s interest save for Obama’s himself.

With the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary in the rear view mirror and in Romney’s pocket, South Carolina’s January 21 primary looms large for Gingrich and Perry if either candidate is to cling to any hope of resurrecting their floundering campaigns. (Finishing third after practically becoming a Live Free or Die state resident, former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman is finished; Ron Paul will NEVER get the GOP nod and Rick Santorum, while mostly above the fray, does not have the organization to sustain a Super Tuesday campaign.)

Eventually, there will need to be a coalescing around the GOP nominee, whoever it is. Yet, before that, the continued advertising that look like they could have come from the Obama machine will only weaken the party as a whole, if Romney is the nominee.

Romney was a businessman prior to entering the political arena, and a darned successful one at that. As CEO of Bain Capital, he had the arduous responsibility of answering to shareholders and board members pertaining to the company’s bottom line. Part of Bain and Romney’s job was to determine the feasibility of salvaging some companies versus letting others meet their inevitable demise.

These are business decisions, not personal decisions. Yes, the decisions are made by a person, and yes, they affect many people, but that is the nature of business. Decisions are necessitated based upon the greater good, and in order to make a good omelet, some eggs have to be cracked.

Business is about risks. Perhaps the companies that Romney had to let die would have died under someone else’s auspices. Perhaps the businesses that Romney was able to rescue would also have died under someone else’s control. That too, is the nature of business.

As capitalist and free market supporters, both Gingrich and Perry should not only understand this, but embrace it, for to do otherwise is akin to joining the “Occupy” movement full of people who want government to control everything and make everything fair and right according to their own socialist beliefs – much like Obama said to Joe the Plumber in 2008 about the importance of spreading the wealth around.

That is neither capitalist nor American – and Gingrich and Perry know this. They just need to be reminded of it before it is too late.

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

A Picture Worth A Thousand Votes

A Picture Worth A Thousand Votes

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

December 25, 2011

Gin and tonic, please.

Certainly, sir. May I see your ID please?

That’s it! Call Jesse; call the ACLU – you’re a racist!

Are you as incredulous reading this as I was writing it? I certainly hope so.

Asking someone to produce an item that identifies him/herself as who he/she claims to be is neither racist, nor disenfranchising as Attorney General Eric Holder would have the nation believe as he attempts to eliminate any form of identification standards for potential voters.

As responsible American citizens we are asked to show proof of age and/or identity when purchasing alcohol, cigarettes, lottery tickets, real estate, automobiles, checking in at an airport or hotel, gaining admittance into secure locations, when writing checks and even when using a credit card at times. Do I understand correctly, that no one without an ID does any of the above? Or drives? Or has a bank account? Wow, what cloistered little lives they must lead.

Why when asked to produce a valid photo ID at the ballot box, do some people go completely apoplectic?

For those American citizens for whom voting is that important, and it should be that important, and who do not possess a valid photo ID – get one. Yes, it is that simple. Holder is using cost as an excuse why the old, young, and minorities would be disenfranchised by the heinous requirement of an identification card. But that excuse is disingenuous at best as the state of South Carolina, whose voter ID law Holder just struck down on Friday, December 23, will provide said identification gratis to its Palmetto State citizens.

The State of Georgia attempted to do likewise, yet the ACLU still objected, calling the voter ID a racist attempt to disenfranchise minorities who could not get to the ID producing locales. Georgia then offered to go to the voters who were unable to make the allegedly arduous trek to procure their own ID card.

States could establish mobile ID producing units and send them to bars, liquor stores, kiosks at shopping malls, airports and anywhere else ID may be required to provide them for those who claim the cost to get them would be too prohibitive or that they could not travel to get them for the same reason. (Once those without ID get them, I’d like to see the voter turnout statistics as compared with the rest of the voting populous.)

And what will Holder’s next complaint be once the ID-less become identifiable? The old, young and minorities are being disenfranchised because they can’t afford to take the time from their low-paying job to go and cast their ballot? Or perhaps those same groups can’t go vote because they can’t afford to take the bus, taxicab or other paid mode of transportation? There will always be something about which to complain. But while thousands of people behaved with violence and mob-like mentality last week for the opportunity to spend $180 on a pair of sneakers, how many of those very people will be in line to vote on Election Day?

Only those seeking to defraud the system and thus the republican process of legally electing representatives would object to a voter ID requirement. Without voter ID laws firmly ensconced someone else could claim to be you or me and thus disenfranchise us by stealing our precious votes – and those votes are indeed precious.

Demanding that a potential voter properly identify him/herself is not a suppression of voters’ rights, but instead a protection of voters’ rights and the suppression of potential voter fraud. The Wisconsin ACLU claimed voters’ 14^th Amendment rights are violated and a “severe burden” (WI ACLU) is placed upon them in spite of a Supreme Court April 2008 ruling that states can require voters to produce photo ID without violating their Constitutional rights.

The law “is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting ‘the integrity and reliability of the electoral process,’” wrote now retired Justice John Paul Stevens for the six to three majority in the 2008 ruling. Stevens, a typically reliable liberal, was joined by associate justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Chief Justice John Roberts, all conservatives, save for Kennedy a moderate swing voter. Backers of the decision said it was vital to squelch voter fraud.

Those opposing the High Court ruling were traditional liberal associate justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the now retired David Souter. ACLU legal director Ken Falk said such voter ID laws tend to inhibit voting yet could produce no supporting evidence.

“We cannot conclude that the statute imposes ‘excessively burdensome requirements’ on any class of voters,” continued Stevens in his opinion for the majority.

“The universally applicable requirements of Indiana voter-identification law are eminently reasonable. The burden of acquiring, possessing and showing a free photo identification is simply not severe, because it does not ‘even represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting,’” wrote Justice Scalia, also for the majority.

Now there is a corrupt Justice Department led by an incompetent attorney general – see also the Fast and Furious scandal Holder claims to know nothing about – who wants to eradicate all voter identification laws because of the potential inconvenience it might impose on some old, young and minority voters. This is the same AG and Justice Department that ignored the New Black Panther Party blatant and overt voter intimidation activities in Philadelphia on Election Day 2008.

Not only does Holder need to resign, but perhaps face charges for fraud, perjury and corrupt practices. But more importantly, while Holder is merely a symptom, it is vital that all 50 states in the Union ensure their 10^th Amendment rights to create laws that the federal government does not create and protect the rights of all legal voting American citizens by requiring them to properly identify themselves prior to casting their all-important ballot on each and every election day.

Voter fraud comes at a cost of up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine, which should be upheld to the maximum in order to send a message that voting is a privilege and shall not be infringed upon by miscreants who would steal an election that could not otherwise be won.

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