Silencing Trump, Silences Millions

Silencing Trump, Silences Millions

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

January 13, 2021

“A government big enough to give you everything you want, is a government big enough to take away everything you have,” is erroneously oft-attributed to Founding Father, Thomas Jefferson.*

Now, substitute government with big tech, and one can understand the current quagmire the United States has entered. More than understand, the American people should be downright frightened. The far left socialist progressives are using George Orwell’s 1984 as a template and taking it to places Orwell could never have fathomed. 

The far left, which encompasses the so-called mainstream media, the behemoth tech companies, and the incoming Biden administration which includes the already sworn in 117th Congress are marching in lockstep - goose-stepping - past political oppression, past speech suppression, straight to totalitarianism. They are playing a dangerous game and they are playing for keeps, starting with amending all gender specific language to gender neutral language in Congress.

Here’s an example of the insanity before Biden is even sworn in. “(3) In clause 8(c)(3) of rule XXIII, strike ‘father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, first cousin, nephew, niece, husband, wife, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, stepfather, stepmother, stepson, stepdaughter, stepbrother, stepsister, half brother, half sister, grandson, or grand daughter’ and insert ‘parent, child, sibling, parent’s sibling, first cousin, sibling’s child, spouse, parent-in-law, child-in-law, sibling-in-law, stepparent, step child, stepsibling, half-sibling, or grandchild.’” (Wall Street Journal, January 5, 2021) This will only heighten confusion, not decrease it, and is merely the beginning of the insanity. 

President Donald Trump has been unceremoniously stricken from Facebook, Google, Instagram, PayPal, Pintrist, Reddit, Shopify, Snapchat, Spotify, Tik Tok, Twitch, Twitter, and You Tube. What is to prevent any of these companies from cancelling anyone they choose for any reason or no reason? The age in which we live could turn into one reminiscent of Nazi Germany where children were told to spy on their parents and report seditious speech against Hitler to their teachers. Americans could turn their neighbors in to tech companies for spying a Trump bumper sticker on their neighbor’s car, or a Trump sign on their lawn. Those tech companies could just as easily banish any one of us from any of the above or other sites.

And for good measure, Michelle Obama supports the ousting of Trump from his multiple social media accounts and stifling his free speech. “Now is the time for Silicon Valley companies to stop enabling this monstrous behavior - and go even further then they have already by permanently banning this man from their platforms,” Obama said on January 7.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel opposes Trump’s banishment from Twitter, saying, “the right of freedom of opinion is of the utmost importance; it’s not big tech’s job to decide what speech should be blocked.” So, the German Chancellor understands the concept of free speech in the United States better than an American First Lady.

These Silicon Valley oligarchs have foisted draconian measures on the president in a way so frightening as if to tell him, “we dictate to you, and you are nobody.” Silicon Valley next set its sights on Parler, a conservative social media site, and in an act of collusion Amazon, Apple, and Google shut Parler down in a matter of hours.

While Parler has been banished from the internet on baseless accusations of being the site used by people planning the invasion at the Capitol on January 6, in reality, Facebook, Twitter, and You Tube were the hosts of the overwhelming majority of pre-invasion chatter and planning, but they keep chugging merrily along. Parler’s exile, because it caters to a more conservative clientele, is just one of a number of slights to the right. So much for the open forums these behemoth tech companies brag about, and an example of antitrust abuse. Demonstrative of how wrong the ouster of Parler was, US Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) supported its removal, but not that of Facebook, Twitter, or You Tube.

“It’s not about holding everyone to account equally… it’s about giving preferential treatment to certain people and taking it out on others. Amazon, Apple, Google, they don’t care. They are using this to squash the first real competitor in this space in so many years. If there’s a cast for antitrust I think this is an example,” said John Matze, Parler CEO on January 11. Parler is subsequently suing Amazon for violating antitrust laws.

“Silencing people, not to mention the President of the United States, is what happens in China, not our country,” said Nikki Haley (R-SC) former governor and United States Ambassador to the United Nations.

According to Twitter’s so-called Civic Integrity Policy, “we want to make it clear today that the accounts of world leaders are not above our policies entirely… We will err on the side of leaving the content up if there is a clear public interest in doing so.”

Such total… hypocrisy. World leaders? Iran’s Ayatollah is still on Twitter. He’s less of a threat to public safety than President Trump? If Amazon, Apple, and Google have the power, and quite frankly the temerity, to take Parler offline, why is the Ayatollah still posting? Or Antifa? And for that matter, why haven’t these three so-called arbiters of internet decency shut down every single site trafficking in child pornography? Seems knocking those filthy animals out would take priority, but no, it’s about sacking millions of conservatives.

Err on the side of leaving content up if there is a clear public interest in doing so? More than 74 million Trump voters and countless other Americans simply supporting free speech is certainly a clear public interest. Clearly a double standard on the part of tyrannical tech.

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey still grants Holocaust deniers a platform, yet Trump supporters pose a greater threat to American civilization? While Parler was forcibly going dark, “Hang Mike Pence” was horrifyingly trending on Twitter. In reality, big tech, the media, as well as the liberal left socialist progressives actually believe the conservative movement poses a serious threat to their desires to turn the United States into a socialist country, enjoined with its evil trappings such as  the Green New Deal, Medicare for all, a minimum guaranteed monthly income, raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour, a return to mandatory Obamacare membership, abortion on demand - full term, citizenship for illegals, continued support of sanctuary cities, a return to the Paris Climate Accords, and a reinstatement of the pathetic Iran deal.

