Puff Piece on AG Nominee Lacks Substance

Puff Piece on AG Nominee Lacks Substance

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

January 29, 2015

A terribly written article by Kevin Johnson of USA Today for The Indianapolis Star about the Senate confirmation hearing of Attorney General nominee Loretta Lynch lacked substance and any relevant information regarding the type of attorney general Lynch will be.

If confirmed, Lynch will replace the often contentious Eric Holder, known to flout the law on more than one occasion. In Johnson’s puff piece he quoted Lynch as saying “If confirmed as attorney general I will be myself,” in response to Texas GOP Senator John Cornyn’s question, “You’re not Eric Holder, are you?”

In fact that was the crux of Johnson’s article, “AG nominee Lynch assures Senate she’s not Holder.”

What Johnson failed to report is how Lynch said prior to Wednesday’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing that she admires Holder, considers him a role model, and would continue his work as the next attorney general as nominated by Barack Obama.

What Johnson also failed to report, and should have been the subject of the headline, is Lynch’s support of illegal aliens being allowed to work legally in the United States. In an answer to a question asked by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Lynch said “Senator, I believe the right and the obligation to work is one that is shared by everyone in this country, regardless of how they came here. Certainly, if someone is here—regardless of status—I would prefer that they be participating in the workplace than not participating in the workplace.”

For the presumptive top law enforcer in the nation, the support of miscreants further breaking the law should instantly disqualify Lynch from the position of attorney general. Lynch further stated that she does not interpret Obama’s executive order regarding the protection of upwards of five million illegals as amnesty. “I did not read it as providing a legal amnesty,” said Lynch. Yet none of this important information found its way into Johnson’s “news” article.

Those people who cross the border illegally have broken the law. They should not be entitled to work in the United States, free medical/health care, welfare, food stamps, schooling for their children, a driver’s license, or any other benefit afforded citizens and legal residents of this country. Lynch supports illegals having gainful employment – which is also illegal. What part of illegal does Lynch not understand?

“From a legal standpoint, she’s wrong,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA).

Already testifying to the support of law breaking by an Obama administration nominee is a bad harbinger, but anyone reading USA Today would be unaware of that thanks to Johnson’s irresponsible writing. After all, this is an administration that has violated the law and the United States Constitution to the point where the Supreme Court has voted nine to nothing against Obama on issues. This includes Obama’s two High Court appointees Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

And if the issue of illegals working in the United States is not enough to render Lynch unacceptable as the next attorney general, she also opposes voter ID laws, calling them suppressive. Next after securing the borders, should be the protection of the vote in this country. With all of the activities in the nation requiring identification, such as buying alcohol, an airplane ticket, real estate, a home, writing and cashing a check, opening a bank account, using a credit card, checking in to a hotel, securing a passport, purchasing a firearm, registering for college, getting married, among others, none of which are suppressive or racist. If it is not racist or suppressive to ask for ID at the bank, it certainly isn’t when showing up at the polling place to cast one’s ballot on Election Day. Voter ID laws protect the sanctity of the vote as cast by legal citizens of the United States. Illegal aliens who corrupt elections by diluting the legal votes render the process impotent.

Contact USA Today and politely demand their reporters present the real story. Call their headquarters at 703-854-3400.

Also call your United States senators and politely tell them why they should vote to reject Loretta Lynch as the next Attorney General. Call the Capitol switchboard at 202-224-3121 or visit www.senate.gov to retrieve the phone numbers and e-mail addresses to contact your senators.

Remind the senators that Lynch’s support of illegal aliens working in the United States is also a national security risk. By keeping porous the borders of the United States, not only are illegal aliens invading this country, but terrorists have easy access as well. The floodgates are already open; Lynch is simply laying down the welcome mat for disaster.

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

What Part of Illegal Don't They Get?

What Part of Illegal Don’t They Get?
Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
June 27, 2013

Here’s an obvious, yet little mentioned irony: we the people elect our fellow citizens to be lawmakers, yet once they reach the vaunted halls of Congress, they become lawbreakers.

