Catholic Crosses Crux of Crazy Complaint

Catholic Crosses Crux of Crazy Complaint

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

October 28, 2011

Following the ousting of several North African leaders in recent months in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia, and the dissolution of their respective tyrannical regimes, panic set in around the western world as those nations are pursuing the installation of Sharia Law.

What is infinitely more disturbing here in the United States is that Muslims are waging an equally insidious battle for the hearts and minds of college campuses by utilizing American jurisprudence against American institutions, albeit in a misguided and inappropriate manner.

John F. Banzhaf, III, a public interest law professor at George Washington University in Washington, DC, filed a complaint with the DC Office of Human Rights asserting that the human rights of the 122 Muslim students attending the Catholic University of America are being violated. This is the same professor who previously lodged a complaint against the same Northeast DC school decrying sex discrimination when Catholic University eliminated co-ed campus housing.

Banzhaf alleges the human rights of Muslim students are being violated, claiming the university prevented them from formulating a Muslim student group as well as denying them campus space for their daily prayers that are free of crosses, crucifixes, pictures of priests or other symbols of Christianity. (An Arab American Student Association does exist on campus, according to The Tower, a Catholic University student newspaper.)

Banzhaf claims the Catholic images are offensive to the Muslim students and a violation of their human rights. Other Catholic schools such as Georgetown University, also in Washington, DC, as well as the University of Notre Dame in South Bend, IN, have already acquiesced to similar Muslim demands.

This is both cacophonous and outrageous. Nobody is forced to attend Catholic University, or any college for that matter. Did not the Muslim students who opted to attend this Catholic institution have an inkling that as a Catholic school there would be images representative of that faith? If Muslim students are offended by Catholic images or depictions of Jesus Christ, then those students are free to transfer to a secular institution where Muslim student groups currently exist.

Catholic University is a private institution of higher learning, and as such is entitled to establish its rules, décor, images, ethical and moral codes and even its dietary provisions as it sees fit in accordance with the Catholic Church.

One must wonder why a Muslim student would willingly opt to attend a Catholic university if the sight of depictions of Jesus Christ and other Catholic images would render such a student apoplectic. And then to castigate such an institution for adherence to its traditions for 125 years is simply licentious.

The action of these particular Muslim students is not capricious either above or beneath its surface. This is jihad without the homicide bombers. I have long said and predicted that the Muslim global dominion would be conducted via babies, not bullets. Look at the birth rate of Muslim communities and how they have thrust themselves into European society making demands along the way by not adopting the culture of their host nations, but instead by demanding adherence to theirs.

Lawsuits are but one manner in which so-called dissident Muslim students can use America against Americans. However, such a potential lawsuit is another shining example of the litigiousness of American society and should never see the light of day in any American courtroom.

The nations of Denmark, France and Great Britain for example are lost. It is imperative that the United States learn from the colossal mistakes made in Europe and prevent them from being replicated on American soil.

The era of political correctness must be reversed before the United States becomes absorbed into the next Muslim caliphate, disappearing into the abyss with the whole of Western Civilization on its heels.

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

Stupid Is, As Government Does

Stupid Is, As Government Does

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

October 20, 2011

Stupidity is merely a symptom of what ails the United States of America regarding the salvation of this once and future great nation.

Former Speaker of the House and current GOP nomination hopeful Newt Gingrich said it correctly without mincing a single word when he pronounced the creation of the 12 member super-committee charged with deficit reduction by Thanksgiving “stupid.”

A perfect example of this stupidity comes from the category of Band-Aid® on the proverbial bullet hole when the absurd suggestion to eliminate the paper dollar bill and move to a coin only concept. Nothing against the concept, but this brainstorm deficit cutter will trim $5.6 billion from a deficit that is currently more than $14 trillion – and it won’t reach that mark of savings until 2041 – yes, 30 years from now, when the deficit will reach numbers that have yet to be invented or defined.

While saving pennies on the millions, the penny should also be eliminated, which currently costs three cents per to produce. These two suggestions, the first actually presented by the super-committee of a dozen, and the second coming here and now, are akin to removing one leaf from a hundred acre plot and calling the raking job complete.

What are being raked, are the American people, and over the coals – coals that the liberals do not want produced in this country. But the fuel issue is a column for another day. Where real cuts can, and must be made are in the areas of illegal immigration and the continuing free ride millions of miscreants are getting that we, the taxpaying citizens and legal residents are blithely funding.