Additionally, Twitter is busy lecturing foreign countries, specifically Uganda, having banned social media on the eve of its elections for president and parliament, scheduled for Thursday, January 14 on the importance of free speech, the importance of access to information, and to deny those, violates basic human rights, and that censoring people’s internet access is immoral. Such utter hypocrisy coming from the same company that has done just that to millions and millions of Americans. 

And as noted above it’s not just behemoth tech working to silence millions of conservatives. Forbes magazine announced it will not hire anyone affiliated or associated with the Trump administration, and it will doggedly pursue and attempt to ruin, financially, any business or company that does hire those linked to the Trump administration. “Forbes magazine’s chief content officer, Randall Lane, warned companies that may consider hiring Kayleigh McEnany, Kellyanne Conway, Sarah Huckabee Sanders and others who worked for the Trump administration. ‘Let it be known to the business world: Hire any of Trump’s fellow fabulists above, and Forbes will assume that everything your company or firm talks about is a lie.’”

“Cancelling anyone associated with President Trump, is not going to unite the country,” said Kelsey Bolar, an analyst with Independence Woman’s Forum. “This is just the latest example of cancel culture and the great purge that we’re seeing come from the left and never-Trump Republicans. This dangerous cancel culture, which wants to ban any American who had the audacity to support President Trump or work in his administration from being able to do something as basic as have a new job,” continued Bolar.

But back up on Capitol Hill, members are seeking to do more than just cancel some of their colleagues from across the aisle. US Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS), and Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security called both Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Josh Hawley (R-MO) “domestic terrorists” who should be placed on the No-Fly list for the unimpeachable act of supporting the 10 day emergency audit of the votes in several states during the certification process of the Electoral College. 

Cruz and Hawley have been called insurrectionists, when nothing they did were the acts of insurrectionists. They were simply following their Constitutionally outlined duties and rights as senators. Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) called for the pair to resign immediately. Even Joe Biden had the unmitigated audacity to compare Cruz and Hawley to infamous Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels. Is this Biden’s brand of unity? Will the more than 74 million Trump supporters also be labeled insurrectionists, domestic terrorists, or Nazis and also be denied air travel, or credit cards, or bank accounts on the way to becoming unpersons?

Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), a member of the Senate Ethics Committee, sought censure or expulsion of Cruz and Hawley. And digging even lower, US Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) compared Trump to Osama bin Laden - this coming from a member of the House Intelligence Committee, literally in bed with a Chinese spy.

None of this consternation and angst were directed at the Democrats who challenged the results of the presidential elections and thus the certification processes of the Electoral College votes in 1969, 2001, 2005, and most recently in 2017. No one called for anyone’s censuring, expulsion, or resignation, meaning, none of the Republicans balked at the free speech and Constitutional rights of the Democrats in the Senate. Even after Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) Tweeted that the 2016 presidential election was “hijacked,” there were no repercussions.

Additionally, while also not suffering any punishment, Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) encouraged the illegal actions in Minneapolis to continue following the burning down of the Third Precinct police station. “Everyone beware, they’re not going to stop, and they shouldn’t stop,” said Harris, who is slated to be inaugurated Vice President on January 20.

Then there’s the incendiary statement made by Biden, and applauded, not condemned, but applauded by many in the media. When asked if he would like to debate Trump, Biden said he wanted to “take Trump out behind the gym and beat the hell out of him.” When did this become acceptable, to threaten the president of the United States without retribution?

Ridding the internet of those evil, pesky conservatives allows the liberal left, socialists, and progressives to enjoy life in their echo chamber… chamber… chamber. But beware liberals, socialists, and progressives, once the conservatives are gone, they will come for you next once the infighting begins, and inevitably it will. “The cancel culture will come for us all,” said US Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH). This only exacerbates the problem of how free our free speech is, actually.

The diminishing of free speech in the United States is never more glaring than by the chilling words offered by Eugene Robinson, an associate editor with The Washington Post. Robinson actually called for the “reprogramming of Trump supporters,” and that “they are in a cult.”

CNN, in a most dastardly statement, having called for censorship, is working to have FNC removed from the airwaves, in an effort to eliminate its competition as it heads down a path toward totalitarianism. 

And only because it is relevant regarding the ever shrinking freedom of speech, a sham of an impeachment “hearing” was conducted on January 13 - one week prior to the end of Trump’s term. This was the Democrats response to the Capitol invasion of January 6. It really can’t be called a hearing as there was  no actual hearing, no witnesses, a complete lack of due process, no involvement by the Judiciary Committee - a total abuse of power. No matter, as the Democrats achieved their goal, casting enough votes to have President Trump the first president to be impeached twice. There were 232 yea votes, of which 10 came from Republicans, 197 nay votes - all Republicans, and four members not voting. No official word yet, as to a Senate trial.

Clearly there is an erosion of civil liberties in the United States commencing with a shrinking of free speech. Stand up for free speech before it no longer is free or even permitted. Once free speech is curtailed, what will they take next - our right to worship openly? Certainly the pandemic already set that in motion. And that would just be dangerous, toxic, and absolutely unAmerican. 

