Photo ID Needed to Preserve Vote Integrity

Photo ID Needed to Preserve Vote Integrity
Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
September 23, 2012

A number of The Indianapolis Star readers have written letters to the editor extoling the virtues of why asking potential voters for photo identification is tantamount to murdering their cat. In doing so, these readers have proven themselves ignorant not just to the dangers of voter fraud, but the dilution of the very own votes cast by legal voters.

And while the Star has printed an abundance of anti-photo ID letters, supporting letters, such as this, although altered for this site, have been shunned.

Andy Pike of Indianapolis (“Make it convenient for people to exercise right,” www.indystar.com) is among the myriad readers and writers who still don’t understand the paramount importance of requiring photo ID of legitimate voters.

Such a requirement preserves and protects the sanctity of the votes of those who cast them. If ever there was a case to be made protecting the rights of the honest voter it’s this case documented in Maryland.

Wendy Rosen, a Democrat running in the first congressional district of Maryland, withdrew her candidacy less than two weeks ago when it was discovered she had committed voter fraud. Rosen, registered to vote in both Maryland and Florida, cast ballots in both states since 2006. (www.washingtonpost.com) While the matter is under investigation, Rosen’s withdrawal speaks volumes.

Photo ID is required for so many of life’s daily activities from entering a government building, boarding an airplane, writing a check, using a credit card, purchasing alcohol, tobacco or firearms, opening a bank account, signing a lease to rent a home or property, signing mortgage documents to buy a home or a business, and yes, even attending this month’s Democratic National Convention in Charlotte. Where were the cries of hypocrisy in Charlotte from the Democrats’ rank and file or the so-called mainstream liberal media demanding photo ID of its delegations, but eschewing it at polling places across the country?

Millard Tyrone Sprinkles of Fishers is also wrong to say that while is it perfectly OK to expect a photo ID requirement in order to enter the DNC because this is “an age where vigilance is needed against those who would do harm,” when he cannot see the harm being perpetrated by those committing or attempting to commit voter fraud. (“Voter ID laws curtail fundamental freedom,” www.indystar.com)

Sprinkles then compounds his fallacious argument saying “There has been only a small number of documented cases of voter fraud related to identification.” [Sic] (www.indystar.com) That there is even one case of voter fraud is enough to warrant a strictly enforced photo ID law in all 50 states to preserve the integrity of the votes cast by honest, law abiding voters. Should there not be such a provision until there are a dozen documented cases of voter fraud, Mr. Sprinkles? How about waiting until there are 100? Or 1,000? How many diluted legitimate votes should be weakened before common sense comes in to play? Likewise, should the Centers for Disease Control only work on a cure for a life-threatening disease only after 10, 100, or 1,000 people have contracted or died from it?

Indianapolis Star op-ed columnist Dan Carpenter wrote, in opposing voter ID photo requirements as a form of voter suppression, “Given that most eligible voters who lack IDs tend to be poor, elderly or minority, this hurts Democrats.” (“ID facts and false pictures,” September 5, 2012, www.indystar.org)

The Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with Mr. Carpenter as it ruled there is no hardship in expecting voters to show up to their polling places with appropriate photo ID according to a six to three High Court verdict in April 2008, specifically citing Indiana’s law.

“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. (“A Picture Worth A Thousand Votes,” 12/25/11, www.sanfordspeaksout.blogspot.com)

And with all due respect to Frank H. Werker of Carmel, that he is a veteran possessing a “DD Form 214” (military service record) that is government issue, albeit one lacking a photo, the photo is what protects the integrity of his vote. All other information about being a retiree, a taxpayer and a native of Vincennes is superfluous. (“We served for right to vote without ID,” Sept. 23, 2012, www.indystar.com) On the other hand, thank you, Mr. Werker, for serving the United States in the Army for three years, including your year-long tour of duty in Vietnam.

Mr. Pike is wrong about voting being a Constitutional right. Despite Amendments XV, XIX, and XXVI, states still have the legal authority to deny the vote to felons and non-citizens attempting or committing voter fraud. The vote is a privilege and a responsibility not to be diminished by fraudulent actors attempting to sully the democratic-republican process.