This is not hyperbole. With the new illegal immigration amnesty bill passing the Senate, and 14 Republicans complicit in the law-breaking supported by the full force of the Democrats – they will send the bill that will grant a path to citizenship to roughly 20 million illegals who have invaded our borders to the House. Don’t let the government lull you into a false sense of security by thinking the number of illegals is “only” 11 million.

Lest we forget the disaster that was the 1986 amnesty under former President Ronald Reagan, still one of my three political heroes, granting a “mere” three million illegal aliens rights and eventual citizenship. That never did stem the tide of illegals invading the United States, because a sieve-like border will remain as such until it is CLOSED.

Where are the priorities of the elected officials, elected to protect and defend the United States and its borders? The passage of another weak-kneed amnesty bill will further wreck the fabric of this nation, driving it further from the image portrayed and presented by the Founding Fathers.

The answer is that both major political parties are fecklessly in the pockets of either the Hispanics or the business lobby. For the most part, the GOP sees cheap labor while Democrats see upwards of 20 million additional voters joining their ranks, further indebting the United States as more and more indigents suck from the teat that is government. More people on Medicaid, paid for by the taxpayers; more people living in Section 8 housing, paid for by the taxpayers; more students crowding into the already failing public school system, paid for by the taxpayers; more people on welfare and food stamps, paid for by the taxpayers. With a $17 trillion dollar debt, the US citizenry can ill afford to legalize millions of more people to be on the dole and the precipice of poverty.

But who suffers most with the legalization of those who broke the law illegally entering the United States? Those already on the bottom rungs of the socio-economic ladder – historically blacks, American Indians, and Hispanics. Amazingly, these constituencies vote in lock-step for the Democrats without realizing if the Democrats get their way, these low-income workers will have to fight even harder for jobs, thus relegating them to the government plantation for yet another generation.

Instead of rewarding illegals with entitlements, stop cutting veterans’ benefits. Give those men and women their due – they gave their all and then some to defend our rights and freedoms. They deserve more than they already get in terms of respect for their government, their Commander in Chief and less hassle getting the medical aid they need for physical and mental ailments as well as the ability to pay in-state tuition in any state they wish for serving all citizens in all 50 states.

I subscribe to the Tom Tancredo philosophy on illegal immigration – deportation. Simple concept, virtually impossible to enact and enforce, which I recognize. (Tancredo, a Colorado Republican, served honorably in Congress, prior to running for and being defeated for governor of the Centennial State. He entered several primaries for president in 2008.) Barring that, a plan for self-deportation must be put in place. Deny all illegal invaders ANY government entitlement and/or benefit. Just shut them down. Unless they can prove they are here in the United States legally, they get nothing. If they get nothing, they will either leave, or worse yet, turn to crime to survive. Many illegals have already turned to crime – beyond the act of illegally crossing the border – and still have the privilege of remaining in this country.

For those who will label me a racist for wanting to deport or deny, I don’t care. I don’t care because I am not a racist for wanting the rule of law to be followed and enforced. Police and ICE agents around the country are being ordered to look the other way, and that is wrong and criminal. I also don’t care, because I did not ask those here illegally to come here in the first place.

Yes, many people come here because of repressive regimes in their homelands – so did the Pilgrims. But there are laws in this country, and they must be followed. Yes, the children of those illegal aliens did not choose to come here, and we are a nation with a heart; sometimes too big of a heart for our own good, and this is one of those times.

But the time to shut off the spigot is now. The time to enforce the laws is now. The time to seal the borders is now. Build the fence – now, high, and far, and yes, even electric. There are severe penalties for those who are caught sneaking into other countries – even Mexico, which has a southern border sealed like a drum – as it should be – in all countries.

Once the border fences are built, and the borders are genuinely secured, only then should applications for legal immigration be accepted – including from those here illegally. Those here illegally would need to self-deport to their country of origin, apply with the caveat of admitting their illegal status with fines and penalties and under the provision they may never earn citizenship or voting rights, but instead a legal status to permit them to work and pay taxes as new legal residents. They will also be denied entitlements as part of their penalty.

Any illegal alien caught after that time will be automatically photographed, fingerprinted, put in a database, and deported with no future allowance of reentry in the United States.