While the following refers to the deaths of multitudes during the Holocaust, it can also speak of the silenced. This passage is prominently featured in the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, of which I am a proud charter member.

“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.” 

--Pastor Martin Niemoller (1892-1984) a German pastor outspoken against the Nazi regime. His Continental manual typewriter, on which this brave pastor typed his sermons, is on display at the museum.

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

*US Senator Barry Goldwater used the phrase during his 1964 run for President; and President Gerald Ford uttered it while addressing a joint session of Congress on August 12, 1974.

NFL's Priorities Stand for Hypocrisy

NFL’s Priorities Stand for Hypocrisy

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

September 7, 2017

While the Cleveland Browns are the most recent National Football League franchise to make a mockery of the Star Spangled Banner, they are actually doing so with the blessing of the league itself. Another NFL season kicks off this weekend, as flags will be raised and unfurled throughout 16 stadiums, yet there will be a lack of uniformity as the league remains silent on those players demonstrating disdain and disrespect toward the American flag and all it represents.

The NFL, in its current spate of political correctness, is quick to fine players for excessive celebration for anything from a sack to a dance in the endzone following a touchdown. And although it seems perfectly acceptable to blaspheme the National Anthem under the guise of free expression, different socks and/or messages on their shoes are flagged for punishment.

The NFL is demonstrating sheer hypocrisy by not demanding all players stand for the National Anthem. After all, fans in the stands are required to do so, hearing this or a similar announcement: “Ladies and gentlemen, please rise, and gentlemen please remove your caps as so-and-so performs/sings our National Anthem.” If it is mandatory for paying customers to stand, why are the players treated any differently? Who are they to receive a special dispensation from standing for the National Anthem.

About a dozen Cleveland Browns players took a knee during their home preseason game on Monday,  August 21 versus the New York Giants. Additionally, Seattle Seahawks defensive lineman Michael Bennett sat during the National Anthem on Sunday, August 13. And while head coach Pete Carroll said “we should all stand for the anthem,” there were no repercussions against Bennett.

It was just as wrong for former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick to take a knee last season, as Hall of Famer Jim Brown said he thought it disrespectful and that players like Kaepernick are desecrating the flag. Now, as opening day approaches, and Kaepernick is still unemployed, there are players and a so-called sports writer Skip Bayless who are attempting to bully the league into hiring Kaepernick on racial discrimination grounds. That suggestion is a load of crap. Regardless of his race, Kaepernick has been a distraction and for those in the overwhelming majority, fans simply don’t wish to support a team with a malcontent on its roster.

Taken one step farther, the unions representing the Cleveland police officers and paramedics have announced they will defer from holding a large, roughly field-sized American flag during the pregame ceremonies prior to the Browns season-opener against the Pittsburgh Steelers on Sunday, September 10.

“I am not going to participate, or work with management, that allows their players to disrespect the flag and the National Anthem,” said Steve Loomis, president of the Cleveland Police Patrolman’s Association, and a veteran of the United States Navy. Loomis expressed shock upon learning that Browns management knew there would be players refusing to stand for the anthem, but did nothing to prevent their actions.

The Browns issued a contradictory statement at halftime of the their game versus the Giants. The Browns organization has a “profound respect for the National Anthem, the U.S. flag and those who serve in the military. We feel it’s important for our team to join in this great tradition and special moment of recognition, at the same time we also respect the great liberties afforded by our country, including the freedom of personal expression.” Pure hypocrisy.

So the NFL endorses personal expression when it pertains to something as important as respecting the American flag and the National Anthem, yet rigidly enforces uniform rules regarding socks and shoes. The entire issue is a uniform issue, as in uni = one, one form, as in everyone wearing or doing the same thing - standing for the anthem. Once again, pure hypocrisy.

The NFL and its 32 franchises can enforce a rule requiring its employees, the players, to stand during the National Anthem. If a player wishes to offer personal expression, he should feel welcome to do so on his personal time. Once that player punches the clock, similar to an employee of any other business, they are required to follow the rules as established by their employer, provided they do not require lawbreaking or putting themselves in harm's way. A restaurant employee should not offer personal opinions on issues of the day while serving food to patrons, but once the shift has ended, he or she should be able to express his or her opinion at will. To do so on the clock could prove deleterious to the employer - losing patrons and ultimately income because of a wrong place, wrong time situation. Teams could suffer similar losses when jersey and other merchandise sales slump due to fans speaking with their wallets - refusing to purchase such items representing teams with players disrespecting the flag and ultimately the nation.

Players disobeying the rules should be fined up to the amount of one game’s salary. If players do not like the rules, they are free to find employment elsewhere. The NFL would no doubt disapprove of such enforcement for fear of being called racist when this is not a race issue, but instead, an issue of respect and uniformity. As a business, the NFL is gutless - lacking the intestinal fortitude to do what is right in the eyes of the millions of patriotic Americans, those who wore and continue to wear the uniform, as well as those men and women in blue on the front lines in the cities, towns, villages, and hamlets across this great nation.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and educator living in Westfield, IN. He is a longtime fan of the New York Giants and New York Jets.

Trump Speaks From His Rump

Trump Speaks From His Rump

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

July 19, 2015

My wife and I met Donald Trump at the Iowa Freedom Summit in January. We both enjoyed hearing him speak and appreciated his candor – candor – Trump’s ability and desire to speak without a filter while saying what many of us are thinking.