Mr. Pike is right about one thing – it should be convenient for legal voters to cast their ballots – geographically convenient. All voters should live within walking distance of their polling site – school, church, synagogue, fire station, etc. Polling places should be staffed by volunteers who live in those neighborhoods and recognize most voters.

Remember, “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” – Ben Franklin (www.ushistory.org)

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

Sebelius Violated Hatch - Obama Refused to Act

Sebelius Violated Hatch – Obama Refused to Act
Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
September 23, 2012

Barack Obama has once again put his weak spine on display. This time for failing to act on the violation of the Hatch Act* by his Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius.

Sebelius, a Democrat, who signed the ethics pledge, committed numerous ethics violations prior to her being selected as HHS Secretary while serving as Governor of Kansas (2003-09), and should never been nominated, let alone confirmed, 65-31, by the Democrat-majority Senate.

To be fair, nine Republican senators aided and abetted in the confirmation of Sebelius when they had the power to thwart the nomination from succeeding. Far too often cabinet nominees are rubber stamped to confirmation with little to no real opposition. All 31 no votes were cast by GOP senators while 54 Democrats and two independents supported Sebelius. (www.newsvine.com)

That the cadre of Democrats would vote along party lines is simply a matter of loyalty and not surprising. After all, Sebelius was supposedly vetted by both Obama as well as the senators conducting the confirmation hearings. But if she were in fact vetted, why was the following neither uncovered or if it was, not a concern for the 65 senators who voted to confirm Sebelius?

While Kansas governor, Sebelius hosted, at taxpayer expense, a party at the governor’s mansion for George Tiller, of late-term abortion fame and his entire clinic staff of roughly two dozen people. Tiller, a major financial contributor to Sebelius’ campaigns, was under criminal investigation at the time of the party, and later charged with violating the post-viability law of Kansas. (www.lifenews.com)

Sebelius was caught in a meek attempt to spin the event as something it wasn’t, then ultimately lied about the funding and expenses of that and another event. During her Senate confirmation hearings the subject of Tiller and money came up, and again, more spinning and discrepancies presented that should have raised numerous red flags for the confirmation committee.

Instead, Sebelius sailed through confirmation. It was no surprise that GOP senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, Dick Lugar (IN), George Voinovich (OH), and Arlen Specter (PA) voted to confirm as they are moderates at best.

Lugar was subsequently defeated in a 2012 GOP primary by Richard Mourdock. Specter jumped ship and returned to his Democrat roots in 2009 and was also ousted from the Senate in a primary losing to Joe Sestak, who in turn suffered defeat at the hand of current GOP Senator Pat Toomey. Voinovich since retired while both Maine senators continue their service.

More surprising were the votes from conservatives Judd Gregg (NH), Kit Bond (MO) and Kansas Senators Sam Brownback and Pat Roberts. Perhaps the two Kansans supported Sebelius out of state loyalty, but that is not a valid reason to confirm someone to a cabinet position with an ethically challenged past. Bond and Gregg have since retired; Brownback is currently Sebelius’ successor in Topeka while Roberts continues to serve in the Senate.

More recently, Sebelius continued to tarnish her ethics record, twice this year and both times in Charlotte, NC – once in February speaking at a taxpayer-funded event supporting local Democratic candidates and just earlier this month at the Democratic National Convention, endorsing the reelection of Barack Obama. Both the Charlotte events involved cover ups and reimbursements of funds by a complicit DNC to make it appear as though Sebelius did not violate the Hatch Act, but such attempts were clearly unsuccessful.

While it is not practical to fire or ask for Sebelius’ resignation from her HHS post as the 2012 election is but six weeks away, Obama has a responsibility to do so anyway. The HHS Undersecretary can certainly keep the department afloat for three months, after Obama spends more of his time on the campaign trail and visiting a radio DJ called Pimp with a Limp, as well as talk shows like The View and David Letterman while the nation is in crisis.

