Absence of Religion Opened Door to Chaos

Absence of Religion Opened Door to Chaos
Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
September 21, 2025

On the eve of Rosh Hashanah, the advent of the Jewish New Year ushering in the year 5786, I wax a bit more introspectively, perhaps more so as the political assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk is still raw. He sought order amidst the chaos.

That order, for Charlie, came through the church. I find that same order in the synagogue, or shul. One of the myriad things, in addition to our abiding faith in G-d, Charlie and I had in common is our observance of the Jewish Sabbath - Shabbat. I heard Charlie often say he observed the Jewish Sabbath - from Friday night sundown, through Saturday night sundown. He reveled in the opportunity to step back from the rigors of the work week - those same six days the L-rd labored before, as it says in scripture, “He ceased from work and rested.” If that’s good enough for G-d, it most certainly is good enough for the rest of us.

Charlie said Shabbat gave him the all important family time - with his wife Erika and their two children he lacked the other six days of the week. He said they turned off their phones - they had no connection with the outside world, and the outside world had no connection with them.

Religion offers order amidst chaos. Many people have declared the structure of a church or shul service grants them peace - the ritual. I know walking into any shul, whether in Indianapolis where we live, or Baltimore, Mexico City, or Jerusalem at what point the service is. This is due to the ritual. Whether a prayer is being chanted or recited, I know where to turn in the siddur - prayer book. It’s familiar; comforting, and shuts out the outside world providing order amidst the chaos.

When religion found itself exiled from daily life, it opened the door to chaos, and the devil, and far too frequently that chaos, that devil, found acceptance in people’s lives. More than a century ago conservatives ceded the education of our children to the left, which preached, among other things, unimportance of the family. The federal government took that one step further when it replaced the father in the home with a welfare check - infinitely less order and much more chaos. Fatherless boys turned to gangs for a father figure, and more often than not, it ended with a prison record or a coffin. Single parent families lead to more children dropping out of school, higher crime rates, greater use of illicit drugs, higher teen pregnancy, and sadly, more slaughter of children in the womb - abortion. I witnessed this up close and in person having taught middle and high school in inner city public and charter schools. Perhaps were prayer returned to school along with dress codes or uniforms order could begin to be restored.

This is the point of no return - when people lose their humanity, when life ceases to have value, which is what has given rise to the point at which our society stands now - solving disagreements and arguments with political assassinations. A grim figure shows a growing acceptance, almost exclusively from the left, that assassination is an acceptable form of behavior as a solution to a problem. Particularly among the 18-35 generation. Increased polarization separating left from right is not just on a sharp rise, it seems to be coming more from one side than another. Almost exclusively from the left, and even a couple on the right, live in echo chambers where they only hear that which they agree with, and to hear anything to the contrary causes them discomfort and triggers them to behave irrationally. There is no law protecting people from hearing things with which they do not agree or that discomforts them.

Just recently on the floor of the House of Representatives when a call for a moment of prayer in memory of the just fallen Charlie Kirk, a number of Democrats loudly objected, and then continued to interrupt the attempts to memorialize Kirk in prayer. Why? Because they disagreed with him? The man stood for free speech, and sadly, died because of free speech. This is what is masquerading as free speech from the left? Democrats and leftists employed cancel culture throughout the Biden administration to silence and demonize the right or scare the right into submission. Fortunately that did not work.

A leftist assassinated Brian Thompson, CEO of United Healthcare in New York City on December 4, 2024 to the glee of those on the left. SO much so, they are celebrating the assassin. An extremist antisemite assassinated Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Lynn Milgrim - two Israeli Embassy staffers in Washington, DC on May 21, 2025. Deranged trans leftists are responsible for shootings at two religious schools - three students and three adults murdered at Covenant School in the Nashville suburb of Green Hills on March 27, 2023, and just last month two students lost their lives at the Annunciation Catholic School in the Minneapolis suburb of Windom on August 27. And of course, two attempts on the life of President Trump during the 2024 campaign, which also have been celebrated by many on the left.

When George Floyd died in Minneapolis the left razed the city. No order whatsoever. Pure chaos. During the so-called summer of love in Seattle, no order, just chaos as people were killed in the streets. This came from the left. As did the virulent campus antisemitism, which plunged college and university campuses into academic darkness, unrest, and centers of abject fear for Jewish students. Again pure chaos. Absolutely no order. So much so, a number of university presidents found themselves on the unemployment line. Upon the assassination of Charlie Kirk no violent outbreaks or rioting, no looting and robbing of stores and businesses, no arsons occurred. Instead, outbreaks of prayer vigils, candlelight vigils, memorials with flowers and Bible verses could be found nationwide.

But if our so-called leaders continue to set such poor examples, in the halls of Congress, the halls of school houses where teachers often dress like streetwalkers and bums with voluminous piercings and tattoos, chaos will continue to reign while order won’t even be visible in the rear view mirror. One network noted, the Sunday following the assassination of Charlie Kirk saw a noticeable increase in church service attendance. I made the same observation the day before, in shul, on Shabbat.