I write that way, more often than not, because I believe in telling it like it is, like it ought to be, and that tap-dancing is for the stage not the political stump. I ardently agree with Trump on illegal immigration, while not his all-inclusive rant about the entirety of the Mexican population. Illegal immigration is a scourge in the United States and deleterious to the American future as a leader on the world stage. (http://sanfordspeaksout.blogspot.com/2015/07/san-francisco-is-no-treat.html)

I blasted Macy’s, ESPN, and other businesses for summarily dismissing Trump from their rosters because he employed his First Amendment freedom of speech. Don’t shop at Macy’s, I wrote, for their hypocrisy. After all, Martha Stewart, Sean Combs (a.k.a. Diddy), and Justin Bieber are not without controversy and yet they adorn Macy’s ads or have product lines on the retailer’s shelves.

But now, Trump has reached an actual low with his disgraceful remarks about Arizona Senator John McCain, the GOP’s standard bearer in 2008. And while I defend Trump’s First Amendment right of free speech, as I imagine the patriotic McCain would, I take umbrage with his comments critical of McCain the soldier.

Oft-critical of McCain the moderate Republican, and for numerous reasons, the man still served in the United States Navy during the war in Vietnam, and was a POW for five years in the infamous Hanoi Hilton. Trump, who never donned the uniform of his country, slammed McCain. “He’s a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured,” Trump ignorantly opined. Trump doubled down when he not only refused an opportunity to apologize to McCain, but called him a “dummy” for finishing at or near the bottom of his graduation class at the Naval Academy.

While a POW in Vietnam, McCain actually had an opportunity to be freed, but turned it down, as his release did not include his fellow prisoners. He remained in captivity with his men enduring unspeakable torture for five years. Mr. Trump, I like people who respect our military heroes and know when enough is enough. Use your freedom of speech to apologize to John McCain, for McCain is representational of all the men and women who wore the uniform in the past and those proudly wearing it now.

This nation is mourning the loss of five members of the United States military, murdered by a domestic jihadist. Trump’s insult of McCain is also an insult to the memories of those recently slaughtered; wounds too raw, too deep to be assaulted by Trump, speaking from his rump.

If Trump seriously wants to be Commander of Chief he had better remember that if not for the men and women in uniform the United States would not have come to fruition as a concept in 1776; would not have preserved the Union during the War of 1812 and the War Between the States; would not have defended itself during the Mexican-American  War, and Spanish-American War; would not have defended and aided allies during World War I, the wars in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan; and would not have saved the world from dictatorial and despotic overthrow during World War II.

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

Free Speech or Fatwa

“I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” – attributed to Voltaire (1694-1778)

Free Speech or Fatwa

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

May 14, 2015

As a Constitutional Conservative and fervent supporter of free speech and expression, supporting Pamela Geller’s May 3^rd Muhammad Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest was a no-brainer. While those on the left, who claim the mantle of free speech and tolerance but are the biggest hypocrites in that realm only support that with which they agree, condemned Geller, it is they who did not activate their brains.

For all those donning t-shirts and claiming “je suis Charlie,” following the terrorist attacks on the French satirical publication Charlie Hebdo as well as a Parisian kosher market on January 7 of this year, where are your je suis Pamela shirts in support of her freedom of expression?

Responding to Geller’s event, in a most cowardly and heinous manner were two terrorist thugs, Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi, who failed in their attempt to slaughter the 150 attendees, but were put down like rabid dogs by Garland police – the real heroes of the day.

Commentators from all the major news outlets on television castigated Geller and her organization, the American Freedom Defense Initiative. This includes several members of the right of center Fox News Channel, such as Bill O’ Reilly, who disingenuously claims to support the First Amendment, but took Geller to task for what he called the inappropriateness of her event. O’ Reilly did not excoriate Geller for exercising her rights of free speech and expression, but that it was unwise.

There is no law against being unwise, Mr. O’ Reilly.

The ultra-liberal MSNBC commentator Chris Matthews suggested that Geller’s event, held at the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland, TX, was the root cause of the terror attack that disrupted the exhibit and contest. Then Matthews attempted to backtrack his ridiculous remarks by saying that Geller was perhaps not the cause of the terrorist’s actions, but instead she was provoking, taunting, or daring. Is there a difference? Is he also suggesting that crime victims are to blame because they own a business or have wealth?

Matthews and other commentators, while entitled to their opinions, do not seem to have grasped the concept of supporting the speaker, even if you don’t endorse the message. It’s easy to support the speech with which we agree; the real challenge is supporting the speech with which we disagree – and vehemently at that. Matthews is feckless as he apparently does not support Geller’s First Amendment rights – the same amendment that has protected his words his entire 40-plus year career.

Regardless of the event, it seems whenever Muslim extremists disapprove of something, they take to violence as the answer, shooting, beheading, firebombing, immolating their way to what they believe will be Islamic glory, when in reality they are guaranteeing their fast track to hell.

After all, do other religion’s believers take the same tack as Muslims? Did the global Jewish community go on killing sprees following the International Holocaust Cartoon Contest in 2006? This was a state-sponsored event by the Iranian despotic regime as part of their continued Holocaust denial scourge. Or how about this year, when the Iranian government sponsored the second International Holocaust Cartoon Contest? Apparently it’s alright for Iran to deny the Holocaust and expect no physical retribution, but draw a couple of cartoons of a pedophile masquerading as a deity and all hell breaks loose.