Yes, blithely, because as more and more jurisdictions become sanctuary cities, protecting rights illegals really don’t have, little, if anything, is being done to combat a trend that is so capricious, the safety of the nation is in grave peril.

The city that is the forefront of all governmental activity, our nation’s capital, Washington, DC has joined a growing list of locales declaring war on law and order in the United States by agreeing to harbor illegal aliens. DC Mayor Vincent Gray signed an executive order on Wednesday, October 19 protecting illegal aliens and banning police officers from inquiring about the immigration status of said lawbreakers. Yes, let’s remember, that the moment these people crossed the border without proper permission, they became criminals.

But Gray said it is not the job of the DC police to verify the status of its residents. No? Should not legal resident status be determined when doling out taxpayer funded aid for food stamps? How about for free medical care in hospitals? How about for children being enrolled in the public schools? How about for illegals demanding legal aid upon arrest for committing the myriad crimes bandied about in the news – vehicular homicide by an illegal drinking and driving – and without a license or insurance, by the way.

The United States simply cannot be home to six billion people, roughly the current global population. The welcome mat reading bienvenido or ahleen simply cannot apply to any Toma, Ricardo or Henri. However, with the ever expanding list of sanctuary cities, the United States seems to be saying, “if you can get here, you can stay here and you can get free stuff to boot.”

What message is being transmitted to honest, law abiding legal residents who are proceeding in the proper manner to become citizens? What message is being given to American children when the government turns a blind eye to constant and continuous law breaking? Bad precedent after bad precedent continue to be rolled out in favor of those who laugh at our laws and our Constitution and feel justified in sneaking into the United States for one reason or another.

Gray further said that DC is not in the immigration business and will not help the federal government do its job. DC claims to be home to between 7,000 and 10,000 illegal aliens, but experts suggest that number is closer to double, or even triple because so few illegals actually identify themselves as such. Perhaps all sanctuary cities who feel they are above the law and can behave with such aplomb and licentiousness should be denied federal funding while they thumb their noses at federal law enforcement.

Gray and other mayors have said by not concerning themselves with the immigration status of people, they will be more willing to come forward if they have been a victim of a crime.

The comfort of illegal aliens should not be the goal of any government – federal, state or local. This system of don’t ask, don’t tell regarding illegals should make all law abiding citizens and residents apoplectic as their tax dollars continue to fund their criminal behavior.

Since it is unreasonable to deport upwards of 20 million possible illegals, it should be the objective of the government – at all levels to encourage them to self-deport. This can easily be done by denying them any aid or assistance whatsoever. This is an unlikely scenario because both major political parties have something to gain by illegals’ presence in this country. Democrats want illegals here to curry favor with the Hispanic voting rank and file. Republicans want illegals here to curry favor with the businesses that hire these people at lower wages than would be required of a legal resident or citizen. Businesses hiring illegal aliens should be fined an amount greater than the value a legal worker would earn in a year.

It should be incumbent upon the voters to elect candidates committed to reducing the numbers of illegal aliens who have already invaded our borders as well as preventing more from continuing this trend. This crisis has reached pandemic status and it is costing this country trillions of dollars as well as breaching national security in ways unimaginable to the uninitiated. Candidates not committed to this plan should be given no electoral support and defeated at the ballot box.

While he may have been joking, the notion presented by Herman Cain, another Republican seeking the presidential nomination, to erect an electric fence on the southern border of the United States is sound. Electric and topped with barbed wire. This plan is certainly better than the defeatist attitude presented by Governor Rock Perry (R-TX) in a recent GOP candidate’s debate when he suggested that to not allow illegal aliens to attend school is heartless. This is the same governor who signed into law legislation granting illegals living in Texas the right to pay in-state tuition at state colleges and universities.

Rewarding bad behavior is partly why the flood of illegals continues and shows no sign of alleviating. Adopting the above plans will reduce that trend, make available jobs to put Americans back to work and create a more secure environment around the nation. To do otherwise would just be plain stupid.

The following data lists the states, the number of sanctuary cities within their borders as well as naming some of the more prominent locales.