About 10 days ago the Office of Special Council determined that Sebelius indeed did break the law by violating the Hatch Act and referred the matter to the White House “for disciplinary action. The usual penalty for such an infraction would be removal from office.” (www.lifenews.com)

Obama promised his would be the most transparent administration in history. Far from it, as he uses executive orders, recess appointments and avoids the Washington press corps as often as possible in an effort to subjugate his opponents, whom he has often called “enemies.” This is the least transparent administration since the days of Richard M. Nixon. Obama took no action against Sebelius, continuing to demonstrate weakness both at home and abroad.

*Enacted in 1939, the Hatch Act (5 U.S.C.A. 7324) curbs the political activities of employees in federal, state, and local governments. The law's goal is to enforce political neutrality among civil servants: the act prohibits them from holding public office, influencing elections, participating in or managing political campaigns, and exerting Undue Influence on government hiring. Penalties for violations range from warnings to dismissal. The law's restrictions have always been controversial. Critics have long argued that the act violates the First Amendment freedoms of government employees. The U.S. Supreme Court has disagreed, twice upholding the law's constitutionality.  (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Hatch+Act)

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

Selfish Mother Shuts Down Dances

Selfish Mother Shuts Down Dances
Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
September 21, 2012

If there could be some mechanism for typing equivalent to speed dialing on the telephone, the phrase “political correctness run amok,” would be just the sort of phrase to be first on the new speed typing application.

In this specific case, that expression would apply to the insanity occurring in the Cranston, RI school district where a mother, along with the support of the ACLU of course, manage to shut down a district-wide, years tradition of father-daughter dances, along with all other cross gender parent-child activities.

To be fair, the mother and ACLU have a legally legitimate complaint, at least according to the laws of the ultra-liberal state of Rhode Island. “While federal Title IX legislation banning gender discrimination gives an exemption for ‘father-son’ and ‘mother-daughter’ events, Rhode Island law doesn’t.” (www.providencejournal.com)

But there is a bigger picture to be seen here. Where does the chicanery of political correctness end? Will there be protests and objections every time one person is unable to participate in an event or activity and a lawsuit to curtail that event or activity? Where does reasonableness come into play? What role does common sense play in this drama of the ridiculous?

Should team sports be cancelled if a complaining student is cut from the team? Should the prom be cancelled if a complaining student doesn’t have a date? Should the school choir be disbanded if a complaining student doesn’t have the vocal chops to participate?

It was bad enough when a Newton, MA middle school unofficially banned the wearing of “celebratory clothing” last year – such as t-shirts commemorating a student’s birthday or bar/bat mitzvah simply because not all students had been invited to a particular event. G-d forbid a child has to come in contact with a reminder of an event for which he or she was not invited. (“Keep Your Shirts On,” 12/24/11 www.sanfordspeaksout.blogspot.com)

Legislation is designed to restrict behavior, such as the state law in Rhode Island prohibiting the mother-son and father-daughter programs, even after federal law exempts such outings from falling under the auspices of Title IX.

Could there have been another way of handling this situation? Sure. Did the mother not have a brother, father, uncle, good friend of the family to step in and accompany the daughter to the dance? If there is no adult male influence in the child’s life, that is a different problem for another column.

Upon hearing of this situation and law, state senate candidate Sean Gately (R) said he will work to change the law if elected. (www.providencejournal.com)

Not every child will be able to participate in every activity; but that child or parent should not be allowed to hold an entire school or district emotionally hostage to prevent their precious angel from feeling the pangs of disappointment. These children had better learn about disappointment, rejection, failure and losing now before it hits them like a ton of bricks and they are too far gone emotionally living in the world of Oz to recover and there are more Paducahs, Columbines or Auroras.

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

Obama Finally Calls Terror Attacks Terror

Obama Finally Calls Terror Attacks Terror
Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
September 21, 2012

So it only took the Obama administration 10 days to figure out what anyone with a beating heart and a pulse already knew: that the assault on the American embassy in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, was a terrorist attack.

Hello? McFly? Anyone home?

Upon hearing of the terrorist attack on the embassy where radical Muslim extremists murdered Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Air Force veteran Sean Smith and former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, Obama was reticent to call the attacks a coordinated terrorist effort.