How is a Muhammad cartoon contest any more inciting than when the Nazis marched in Skokie, IL on June 25, 1978? (“Illinois Nazis. I hate Illinois Nazis!” – Jake Blues) Yet, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled in favor of the National Socialist Party of America on the grounds of the First Amendment. They gathered before an even larger group of protesters who simply drowned out the Nazis using voices and signs, not violence.

Where were the fire bombings and massacres by Jews when the Protocols of the Elders of Zion began to appear in print in various machinations in the 1890s? This anti-Semitic tome played on the traditional fears and stereotypes about Jews, and yet there was peace in the land, save for the pogroms against the Jewish population.

And what about that hideously egregious disgrace called “Piss Christ,” depicting a Crucifix in urine veiled as art? If anything would incite Catholics and other Christians to violence, certainly something that virulently offensive would do it, yet physical actions were not the order of the day in 1987, as calm as well as verbal and written objection reigned supreme.

Free speech and expression are the law of the land in these United States whether we the people agree with the notions or not. Pamela Geller exercised her First Amendment right and the Muslim response was to attempt to slaughter her and her supporters, then issue a fatwa on national television. When seasoned news commentators begin to parse what should be protected speech versus what should not be protected speech, the system fails and no one’s speech and expression are protected. Remember, as Abraham Lincoln stated rather adroitly on June 16, 1858, “a house divided against itself cannot stand” – and the United States is far too divided these days.

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

Show American Sniper at Maryland

Show American Sniper at Maryland

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

April 24, 2015

Has the First Amendment to the United States Constitution been suspended at the University of Maryland in College Park? Has my alma mater become a place where diversity of thought and speech are no longer paramount to the campus experience?

Because of a petition, sponsored by the Muslim Student Association, signed by less than one percent of the student body, the showing of the film American Sniper has been cancelled. The film, about a decorated American war hero, Navy SEAL Chris Kyle, who served four tours of duty in Iraq, has been dubbed controversial mostly by people who have yet to view the movie.

Just another example of political correctness on a college campus. This backfired at the University of Michigan where the film was to be shown, then cancelled due to the complaints of a handful of students, but ultimately that decision was reversed. Free speech and expression fully on display at Michigan.

If the folks at the Muslim Student Association, or anyone else for that matter, do not want to see this film, don’t go. This is not a required class assignment, and no one is forcing anyone to the theater. But don’t inflict your antipathy toward the film on those who do wish to see it. And how can it be condemned by people who have yet to actually see the movie?

What happened to the free and open exchange of ideas?

Recalling another controversial film, The Passion of the Christ (2004), and the condemnation leading up to its release, there was discussion about the film at the Alexandria, VA synagogue to which I once belonged. I believed then, as I do now, that it was important to see the film, then, have an intelligent and intellectual dialogue about its merits and shortcomings. That is what occurred then, and should occur now on the College Park campus.

I applaud Breyer Hillegas, president of the University of Maryland College Republicans who enlisted members of his board to garner signatures on a petition of their own. In less than a day, they managed to compile more than 450 signatures of people who wanted to see American Sniper as well as of those who, while not interested in seeing the film, support the First Amendment.

The Student Entertainment Events (S.E.E.) Committee should reinstate the event to show American Sniper on May 6 and 7 as originally scheduled, and hold a post-film dialogue, moderated by S.E.E. in the theater or by Dr. Wallace Loh, president of the university himself.

I have forwarded this letter/column to Dr. Loh and recommend that your comments be dispatched to him as well. Politely inform him that you wish the university reinstate the two day showing of American Sniper for those people who believe in, and support the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Dr. Loh can be reached at president@umd.edu or 301-405-5803.

A university should be a beacon of free speech, critical thinking, and expanding one’s base of learning, and experiences. However, what is not free is the cost of attending a university, the cost of running a university. Should the University of Maryland, my alma mater, continue to acquiesce to the demands of the very few, financial supporters of the university who support the freedom of speech and expression, who support the First Amendment of the Constitution, should speak with their wallets and have their voices heard loud and clear, that we will withhold future contributions to the school.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and educator living in Westfield, IN. He is a 1988 graduate of the University of Maryland.

Je Suis Charlie

“Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.” – Thomas Jefferson (1787)

Je Suis Charlie

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

January 8, 2015

It was not just a massacre at a French satirical periodical, but an overall assault on the freedom of speech, press, and the journalistic community as a whole – a community of which I have long been a member.

Ten members of the magazine Charlie Hebdo and two police officers were gunned down in a terrorist attack in the Paris area Wednesday, January 7 by gunmen shouting Allah Akbar while carrying out their planned slaughter. Additionally, there were 11 other people injured, four critically.

Barack Obama called the murders a “cowardly and evil attack on free expression,” but neglected, once again, to properly place blame where it belongs – squarely on the shoulders of radical Muslims who resort to violence, murder, and mayhem as a first option whenever they feel the need to curtail the rights of those with whom they disagree.