Alaska (2) – Fairbanks

Arizona (2) – Phoenix

California (32) – Berkeley, Fresno, Los Angeles, Oakland, San Francisco, San Jose

Colorado (9) – Denver, Fort Collins

Connecticut (2) – New Haven

Florida (5) – Miami

Georgia (1) – Dalton

Illinois (5) – Chicago, Cook County

Maine (1) – Portland

Maryland (3) – Baltimore

Massachusetts (3) – Cambridge

Michigan (2) – Ann Arbor, Detroit

Minnesota (3) – Minneapolis, St. Paul

Nevada (1) – Reno

New Jersey (11) – Newark, Trenton

New Mexico (4) – Albuquerque, Santa Fe

New York (15) – New York City, Albany

North Carolina (9) – Charlotte, Durham, Raleigh

Ohio (2) – Columbus

Oklahoma (2) – Oklahoma City, Tulsa

Oregon (4) – Portland

Pennsylvania (1) – Philadelphia

Texas (15) – Austin, Dallas, Houston, San Antonio

Utah (2) – Provo, Salt Lake City

Virginia (2) – Fairfax County

Washington (2) – Martin Luther King County, Seattle

Wisconsin (3) – Madison

Wyoming (1) – Jackson Hole

Data via www.sanctuarycities.info

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

Loyalty Has its Benefits - Reward American Pride

Loyalty Has its Benefits – Reward American Pride

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

October 19, 2011

If the sight an American flag is a distraction causing you to lose your appetite, pack your bags and get the hell out of the United States. The pervasive anti-American attitude by American businesses and in American schools must be thwarted immediately.

Not once again, but thrice again, political correctness rears its vile and unsavory head. Within the span of a week three incidents in three southern states have occurred that should make the hair of any patriot stand up on end. If they don’t, then perhaps you are not paying attention to the fast track down the road to hell this country is traversing.

An Olive Garden in Oxford, AL denied a local Kiwanis club’s attempt to hang an American flag in the restaurant prior to their banquet. Darden, the parent company of Olive Garden claimed the lack of a private dining room led to the anti-American decision.

“To be fair to everyone and avoid disrupting the dining experience for all other guests, they’re unable to accommodate flags or banners of any type in the dining room,” said a statement from a nameless official from the corporate offices in Orlando, FL.

Darden is also the parent company of Red Lobster, Longhorn Steakhouse, The Capitol Grille, Bahama Breeze and Seasons 52. For their patently anti-American attitude and the disrespect shown to a meaningful civic organization as Kiwanis, I will certainly not “disrupt” a single Darden restaurant with my business or economic support.

Quite frankly listening to a half dozen waiters and waitresses butchering “Happy Birthday” so badly that Simon Cowell would lose his lunch is disrupting to me.

I strenuously implore the over 275,000 Kiwanis International members to do likewise and not give another dollar or euro to any Darden restaurant in their cadre. They can live up to their motto of “Serving the Children of the World,” and set an example for others.

Unfortunately, the Kiwanis did not respond with their wallets in this instance by taking their business elsewhere. Instead, Marti Warren, 80, of Anniston, AL told the banquet attendees to imagine the flag while they recited the pledge.

Another flag flap occurred with the firing of Sean May, 26, a now former employee of Casa Monica Hotel in St. Augustine, FL for wearing an American flag on his jacket lapel. And while the employee handbook bars the donning of any and all pins, buttons, etc., a mega-sized American flag hangs high and majestically above the posh hotel.

May, a two-year employee of Casa Monica said he has worn the flag every day on the job and is often complimented for it by patrons. Ironically, Casa Monica has had a change in management and has been quoted as wanting to revamp its image. Firing a loyal employee for demonstrating pride in his country will tarnish, not enhance, the image of a hotel where May, a front desk supervisor was the first line of welcome to out of town guests.

We live in an era when pride in one’s country is waning due to an abominable so-called leader who spends his time on his apology tour around the globe as thousands of capricious, spoiled malcontents make irresponsible and unconscionable demands of the government and the banking system. May ought to be applauded for doing his job well and with aplomb while clearly having a positive impact on guests who management should hope would return to enjoy the amenities the property has to offer.

Casa Monica is one of 10 upscale lodging properties owned by The Kessler Enterprise, Inc., and whose CEO is Richard Kessler. In addition to Florida, Kessler Enterprises hotels are also located in Colorado, Georgia, New Mexico and North Carolina. I urge anyone with a reservation at one of the Kessler properties to cancel with support of May as the reason and suggest future reservations be made at non-Kessler hotels.