First there was the apology from Obama for an anti-Muslim film produced by an independent source that, as it turned out had nothing to do with the attack on the US embassy in Cairo, Egypt, also a September 11 terror strike perpetrated by radical Muslim extremists.

Then Obama expressed shock that such attacks would take place. Look at a calendar, Mr. Obama – it’s September 11. If you are shocked perhaps you should stay in Washington, attend your intelligence hearings once in a while and you wouldn’t be shocked by an attack that was practically telegraphed.

Prior to the terrorist assaults on the embassies in Benghazi and Cairo, Obama had only attended 47 percent of his own intelligence hearings. But that was overlooked by a liberal media so entrenched in the world of getting Obama reelected. Instead, the media focused its attention on GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney, who immediately called the uprisings at the embassies what they were – terrorist attacks. However, for his accuracy, criticism of Obama for coming late to the realization, and his presidential behavior, Romney was vilified by a media that continues to present one-sided, biased reports masquerading as real news.

US ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice also refused to acknowledge the obvious, instead calling the terrorist attacks “spontaneous, not premeditated.” How obtuse can this administration be?

US Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) said “the Obama administration is finally waking up to the reality that the attack on the US consulate in Libya was a terrorist attack to coincide with 9/11.”

“This was not a coincidence that it happened on the anniversary of September 11, that there are people out there who want to kill Americans and we have to confront our enemies. That’s what this administration is never willing to do,” said Ros-Lehtinen, chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. (www.newsmax.com)

While the administration continued burying its head in the sand, suggesting there was no evidence these were terrorist attacks, US Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) said “based on the briefings that I have had, I come to the opposite conclusion. I just don’t think people come to protests equipped with RPGs (rocket-propelled grenades) and other heavy weapons.” (www.theadvertiser.com)

Taking it one step further, US Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) simply called Obama “dead wrong.”

Obama has all but abdicated his role as Commander in Chief in favor of becoming Entertainer in Chief – spending his time with rapper Jay Z, singer Beyoncé and appearing on David Letterman’s late night talk show instead of doing his job in Washington, DC, or meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who was once again shunned by Obama. Obama continues to fiddle while American embassies burn.

In fact, where was Obama on September 11 and 12? Campaigning and fund-raising in Nevada and Colorado instead of returning to the White House immediately upon learning of the terrorist strikes. Obama continues to operate sans a sense of urgency.

The United States has a so-called leader who, upon taking office, declared that change would come to the Middle East, the Arab world and the Muslim world. Is this the change Obama meant? Attacks on US embassies or on Americans directly in Bangladesh, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Morocco, Sudan, Tunisia, and Yemen within the last two weeks are probably not what Obama bargained for during his naïve claims.

It is clear Obama is over his head in the White House, and no amount of posturing, placating or appeasing will change the climate overseas. Appeasement didn’t work in 1938 for British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, and it is not working in 2012 for Barack Obama.

Change is what is needed, and hopefully it will come November 6 when Obama is fired from his first real job and replaced with Mitt Romney who will take the job of president of the United States seriously.

May the deaths of the ambassador and his colleagues not have been in vain and may their memories always be for a Blessing.

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

Not One Thin Dime - Enough is Enough

"Let us recollect that peace or war will not always be left to our option; that however moderate or unambitious we may be, we cannot count upon the moderation, or hope to extinguish the ambition of others." -- Alexander Hamilton

Not One Thin Dime – Enough is Enough

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
September 16, 2012

The Arab Spring has clearly morphed into the winter of our discontent.

This is not going to be a political screed as both major parties are complicit here. Both the Democrats and the Republicans continue doling out money like Halloween treats to countries far and wide who neither appreciate the assistance nor defend to their own people the veracity of its importance.

If the past week of tragedy, terror, and tumult in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Iraq, Yemen, Sudan, and Bangladesh have not driven home the message that no amount of money or foreign aid will appease the savages that run amok in the name of a faith that, to all evidence, is clearly no religion of peace, then it is time to raise the financial and cultural white flags.