These methodical murderers are jihadists hell bent on violence due to their adherence to Sharia Law which they attempt to foist upon the communities which they have invaded, not just in recent years, but for the greater part of the last millennia and a half. These are patient, yet cowardly, terrorists with long memories. Knowing these Muslim extremists can’t obligate governments to shut down genres of communication, they resort to terrorist acts in an effort to intimidate the various newspapers, magazines, publishers, movie theaters, to self-censor. Without a free and open press, and under an opaque shield, these nihilistic thugs would succeed.

This was a “military style attack on innocent civilians. If it can happen in Paris, it can happen in Washington. [We are] still engaged in a war on terrorism,” said former United States Ambassador John Bolton.

“I’d rather die standing than live on my knees,” said Stephane Charbonnier, the publishing director of Charlie Hebdo, who did just that as one of the victims of the radical Muslim slaughter. The 47 year old was also an artist with the publication.

The other victims of the slaughter include Charlie Hebdo staffers:

Jean “Cabu” Cabut, 76, lead cartoonist;

Georges Wolinski, 80, artist and cartoonist since the 1960s;

Bernard “Tignous” Verlhac, 57, member of Cartoonists for Peace;

Bernard “Uncle Bernard” Maris, 68, economist and columnist;

Philippe Honore, 73, artist who drew the last tweeted cartoon by the magazine;

Mustapha Ourrad, copy editor;

Elsa Cayat, columnist and analyst;

Frederic Boisseau, building maintenance worker;

Michel Renaud, former journalist visiting the Charlie Hebdo offices.

Police officers Franck Brinsolaro, 49, and Ahmed Merabet, 42, were both murdered in the line of duty. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11332671/Charlie-Hebdo-attack-The-12-victims-of-Paris-shooting.html)

Charlie Hebdo, as a satirical publication, often poked fun, mocked, and/or chided Christianity and Judaism, speech protected by law, without violent recriminations. In fact, more egregious attacks on those two faiths did not elicit terrorist attacks by Jews or Christians. Take for example the “Piss Christ,” a disgusting, completely offensive so-called work of art depicting a 1987 photograph of a crucifix immersed in the urine of the artist whose name will not be mentioned here. Or the many volumes and interpretations of the categorically false, anti-Semitic tome, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, first published in 1903, which detailed a Jewish conspiracy of global domination. Hitler and the Nazis used this text as valid even after it had been disproven as a fraud perpetrated against the Jewish people. Neither of these examples, each more deleterious than the cartoons that cost 12 Frenchmen their lives, drove Christians or Jews to violence.

French police are searching for two brothers Said Kouachi, 34 and Cherif Kouachi, 32, both French nationals who perpetrated the heinous slaughter. Hamyd Mourad, 18, is also being sought. They are allegedly attached to Iraqi and Yemeni al-Qaeda terror groups.

While blame will not be assigned to the victims, it will be charged to the French government for the continuing allowance of unfettered immigration of Muslims, many running amok demanding, and in some cases, establishing Sharia Law in “their” communities, unchecked by the host country. This is a pattern that has been allowed to perpetuate itself in Germany, Great Britain, the Netherlands, and Spain.

The behavior by these terrorists is typical, not atypical, yet the Obama administration has yet to refer once to radical Islam as the root cause or perpetrators of such continued acts of terror. Since the September 11, 2001 terror attacks on the United States destroying the World Trade Center, damaging the Pentagon, as well as causing a diverted plane to crash into a field in Shanksville, PA, Muslim extremists have managed to carry out over 80 known terror attacks around the world from Bali and China, to Moscow and Turkey, as well as India and Sweden.

October 12, 2002 Muslim extremists set off bombs in the tourist district of Kuta on Bali, murdering 202 people and injuring 240 more.

March 11, 2004 Muslim extremists detonate bombs on the Madrid commuter train system murdering 191 people and injuring 1,800 more.

July 7, 2005 Muslim extremists explode four suicide bombs on London Underground trains murdering 52 people and injuring 700 more.

July 11, 2006 Muslim extremists bomb trains in Mumbai, India murdering 209 people and injuring more than 700. There would be another eight such terrorist attacks on India during this time period following September 11, 2001.

November 5, 2009 a Muslim extremist goes on a terrorist shooting rampage at Fort Hood, TX murdering 13 people and injuring 33 more.

May 22, 2013 Muslim extremists murder British Army soldier Lee Rigby in broad daylight on London streets.

It is high time for the world as a whole to be on guard for Muslim extremists and for the Obama administration to call them for what they are – Muslim extremists committing wholesale terror against a cowering and weakening globe.

The answer to hate speech, and the slaughter of innocent journalists is certainly an act of hatred, is never less speech, but in fact more, much more speech. It is up to those of us who believe in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution (1791) and other documents guaranteeing the freedom of expression such as the English Bill of Rights (1689), and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man (1789) to stand up, defend the rights of all people to enjoy the freedom of speech, expression, press, and religion. We must fight the ongoing threat to the availability of information on a global scale.

There is not just a war on terrorism, but on freedom of the press and free expression – each perpetrated by Muslim extremists. We must continue to fight for these freedoms by speaking out, writing editorials, ensuring books are published, movies are screened, and that churches and synagogues remain open, vibrant, voices of reason. To do otherwise is to surrender to evil and if our voices go silent, the world as we used to know it ceases to exist.