While the Casa Monica and any privately owned business has the right to set its dress code, code of conduct and policies for its employees, to fire someone for demonstrating pride in his country with a simple lapel pin is outrageous. Perhaps that particular rule ought to be amended. Some hotels have not just the names of their employees on their name tags, but their country of origin as well. I have front desk hotel experience and also adorned my jacket with an American flag lapel pin.

In addition to the flag friction, there is an even more insidious situation of political correctness that must be addresses.

In a McAllen, TX high school, the Spanish class of sophomore Brenda Brinsdon, 15, has been forced to not only memorize, but sing the Mexican national anthem as well as recite the Mexican pledge of allegiance. This too is unconscionable and fostering not just loyalty toward a foreign nation, but disloyalty to the United States. After all, these are still impressionable students, many of whom go along to get along without questioning.

Bravo to young Miss Brinsdon for video recording the activities in her class, bringing the to the attention of her father, who equally outraged, and rightfully so, complained to the school district administrators. The response the father received was support of the teacher by the district, comparing the lesson to the teaching of Shakespeare or poetry.

In seven years of Spanish at the junior high school, high school and college levels there was no memorization of any foreign anthem or pledge required. Learning the alphabet, verb tenses, vocabulary, cultures of Spanish speaking nations, conversational Spanish, ordering from menus and the like was the order of the day in Spanish class, not an attempt at indoctrination of impressionable youths.

There is little enough loyalty toward this country, encouraging loyalty to another is just another example of the dangers of political correctness run amok. Between the schools and the businesses too afraid to demonstrate national pride, apparently a refresher in Being a Proud American 101 should be mandatory course in today’s America.

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

Olive Garden: 401 Oxford Exchange Boulevard, Oxford, AL 36203 #256-831-4911

Darden Concepts, Inc.: 1000 Darden Center Drive, Orlando, FL 32837 #407-245-4000

Casa Monica Hotel: 95 Cordova Street, St. Augustine, FL 32084 #904-827-1888

The Kessler Enterprise, Inc.: Richard Kessler, CEO: 4901 Vineland Road, Suite 650, Orlando, FL 32811 #407-996-9999

Illegal Still Means Against the Law

Illegal Still Means Against the Law

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

October 18, 2011

What part of illegal does Ruben Navarrette not yet understand?

In his October 16 column “Wake-up on a DREAM Act,” Mr. Navarrette expresses his belief that not only is it appropriate to charge illegals the cost of in-state tuition, but “it’s only fair because illegal immigrants who reside in a state contribute daily to the tax coffers and economic productivity.”

What Mr. Navarrette seems to ignore is that these so-called immigrants have broken the law of the United States and are therefore not entitled to any benefits of their being here illegally. Illegal means they have broken the law – some law – some statute that says their presence in this country is inappropriate and unacceptable, yet they are being rewarded with a seat in a college classroom and at a reduced rate to boot.

The contribution that illegals make, according to Mr. Navarrette, remains to be seen. What is seen is the high rate of crime committed by illegals and the high rate of recidivism by those merely thrown back into the general populous.

The more illegals are rewarded with in-state tuition, food stamps, free medical care, and public schooling – all at a cost to taxpaying citizens and legal residents – the more incentive they are given to continue invading our borders.

GOP presidential hopeful Herman Cain may have been joking when he recently said there should be an electric fence on the southern border, but perhaps that is precisely what is needed. Yes, the people sneaking across the border are human beings – but they are also human beings who know the difference between right and wrong.

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

[This item appeared in The Indianapolis Star.]

Pastor Flocked Over Mormon Cult Remarks

Pastor Flocked Over Mormon Cult Remarks

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

October 9, 2011

Is Christianity a cult? One could certainly make the case it is if using the same insidious, bigoted remarks made about Mormonism by a pastor who introduced Texas Governor Rick Perry at the October 8 Values Voters Summit in Washington, DC.

Mormonism is “not historical Christianity,” said Pastor Robert Jeffress of the First Baptist Church in Dallas. It is a “theological cult… Mormonism… was invented 1,800 years after Jesus Christ and the founding of Christianity,” continued Jeffress.

Using Jeffress’s own words, could not the same thing be said of Christianity itself? Christianity was founded more than 3,000 years after Abraham and the founding of Judaism, which just celebrated the advent of 5772 with the observances of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. It could, but I would never suggest Christianity is a cult.