For all his insanity and inanities over the years, US Rep. Ron Paul (?-TX) actually got this one correct: make foreign countries earn the generous largesse provided by the United States. All countries should start at zero dollars and let them make their case before Congress and the State Department for any aid they think they deserve.

Paul is not alone as Texas Governor Rick Perry often said during his failed campaign to secure the GOP nod, “My foreign aid budget… is gonna start at zero dollars.” (Bloomberg Businessweek, Dec. 5-12, 2011, p. 42)

One would think members of Congress would be tripping all over themselves for the chance to sponsor such budget cutting legislation, especially when it would not involve eliminating any precious entitlements of which Democrats are so fond, or any Republican-sponsored tax cuts.

Use Ross Perot-style charts if it will help, but make no mistake, reprobate nations will not see one thin dime of American dollars, nor will nations that support those rogue miscreants. Nor should they. They don’t like the United States and they are not going to like the United States just because they are given financial aid. Or worse, military aid that such nations ultimately turn against their donors. Is the US buying intelligence? If so, how reliable could the intelligence be when soldiers trained by the US become insurgents, turning those weapons against those who trained those troops?

“We’re losing soldiers in Afghanistan to rogue forces – this is what Israel goes through every day,” said Douglas Brinkley, Rice University professor and presidential historian. “We cannot count on host countries protecting our property,” said Brinkley. “We have to do it ourselves.” (American embassies overseas are American property.)

Sanctions certainly have not worked against countries like Iran, as they continue to press forward with their nuclear warfare designs in an effort to fulfill their promise of eradicating Israel from the map.

There is a “moment of truth coming on Iran,” said Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-CT). The Middle East wants US leadership and the US must show strength and leadership, Lieberman continued, adding that “we either accept a nuclear Iran or act militarily. We have to deal with Iran in a very tough way.”

It is not only foolish to capitulate, hand-wring, supplicate, or genuflect to and before people who neither like nor respect the United States, it has proven deadly, witness the murder of an American ambassador and three of his colleagues this week alone.

Appeasement did not work for British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain in 1938 with Hitler, and today the United States is dealing with an enemy with more patience, more people (over one billion), better intelligence, technology, and firepower than the Nazis could ever have fathomed.

This is not the Cold War fought against the former Soviet Union, flexing muscles and backing down a la the Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962 because the United States was dealing with an enemy who also wanted to live. That was a battle for spheres of influence between capitalism and democracy versus communism – a battle of differing political and economic philosophies. The Domino Theory was all the rage.

Such politics and economics are subject to metamorphosis over time. How many strident communist nations still exist? Cuba? Angola? North Korea? Anyone looking to move to any of those despotic locales anytime soon? Even China is moving, ever so slowly, toward a pseudo-capitalism. The United States does business with Vietnam these days, which, while objectionable, is a matter for another column.

Today’s “dominos” will not be bought off with aid – financial, military or otherwise.

Eradicating this problem is simple. Pull all American servicemen and women from these rogue nations. Encourage all students and tourists to return home to the United States as quickly as possible. Advise American citizens not to visit or conduct business with rogue nations or the nations supporting the enemies of the United States. Hit them where they will feel it – in their economies. Yes, that includes any oil producing countries as well. Further, freeze any governmental assets miscreant countries have in the United States.

The current war, and it is a war, has been waged by a group of savage fanatics and zealots blindly following religious dicta and dogma commanding its adherents to kill so-called infidels such as Jews and Christians, commanding that female adulterers be put to death, commanding that homosexuals be put to death, that converts away from this venal faith be put to death. Their treatment of women is abominable at best.

The savages who make headlines on a daily basis burning American flags, attacking embassies, murdering innocent Americans, chanting death to Israel, death to America, are now clamoring “Obama, Obama, there are still a billion Osamas.” (www.drudge.com)

Terrorists only understand fear and violence, and they should be met with the same if not worse. They kill four Americans, the US strikes back by killing 4,000 of their people. This may sound harsh to American sensibilities and the media would lose their minds over such a plan of attack, but fire must be fought with fire as the alternatives have proven a catastrophic failure.