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

NBA Commits Foul on Capitalism, Free Speech

NBA Commits Foul on Capitalism, Free Speech

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
April 30, 2014

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

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

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

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

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

The brash owner of the Clippers may be despicable for his views and opinions, but the First Amendment to the United States Constitution gives Sterling the right to be such a rapscallion. (http://sanfordspeaksout.blogspot.com/2014/04/donald-sterling-tarnishing-only-himself.html)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Donald Sterling - Tarnishing Only Himself

Donald Sterling – Tarnishing Only Himself

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
April 28, 2014

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ninth Circuit Short Circuits on Flag Shirts

Ninth Circuit Short Circuits on Flag Shirts

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
March 4, 2014

More anger than incredulity simply because little emerging from the 9^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals should surprise anyone with a pulse who has been paying attention to the machinations of that body.

Yet, a disturbing ruling made by the 9^th Circuit Court sounds the alarm bells of the loudest wakeup call imaginable – a cacophony of fear, sadness, and surrender – shaking this nation to its very core. Threats of racial violence have vanquished the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

In a much ballyhooed case dating back to May 5, 2010, five Live Oak Hill High School students arrived at school clad in t-shirts sporting the American flag. They were given the option of turning the shirts inside out or returning home with an excused absence because of numerous threats of racial violence. The 9^th Circuit Court determined that the concerns regarding the threats of violence overshadowed the students’ First Amendment right of free expression.

In reaching its decision, the 9^th Circuit Court relied upon the 1969 Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. In Tinker several junior high and high school students protested the war in Vietnam by donning black armbands in school. School officials banned the armbands just two days prior to the students appearing in the schools wearing them.

The students were subsequently sent home and suspended until such time as they returned to school sans armbands. The students’ claimed their First Amendment rights of free speech and expression were violated by Des Moines – after all, the First Amendment does not cease to exist upon entering the school.

The Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, supported the school officials’ authority to set rules and policies provided they are “consistent with the First Amendment rights of students and teachers.”*

Continuing with Tinker, “wearing an armband as a silent form of expressing an opinion was, according to the Court, ‘akin to pure speech’ and involved ‘primary First Amendment rights.’”*

Tinker, for it to be valid, relies upon the key word – consistent. “The Court stressed the fact that school officials had permitted other political symbols to be worn. For example, some students wore political campaign buttons, and others wore the Iron Cross, a symbol of Nazism.”* Only the anti-Vietnam Conflict armbands were singled out for exclusion, restriction, and eventually punishment – not even a symbol of Nazism was deemed inappropriate – which even in 1969 Iowa is both disturbing and lacking consistency.

If anything, Tinker should support the First Amendment right of the California students to wear their American flag t-shirts on Cinco de Mayo, or any other day, for that matter. Are flags in classrooms being taken down on Cinco de Mayo? How about the flags flying outside the school, yet still on the campus property? Are they raised on May 5^th?

The Live Oak High case, where the 9^th Circuit Court upheld a school’s decision denying students the right of expression in the wearing of t-shirts depicting the American flag lacks the consistency rooted in Tinker. Are other t-shirts with designs barred from this school? Are other dates subject to wardrobe review and restriction?

Cinco de Mayo celebrates victory by the Mexican army over the then far superior French army in the May 5, 1862 Battle of Puebla, yet is widely observed in the United States by those of Mexican heritage. While this “holiday” is typically enjoyed by many of non-Mexican heritage with the enjoyment of Mexican beer and food, there is no reason why Americans should be barred from wearing t-shirts emblazoned with American flags. Why not ban the wearing of t-shirts with French flags?

Should other battles be observed in this same manner – with threats of racial or ethnic violence to prevent people from donning American flag t-shirts? How about on April 25 for the celebration of the Dutch victory over Spain in the 1607 Battle of Gibraltar? How about September 12 for the celebration of Poland’s victory over the Ottomans in the 1683 Battle of Vienna? How about January 14 for the celebration of the French victory under Napoleon over the Austrians in the 1797 Battle of Rivoli? How about September 1 for the celebration of the British victory over the Afghans in the 1880 Battle of Kandahar? How about December 12 for the celebration of Finland’s victory over the Soviet Union in the 1939 Battle of Tolvajarvi?

Or, if battles are not the focal point of celebration and ethnic pride is, should American flag t-shirts be banned on St. Patrick’s Day if Irish-Americans threaten ethnic violence? How about Columbus Day? How about Israel Independence Day?

Moreover, when did American society reach the deleterious point of threats of violence ruling the day? Students opposed to the wearing of American flag t-shirts threatened racial unrest and outright violence – and their threats were used to deny First Amendment rights of speech and expression by American students with American flags in American schools.

The threat of violence from the Mexican and Mexican-American students at Live Oak High should have been thwarted and punished based upon the 1919 United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States.

Charles Schenck, during World War I, was accused, along with other Socialist party members, of violating the 1917 Espionage Act – prohibiting “destruction of military recruiting.”**

Schenck protested United States involvement in the Great War via anti-war pamphlets. He argued that the Espionage Act “prevented full public discussion on the war issue,”** and thus violated his First Amendment rights as found in the Constitution. Schenck lost his Supreme Court appeal on the grounds of what Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes defined as a “clear and present danger.”**

“Holmes’s analysis considered the context of the speech as well as the intent of the persons who sent the leaflets.”** INTENT. What is the intent of the Live Oak High School students threatening violence should other students don the American flag t-shirts in an American school? Clearly, violence; disruption of school activities, while wearers of the t-shirts intended to simply go through their school day wearing t-shirts adorned with the American flag.