Jeffress continued his anti-Mormon harangue. “It [Mormonism] has a human leader as opposed to a divine leader, Joseph Smith. They have their own set of doctrines apart from Christianity and they have their own religious book apart from the Bible – the Book of Mormon.”

Is Jeffress so wise that he knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that Joseph Smith was not the divine inspiration of a Deity? If, according to Genesis, in the Old Testament, G-d created Man on the sixth day, that man being Adam, shouldn’t he be the recipient of people’s worship and adoration as a divine leader?

Once again, to work with Jeffress’s words doesn’t Christianity have its own set of doctrines apart from Judaism? Christianity, which grew from Judaism, does not adhere to the same Sabbath, or Sabbath rules, as Judaism – Sunday as opposed to Friday night/Saturday (save for the Seventh Day Adventists who observe a Saturday Sabbath). Christianity does not observe Kashrut, the dietary laws observed by Jews. These are but two examples of doctrines separating Judaism and Christianity, but I would never call Christianity a cult.

As for Jeffress noting that Mormons have a religious book apart from the Bible, using his words again, could not the same thing be said of Christianity? G-d gave the Israelites the Torah – the Five Books of Moses – the Old Testament. At the time, it was the only testament. Christianity could be called a cult for adopting scripture apart from the Torah – the Apocrypha and the New Testament.

Jeffress then concluded his cacophonous rant by quoting John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court: “’We have the duty and privilege as Christians, to select and prefer Christians as our leaders.’ If I’m a bigot, then the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Jay is a bigot.”

Jeffress neither rescinded his remarks, apologized for them nor disavowed them when given the opportunity by several members of the media.

While there were no Mormons during Chief Justice Jay’s time, that doesn’t make his statement, or Jeffress’s remarks any less prejudicial – against Catholics, Jews and G-d forbid, atheists.

The below are excerpts of “Faith and Freedom for All Americans,” a column I wrote December 6, 2007 following the speech given by former governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) explaining his Mormonism, a la John F. Kennedy in 1960, as a Roman Catholic candidate for president. Full disclosure, I am not now, nor was I in 2007, a supporter of Romney. I say now, as I said then, if he garners the GOP nomination, I will vote for him.

Not since 1960 when then presidential candidate John F. Kennedy, also from Massachusetts, felt compelled to discuss his Catholic faith before the entire nation has an address like this been deemed necessary. But by whom was it deemed necessary? People lacking knowledge of the Mormon faith? After all in a recent poll only 36 percent of those asked said they would feel comfortable voting for a person of the Mormon faith. FYI, in that same survey a whopping 50 percent of those asked said they would feel comfortable voting for a Jewish presidential candidate.

In his address, Romney declared, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of G-d and the Savior of mankind.” That should more than placate nervous Christians.

…if Sen. [Joseph] Lieberman were a stronger candidate for president that when he made a brief bid for the Democratic nomination in 2004, he would be enduring the same questions from non-believers and those lacking knowledge of Judaism. Questions are natural concerning the unknown and answers should be expected, but the issue of a candidate’s religion should not necessarily define the candidate.

Romney’s Mormon faith will no more dictate how he leads the nation should he win the 2008 presidential election any more than Kennedy’s did upon his victory in 1960. Pope John XXIII no more ran the White House during the Kennedy Administration than Gordon B. Hinckley, president of the Mormon Church, would upon a Romney election.

It’s not the faith of a candidate but the character of the candidate, to paraphrase the late Martin Luther King, Jr. Let’s enjoy our religious freedom – freedom that comes to us as a gift from G-d.

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

Banks (Nit) Pick Customers' Pockets

Banks (Nit) Pick Customers’ Pockets

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

October 5, 2011

Ally Bank is currently running a commercial where the crux of the message is “just accept it,” regarding the fees and charges attached to the accounts of their competitors’ clients and customers.

Message to the folks: be the master of you own financial domain; don’t just accept it.

Speak with your wallets. Regardless of the situation, you are in charge of your fiscal life. You decide how to spend your money; on what, where and why. You also determine where not to spend that money and how and where to save said dollars.

Bank of America recently announced they are attaching a $5 per month charge for debit card usage on all non-ATM uses. The debit card is a convenient way to use your own money directly out of your checking account instead of writing a paper check or using a credit card, and the bank determined you, the consumer, should pay $5 for this convenience each month – the privilege of using your money – the same money the bank uses interest free to lend to other clients at high rates of interest. That’s how banks make money.