Terrorists need only be accurate once. “Our vigilance has to be every day,” said Brinkley.

In order to be acutely vigilant, the United States needs deft leadership and the mechanisms in which to defend the nation and its people both at home and abroad.

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

Romney Defends US While Obama Campaigns

Romney Defends US While Obama Campaigns
Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
September 15, 2012

Critics of Mitt Romney Ruth Marcus (Romney owes an apology) and Andy Pike of Indianapolis (Romney should not have made statements) simply do not understand that the GOP presidential nominee was defending the First Amendment of the Constitution as well the honor of the United States.  Printing of both the Marcus column and Pike letter to the editor demonstrate the left leanings of The Indianapolis Star.

Simultaneously, Barack Obama was both apologizing for something needing no apology and continuing to campaign for reelection instead of returning to the White House to do the job for which he was elected. Continuing to campaign shows Obama to be insensitive regarding the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens and his colleagues – even if unintentional. However, this is not the first time Obama has demonstrated a lack of a sense of urgency.

Marcus’ column reiterates the embassy statement from Cairo condemning “the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims,” emanating from a film produced independently by a person with no affiliation to the US government.

That this statement was supported by the Obama administration at home is not tantamount to an apology, but exactly that – and one that was not then, nor is not now, necessary. While the film may have been depraved and disrespectful it still falls under the purview of the First Amendment where “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech…”

Romney aptly defended the Constitution and rightly condemned the administration for an unnecessary apology that also made the US look weak in the eyes of people who only seem to respect strength and force. It is Romney’s timing that Mr. Pike took to task when Romney should be applauded for his statements demonstrating a decisive individual who defends his nation and its Constitution.

Mr. Pike compared this crisis to that of the attacks on 09/11/01 and that “everyone needs to stand behind the United States.” In defending the Constitution and the honor of the United States, that is precisely what Gov. Romney did.

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

Peace through Strength? Not on Obama's Watch

Peace through Strength? Not on Obama’s Watch
Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
September 12, 2012

Continuing its weak and embarrassing dogma of apology and supplication, the Obama administration has once again proven feckless in its ability to properly handle a crisis – this time a foreign policy crisis that saw two embassies attacked and four Americans murdered, including one ambassador.

And yet, while bereft of any cogent demonstration of strength or backbone, it was Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney who was assailed by the so-called mainstream media for being too quick to condemn and criticize.

A little seen video, with no link to the American government, containing ridicule of Islam’s prophet Mohammad was the impetus to the violence and murders that occurred in Egypt and Libya.

That the carnage took place on September 11 is certainly no coincidence – adding to the angst of the commemoration of the most horrific day of terror on American soil in 2001 when the World Trade Center twin towers were destroyed, the Pentagon in Arlington, VA attacked, and a plane diverted from Washington to crash in a field in Shanksville, PA, where roughly 3,000 innocents were murdered. Yet, Obama called the attacks “shocking.”

While the mocking of any legitimate religious figure is inappropriate and distasteful, there is still a little something called the First Amendment to the United States Constitution providing that: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…” This amendment was not defended or supported by the Obama administration in the language used by the American embassy in Cairo.

The initial statement from the embassy condemned “the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims, as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions.”

As violence erupted at the American embassy in Cairo, radical Muslims tore down, shredded and burned the American flag, replacing it with the black banner representing Muslim extremism. This included chants of “Obama, we are here to sacrifice for Osama.” This was followed by statements from the embassy supporting the previous call to not offend the religious sensibilities of Muslims, all the while; Muslims are attacking the American embassy.

Over in Benghazi, Libya, the American embassy was also invaded by radical Muslims who murdered US Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens, 52, a native of California and a 20-plus year Foreign Service veteran, along with three other Americans.

While the administration continued its cow-towing to the attacking and murdering Muslims, GOP nominee Romney rightfully criticized Obama’s weakness and condemned the attacks on the embassy as well as the murders of Ambassador Stevens and the other three Americans.