“Holmes distinguished wartime and peacetime contexts and concluded that Schenck’s words constituted such an evil since the statutes applied to conspiracies as well as actual obstruction of the military. Under the statute the action did not have to be successful in order to violate the law.”**

The threats – whether carried out or not, present a clear and present danger and violate the law as outlined in Schenck. Those Live Oak High students issuing the threats of racial violence and disruption of daily school activities are the ones who should have been punished. After all, with the virtual zero tolerance policies regarding bullying, why were the threatening students not suspended? Instead their miscreant behavior was rewarded by the 9^th Circuit Court out of fear. This case should absolutely be appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

Students wearing t-shirts with American flags, Mexican flags, another country’s flag, or no flag at all should be both permitted and welcomed on campus in an effort to demonstrate First Amendment freedoms of speech and expression. In fact, such an allowance would be analogous to what Schenck himself wanted – “full public discussion of the war issue,” sans an actual war – or not.

As for the distinguishment made by Justice Holmes in 1919 between wartime and peacetime contexts, there are many who would aver that we the people are locked in a culture war for the soul of America. The definition of a culture war may be nebulous, but the results could prove catastrophic to the future of this country and its way of life. The United States will either go the way of the Roman Empire after its roughly 300 years and disappear as it was known, or the people will return to the words of the Founding Fathers.

The case of the Live Oak High School is bigger than simply denying students the right to freely express themselves while allowing bullies to threaten force and succeed. Upon the founding of the United States of America following victory in the Revolutionary War over King George III and Great Britain, Benjamin Franklin was queried as to the style of government to which the new nation would adhere – a republic or a monarchy. “A Republic, if you can keep it,” responded Franklin. It is up to we the people to keep and maintain the Republic. The maintenance therein is the genuine challenge, especially considering the growing number who have either not learned about the history of this Republic or simply do not care.

The violent and those who threaten violence should not be rewarded, nor should the wordless wearers of t-shirts be thwarted in the pursuit of their First Amendment rights of speech and expression – lest the future of the Republic suffer gravely.

While Franklin was ebulliently prophetic about the precarious nature of the Republic from its inception, former President Ronald Reagan 200 years later saw the workings of the people both in and out of government and offered these equally vital words:

“Freedom is never more than one generation from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”

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

*The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States, P. 875

** The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States, P. 758

A&E Ducks Free Speech

“I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” – attributed to Voltaire

A&E Ducks Free Speech

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
December 19, 2013

Until the recent kerfuffle regarding a magazine interview, I have not seen a single episode of Duck Dynasty and in fact, had never heard of Phil Robertson, patriarch of his TV family. Now his right of free speech has been stifled.

While I still have no interest in watching an episode of this program, I am however, supportive of Mr. Robertson’s First Amendment right of free speech and expression.

Robertson was suspended from the A&E television phenomena for what the gay and lesbian community claims were offensive and derisive remarks about homosexuals in an interview with GQ magazine – not even remarks made on the television network itself.

Robertson said homosexuality is a sin in accordance with his Christian beliefs. Robertson went on to say "Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men. Don't be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers – they won't inherit the kingdom of G-d. Don't deceive yourself. It's not right," as written in GQ.

Agree or disagree with Robertson, that isn’t the issue. The issue is his fundamental, Constitutional right to say what he wishes. He did not call for the stoning or death of homosexuals. He didn’t even say they should be deprived of their rights or citizenship. Robertson simply expressed what millions of people feel regarding the appropriateness of the homosexual lifestyle. Even more volatile speech is and should be protected so long as it does not incite criminal behavior.

The homosexual community, much like a well-heeled lobbying group, is a strong minority, but that’s what needs to remembered – they are a small minority, numbering less than 10 percent of the population. Yet, the homosexual community commands such fear and intimidation that they forced A&E to suspend Robertson from the program because they did not like or approve of his comments made in an entirely different media venue.

The homosexual community threatens and cajoles media and corporate leaders to cave in to their demands for fear of boycotts. The supporters of Robertson and Duck Dynasty should do likewise – threaten a counter boycott if Robertson is not returned to his place on the program.

Free speech is just that and while we may not always agree with what people say, we still fight for their right to say it, to paraphrase Voltaire. If the homosexual community gets its way and silence Robertson and others who share his religious and cultural beliefs, who will be threatened next? Who next will be denied their rights? If members of the homosexual community, or anyone else for that matter, do not like or agree with Robertson’s words, don’t watch his program. Change the channel. I don’t like the theme of a program such as Modern Family, I don’t demand ABC remove it from its roster, I change the channel.

There is power in numbers and popular television programs generate revenue for the network on which they appear. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is still on the books and is valid – protecting Americans, not putting them on the unemployment line.

A&E exhibited a double standard by denying Robertson his right of free speech in accordance with the Constitution. Where is the tolerance and diversity supported by A&E – or is that only reserved for those with whom they agree? Apparently Christians, conservatives, and/or religious people are excluded from this support.

Contact A&E to express your outrage at feedbackaetv@aenetworks.com, 235 E. 45^th Street, New York, NY 10017, 212-210-1400.

I fully agree with Sarah Palin’s Facebook comment: “Free speech is an endangered species.” The answer to speech people find objectionable is not less, but more speech.

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