Make no mistake, I don’t begrudge anyone earning money, making a profit – the economy of the United States still functions under free market principles. Sort of. Unfortunately far too many of the free market principles are being strangled by Obama and his cronies with their overreaching regulations.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) and his other liberal Senate cohorts failed to see the consequences of their short-sighted actions. They demanded banks and credit card divisions lower the per swipe rates at point of sale and fees on their cards. The same senators also forced a lowering of interest rates or limiting the interest rate ceiling. The banks claim they have been forced to raise their fees and rates by an unfriendly Democrat-led Senate.

The Senate, no doubt in a reelection gimmick, claims they are helping consumers, translation – voters – by forcing the interest rates lower. In reality this does not help the consumers. Instead, it only helps to drive them further into debt. Consumers can run up higher and higher debt only to be made to pay a lower percentage of the total, thus prolonging the life and cost of that debt in spite of a lower rate of interest.

And let’s not lay all the blame on Bank of America. Sun Trust and other banks are also considering similar changes and charges on their account holders. Wells Fargo and Chase are now charging their customers $3 for paper billing. More and more banks are eliminating free checking or going to higher minimum balance requirements, as Citigroup has from $6,000 to $15,000.

With that $15,000 of money belonging to the bank client that is untouchable, the bank can lend that out and charge a higher rate of interest than what they pay on the clients’ account, especially as most checking accounts are non-interest bearing.

Those who stick with Bank of America and use their debit cards are giving the bank $60 a year to use their own money. If giving away $60 per annum doesn’t bother you, feel free to send it to me and then tell Bank of America where it can go.

Customers of Bank of America and any other bank charging prohibitive and unreasonable fees must speak with their wallets and don’t walk away, but run away to another more friendly financial institution that will not treat you like a moron. Or simply stop using the debit cards.

It’s times like this to demonstrate the personal discipline to use the credit cards and pay the bill in full each month. Customers pay no fees or interest and Bank of America or other banks make no money on such transactions.

Consumers must not get pushed around. Read the small print, talk with your wallet and bring your business where it will be appreciated. If you have a high rate of interest credit card, pay it off in full every month to avoid interest payments. If your bill is too high – spend less. It really is that simple. Just spend less – make no excuses – don’t be like Congress – ever.

If you are not happy with the decisions being made by your bank or financial institution, speak up! Go talk to the branch manager and tell him or her to eliminate this fee or that charge. If the answer is no, your answer is “goodbye.”

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

Al-Awlaki Treason Deserved Death

Al-Awlaki Treason Deserved Death

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

October 1, 2011

There should be no question regarding the justifiability of the killing of American-born terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki on September 30. Like a feral animal needing to be put down, al-Awlaki was a scourge upon humanity and just another casualty in the War on Terror.

While the ACLU and the like of US Rep. Ron Paul (L-TX) are bemoaning the so-called assassination of al-Awlaki, remember this was an American born terrorist who died in a drone attack on the field of battle on the Yemen-Saudi border.

A home grown terrorist born in New Mexico with degrees from Colorado State University and San Diego State University, al-Awlaki had long since renounced the nation of his birth. His death is seen as the most important Al Qaeda “get” since Osama bin Laden in May of this year.

Al-Awlaki masterminded and incited the Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan, who on November 5, 2009 murdered 13 of his fellow troops. Credit al-Awlaki for inciting the attempted airplane attack on December 25, 2009 by underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab as well as the attempted bombing of Times Square in New York City by Faisal Shahzad on May 1, 2010.

As an American citizen, the killing of al-Awlaki is more than justified. He waged war against the United States, thus committing treason, punishable by death. He took up arms against the United States as an enemy combatant as well as inciting and masterminding others to do likewise in the name of bringing America and Western Civilization to their collective knees.

Here’s an insidious thought or theory. Numerous key, high ranking terrorist kills gives Obama something on which to hang his foreign policy hat – this in spite of his sheer hypocrisy according to former Vice President Dick Cheney – during the reelection campaign. Cheney correctly noted that as a US Senator and candidate for president, Obama virulently opposed this sort of action during the Bush administration. These military successes could vault Obama back into the White House for another four years. Then, Obama can continue to destroy the United States with his odious and failed economic policies paving the way for socialism and a Muslim victory.

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