Romney exhibited strength and presidential acumen in his condemnation of the attacks on the two embassies, the murder of four American citizens, and the fact that embassy security is the responsibility of the host country, who clearly failed to do their jobs.

To be fair, Obama absolutely condemned the attacks and declared his desire to work with the Libyan government to bring the killers to justice. That’s a nice idea, Mr. Obama, but what government? Libya, since the ousting of Moammar Gaddafi, has been a virtual anarchist state.

Making matters worse was after the initial embassy statement, the Obama administration tried to disavow itself from the apology/condemnation of free speech rights, and then hours later, the State Department supported those very words.

Instead of condemning the Obama administration, the media went after Romney during his comments for jumping the gun in his condemnation of Obama for his continued weakness and capitulation to enemies of the American people.

Romney expressed condolences to the Stevens’ family as well as the families of the other murdered diplomats. After calling the attacks “disgraceful, outrageous and disgusting,” Romney maintained his criticism of Obama.

“I think it is a terrible course for America to issue an apology for our values. An apology for America’s values is never the right course,” said Romney, adding that Obama’s foreign policy has been a “hit-or-miss approach” lacking consistency.

Romney continued by mentioning the three “fundamental branches” of his foreign policy: confidence in the cause with no apologies for American values; clarity in the purpose; and resolve in the might of the United States – that hopefully it is needed rarely, but when it is necessary, to be swift and use overwhelming force in the clarity of the mission.

The Obama administration more and more resembles that of the failed term of Jimmy Carter – weak economy, high unemployment and a lack of respect abroad. This, sadly, is reminiscent of the Iranian hostage crisis which put the final nail into the coffin of the Carter reelection bid in 1980.

It was no accident that on the day Ronald Reagan was inaugurated those very hostages were on their way home. Peace through strength was the Reagan mantra, and it worked. It restored America’s rightful place in the global community, brought confidence back home to American citizens and began to right the ship of state.

Mitt Romney may not be Ronald Reagan, but he certainly exhibited Reagan-esque qualities that will help turn around a floundering economy, restore confidence in the business community and lead through strength on the foreign stage.

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

Eleven Years Ago

Eleven Years Ago
Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
September 3, 2012

Eleven years ago today, our world as we knew it changed interminably.

Wherever Americans around the globe were located they suddenly had a heightened sense of who they were as individuals, as countrymen and as proud patriots. Our only concerns were whether or not our families and loved ones were safe – especially for those of us living within the sights and sounds of Ground Zero – either of them.

Nothing else mattered – not politics, not sports – all seemed so insignificant while our realities seemed so surreal. However, attending the first Orioles home game after the resumption of baseball on September 21 proved otherwise as halfway through the National Anthem I began to cry like a baby, and I know I wasn’t alone.

Having grown up in north Jersey, with parents, sadly both Blessed memories, still living there, contact was vital. I was living in Northern Virginia, about 10 miles from the Pentagon, working as local newspaper reporter on a deadline that fateful Tuesday. We were able to appraise each other as to our whereabouts and safety, but so many others we knew were not as fortunate.

Once the beautiful, crisp morning air and blue skies were permeated by the evils of al-Qaeda in New York City, Arlington, VA and Shanksville, PA, all stories and deadlines were shelved in favor of the biggest breaking news since the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.

The entire newspaper staff was dispatched to as many communities in Northern Virginia as possible to cover the horrific terrorist attacks of that morning. A new day had dawned.

In fact, a new era had dawned – one that includes gropings at airports, stadiums and any other large populated venue; the surrendering of privacy rights and potentially freedoms in favor of political correctness because we don’t want to seem insensitive to other groups.

Yet, while life has gone blithely on as we distance ourselves further and further from September 11, 2001, and the restrictions on our freedoms become more of an inconvenience and not a violation of the Constitution, it becomes easier for the government to dictate our lives. This we must fight as though our very existence as a free people depends upon it, because, well, it does.

“Those that would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither,” said a prophetic Benjamin Franklin.

Never forget what happened that innocent Tuesday morning 11 years ago. Our collective national strength rose up from those ashes like that of the Phoenix, and their deaths shall not have been in vain.