No student visas will be granted to anyone from a country voting against the United States more than 50 percent of the time in the United Nations. Any student granted the privilege of a student visa will be photographed (already required) and fingerprinted so they can be tracked as they are guests in this country. Overstay your guest privileges and deportation with no change of return will be imposed. Any questions? See September 11, 2001.

Students already here illegally, whether by their own volition or their parents’ illegal actions, should never be allowed to pay in-state tuition, nor qualify for scholarship funds. The DREAM Act is a nightmare that will cost the taxpaying citizens more money they should not have to pay.

No application for immigration will be granted to anyone from a country voting against the United States more than 50 percent of the time in the United Nations. Clearly these are countries not supportive of the United States and their citizens should be denied privileges in this country. No law says the US must grant entrance to anyone, let alone someone from an unfriendly country. Any questions? See September 11, 2001.

Any immigration application accepted will be done so on a probationary basis of three to five years. Commit a crime, go to jail, and then go back to your country of origin with no chance of return. Immigration to the United States is a privilege, not a right.

During the height of the eastern and southern European immigration to the United States from the 1880s to 1920, immigrants were expected to have sponsors, promise of employment, and be cleared upon entry with a clean bill of health. There is no reason why those rules can’t once again be imposed.

In those days, new immigrants worked because there was no promise of welfare, food stamps or government assistance. If they needed help, they procured it from family, friends, or faith-based organizations such as a church or synagogue. New immigrants took pride in learning English and turning the United States into a melting pot.

Today it is just the opposite. There is no melting pot, not demands to have jobs, learn English, or not turn to government assistance. Today, the United States is becoming more and more balkanized with ethnic groups clinging to their home countries and attempting to turn their neighborhoods into modern day shtetls.

That is simply unacceptable. Come to the United States legally and with the promise of making this country a better place. If not, do not come to the United States to turn this country into the cesspools you abandoned without attempting to make them better places. If you come to the United States and burn our flag and salute that of another nation, you are in the wrong country.

Not only is this bill irresponsible, but to suggest that a 1,190-page behemoth, laden with more lard than a pig farm, be read in 72 hours by the members, is also irresponsible.

As for those members of Congress – both houses – heed these messages or you will find yourselves out of jobs – Democrat and Republican alike.

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

Snowden: Hero or Villain?

Snowden: Hero or Villain?
Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
June 24, 2013

I’ve been wrestling with the issue of whether Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency (NSA) information leaker, is a hero or a zero; a patriot or a traitor.

As more and more information comes to the forefront the challenge to define becomes no less murky. But, as we are judged by the company we keep, Snowden’s behavior itself has tipped the scales for me.

I am Constitutional Conservative (using capital “Cs” as it may one day become a political party replacing the floundering GOP). As such, I am critical of government, all three branches and both major parties, for its constant violation of the document that is the glue holding together the republic.

Thus the challenge in assessing the actions of Snowden, 29, charged with violation of the Espionage Act for allegedly leaking material pertaining to NSA surveillance activities, a charge which carries a maximum of a 10-year prison term. Additionally, Snowden, who worked for Booz Allen Hamilton, a Virginia-based government contractor, has been charged with the theft and conversion of government property.

Upon leaking the classified information, including how the US government conducts surveillance of potential terrorists, which also includes monitoring of American citizens’ phone conversations and e-mail correspondence, a firestorm of debate ensued.

Is Snowden a hero for unearthing material illustrating Americans are the victims of government surveillance? Or is Snowden a traitor for providing the enemies of the United States knowledge that they are under government surveillance and giving them the opportunity to change their communication methods?

Clearly there is a Fourth Amendment issue at work here.

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” (US Constitution, Amendment IV)

“Houses, papers, and effects…” could include telephones, which are presumably inside one’s home, could include e-mail, which without the advanced technology of computers would probably be written correspondence, thus making phone and e-mail protected from a warrantless search as the Founding Fathers could in no way predicted such technological advancements.

On the other hand, a strict Constitutionalist might suggest, since phone and e-mail are not included in the “houses, papers, and effects…” portion of the Fourth Amendment, they are not protected from a warrantless search, thus giving government free reign to listen to phone conversations and read e-mails.