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

G-d, Jerusalem Booed by Democrats

G-d, Jerusalem Booed by Democrats
Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
September 6, 2012

Same sex marriage and abortion on demand are in, while G-d, Jerusalem and generations of support of Israel, the United States’ only democratic ally in the Middle East, are out.

Is this your Democratic Party? It most certainly is not the party of President Harry Truman, who mere seconds after Israel’s independence was declared, officially recognized the new Jewish state.

And while the Democratic party at their convention in Charlotte walked it back a day later, the cat was out of the bag – officially declaring its antithesis toward people of faith and not having the courage to recognize what the GOP and millions of Americans of both major political parties have known for years – that Jerusalem is indeed the capital of Israel.

While most people consider reading a party platform boring or a waste of time, those who report the news should consider it an obligation to not just read, but report about for those who do not read it. Here, The Indianapolis Star failed miserably.

Not only did The Star not report the language removed from the platform on Tuesday in Wednesday’s newspaper, but they failed again to report on that same language being reinstated in the platform the very next day. A huge article on the inclusion of language sanctioning same sex marriage was front and center in Wednesday’s Star paper, but nothing about the exclusion of G-d and Jerusalem as the capital of Israel from the platform could be found in that day’s paper.

Likewise, the reinsertion of G-d and the language noting Jerusalem as the capital of Israel was included in the Thursday’s Star paper amidst the glowing, obsequious fawning over the speech given by former President Bill Clinton.

More importantly, the manner in which the Democratic convention chairman shoved the reinstated language down the throats of their rank and file was ignored by The Star and media outlets nationwide save for Fox News.

The language removed from the Democratic platform is as follows, from its own 2008 platform:

The United States and its Quartet partners should continue to isolate Hamas until it renounces terrorism, recognizes Israel's right to exist, and abides by past agreements. Sustained American leadership for peace and security will require patient efforts and the personal commitment of the President of the United States. The creation of a Palestinian state through final status  negotiations, together with an international compensation mechanism, should resolve the issue of Palestinian refugees by allowing them to settle there, rather than in Israel. All understand that it is unrealistic to expect the outcome of final status negotiations to be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949. Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel. The parties have agreed that Jerusalem is a matter for final status negotiations. It should remain an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths. (www.breitbart.com)

In order for the Democratic Party platform to be amended, a two-thirds vote of approval from the delegates was required. Former Ohio Governor Ted Strickland introduced the amendment with the language from the 2008 platform to be reinserted in the 2012 platform. However, the amendment did not reinsert the language demanding Hamas to renounce terrorism or even recognize Israel.

Convention chairman, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa called for the yeas and nays via voice vote. The first time the nays were the clear majority, so a confused-looking Villaraigosa called for the vote a second time with the same results. A woman on stage with the L.A. mayor was overheard saying into the still live microphone: “You gotta let them do what they’re gonna do.”

Clearly Villaraigosa wanted no part of that and emphatically called for the vote yet a third time with the overwhelming majority still in opposition to the reinsertion of G-d, Jerusalem and the Israel language to the platform.

A stunned and flummoxed Villaraigosa looked around the convention hall, then read from the teleprompter this already loaded statement: “In the opinion of the chair two-thirds having voted in the affirmative, the motion is adopted and the platform has been amended as shown on the screen.”

The already charged up convention floor became even more obstreperous, vociferously booing the insertion of G-d, Jerusalem and the language supporting Israel. Delegates holding their Arab-American Democrat signs and atheists were up in arms. This was a major error by the Democratic Party, not just the removal of the language, but not knowing the beliefs of a clear majority of its rank and file as the showed their true colors.

This entire menagerie of errors making the Democratic Party look foolish was aptly summed up by Democratic pundit Paul Begala calling the incident “beyond awkward, embarrassing, and stupid.”

This is not the Democratic Party of Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, Scoop Jackson or Joe Lieberman. The media has a responsibility to inform the public of the news – whether it agrees with the story or not. The media has a responsibility to report the news fairly, accurately, and objectively. Clearly that has not been the case on a national level or here at home in Indiana.

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