However, the caveat of “probable cause,” gives government a grand amount of leeway to conduct such searches of phone records, e-mails, as well as the ability to listen to conversations of people deemed a national security risk, also a term that can be loosely defined to fit virtually any instance.

For years, thousands upon thousands, if not millions upon millions of people have had phone conversations monitored, and more recently e-mails, under the scope of national security much to our own ignorance.

I must add that as a journalist, not just an opinion writer, I am always an American first and a journalist second when it comes to the dissemination of secure data. We the people really don’t need to know everything coming out of Washington or our various state capitals. Let the behind the scenes work of how we the people are protected remain there for our perpetual safety.

Without our national security, without the ability to conduct surveillance of our enemies in an unfettered manner, we have no hope of freedom. My ability to be free does not hinge upon whether the government listens to my conversation with a friend about the latest Mets game or about for whom I will vote in the next election. In fact, the First Amendment gives us the right to say what is on our minds, save for the incitement of violence, which, one may assume includes the overthrow of the country and government.

If Edward Snowden believed what he did was right, moral, and righteous, he would not have fled to Hong Kong, a territory of China – not exactly a friend of the United States. He knew he was revealing more than just information about government surveillance of citizens’ phone conversations and e-mails. Snowden leaked vital information pertaining to the thwarting of up to 50 terrorist attacks on the United States.

Snowden, who said he would not voluntarily return to the United States, clearly fears what he did was inconsistent, if not treasonous, within the framework of giving aid and comfort to the enemy  by revealing government tactics in the surveillance of enemies foreign and domestic. Instead, he tucked his tail between his legs and slithered away like the coward he is. His flight is tantamount to an admission of guilt.

As for asylum being sought elsewhere, be it Russia, Cuba, Ecuador, or anywhere else, the government of the United States had better make it clear, that to not extradite Snowden, is akin to harboring a fugitive from American justice and action must be taken. If financial aid is provided to the country granting Snowden safe harbor, it should be denied.

And as mentioned above, Snowden can be judged by the company he keeps – the Chinese, the Russians, possibly the Cubans, possibly the Ecuadorians – all nations at odds with the United States. Additionally, Snowden has received a pledge of assistance from Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks, the anti-secrecy group also charged with acting contrary to the best interest of the United States.

Even Snowden’s father, Lonnie Snowden, who served his country for 30 years in the US Coast Guard, wants his son to return home and not reveal any more damaging information. “I hope, I pray, and I ask that you will not release any secrets that could constitute treason,” said Lonnie Snowden in an interview airing on Fox News, June 18.

Additionally, Assange’s attorney admitted Snowden’s options were limited. “You have to have a country that’s going to stand up to the United States. You’re not talking about a huge range of countries here,” said Michael Ratner. (Philip Elliott, Associated Press)

Snowden himself is merely a symptom to a greater concern – how many people should have security clearances in the first place? How many people should have access to the top echelon data? Snowden already admitted releasing information to people not qualified to have it in the first place – seems an act going against the better interest of the United States.

Were Snowden genuinely concerned about American citizens’ Fourth Amendment rights, he could have spoken privately to the appropriate government agencies to demonstrate how easy it was for him to access the material he came to possess without leaking secrets damaging the manner in which the NSA conducts its covert affairs.

Snowden “attempted to make a political point by leaking several documents that have seriously harmed America’s ability to identify and respond to terrorist threats,” wrote US Senator Dan Coats (R-IN), in The Indianapolis Star (June 19, 2013).

Coats asked NSA Director Gen. Keith B. Alexander what the consequences of Snowden’s leak are during a Senate hearing. “If we tell terrorists every way we track them, they will get through, and people will die,” said Alexander. (Indy Star)

Coats further defended the NSA by reminding the people how after September 11, 2001 there were demands to “connect the dots” in an effort to thwart terrorist plots. And while the government does not have the unilateral authority to eavesdrop on citizens’ phone calls or read their e-mails, foreigners have no expectation of such protection.

Coats correctly called Snowden a “grandstander” who clearly does not have the best interest of the United States at heart. Like the notion of not throwing out the baby with the bathwater, the US needs to tighten the reins on who has clearance while strengthening the ability to prevent future terrorist acts.

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