If there is any hope for order it must start with leadership in all walks of life. Set an example. Turn off those phones for a 24 hour period. Dedicate oneself to the study of scripture, the Torah, even if for just an hour or two. Over the next three weeks Jewish people the world over will be immersed in prayer, reflection, introspection, seeking forgiveness from not only G-d, but from each other (that’s not so easy), and seeking inscription in the Book of Life for the next year. Throughout Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement), Sukkot (Feast of Tabernacles), and Simchat Torah (celebration of the completion of the cycle of reading the Torah and the beginning of the cycle yet again), there will be intense spirituality and ritual, returning us to order.

Let’s fill the pews and seats of the churches and shuls for meaningful religious experiences, reinvigorate family and family values, restore American values and patriotism as we approach America’s 250th birthday, return to what our founding documents stand for, including our freedoms of speech and religion. Freedom OF religion, not FROM religion. Bring G-d back to daily life and chaos will surrender to order. To those who will observe, Shana Tova Umetuka (a good and sweet year.)

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

Clinging to Our G-d and Guns

Clinging to Our G-d and Guns
Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
April 12, 2020

In the new world of coronavirus we find ourselves “living” in, while it is perfectly legal to procure food from a Church’s Chicken drive through, attempting to worship at one’s church is now considered a misdemeanor - even if outdoors in one’s vehicle. Something is most assuredly wrong with that picture.

Millions of people of faith and legal gun owners were mocked by Barack Obama for “cling[ing] to their guns and religion.” Thank G-d Obama is no longer occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, because his antipathy toward both groups would prove even more damaging than it is today. Although President Donald Trump supports both groups, myriad governors and mayors continue Obama’s disdain for religion, religious people, guns and gun owners.

The list of non-essential businesses includes, but is not limited to, churches, synagogues, and gun stores. The list of essential businesses includes, but is not limited to, abortion clinics, liquor stores, and fast food establishments. So, at a time when Americans are at their most vulnerable, most defenseless, it is no wonder people are clinging to their guns and religion. Gun shops are deemed non-essential when they are at their most essential. The Second Amendment is the citizens’ protection against a tyrannical government. I don’t oppose medically necessary safety measures, but not when United States citizens are being thrown under the ambulance in favor of diabetic child molesters and sex offenders.

Shoplifting, break-ins of homes and businesses, and other so-called petty, low-level, non-violent quality of life crimes are being ignored, thanks to edicts by radical Democrat district attorneys like Larry Krasner of Philadelphia and Chesa Boudin in San Francisco. Prisons have even released convicted child molesters and sex offenders with diabetes who may be at risk of contracting the coronavirus for their protection, yet it seems perfectly acceptable to let these animals loose on decent society putting innocent Americans at risk. In fact, US Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), during an interview on MSNBC, advocated for blanket commutations of sentences to release prisoners due to the coronavirus. Where is the justice? 

If a supermarket can be open, as it should, so too should gun and ammunition shops be open allowing Americans to exercise their Second Amendment rights to the Constitution. The same social-distancing and shoppers per square foot can be observed just as easily in a gun store as it can in a grocery store. If people can wait in lines outside stores like a Costco or Wal Mart, they can just as easily do likewise at a Bass Pro Shops or Cabela’s.

Unilateral decisions like that made by Champaign, IL mayor Deborah Frank Feinen (D) to issue a ban on guns and the closing of gun stores via executive order are dangerous. Quite frankly, no more dangerous than the unilateral decisions made by numerous governors and mayors pertaining to the stifling of Americans’ freedom of religion. 

Greenville, MS Mayor Errick Simmons, a Democrat supporter of presumptive presidential nominee Joe Biden, unilaterally banned all religious services, including those of the drive-in variety. Police in that city were sent en masse to the King James Bible Baptist Church where Pastor Charles Hamilton attempted to conduct a vehicular service. “I’m a good citizen,” said Hamilton. “I ain’t breaking no law, I ain’t selling no drugs, I’m just preaching the word of G-d, and look at all the police cars here,” continued the pastor. “Our rights don’t come from authority,” added Hamilton, sort of reminiscent of the old Hebrew National hot dog commercials - “We answer to a higher authority.” Although the parishioners at King James were given a warning, at Temple Baptist Church, also in Greenville, worshipers were fined $500 per person, not per vehicle. Beyond outrageous.

In the Commonwealth of Kentucky, Democrat Governor Andy Beshear unilaterally called on the state’s police force to record the license plate numbers of all church-goers attempting to worship, from their vehicles. “Taking license plates at church? Quarantining someone for being Christian on Easter Sunday? Someone needs to take a step back here,” said Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), also a doctor.

“Churches might be empty this Easter, but so is the grave,” said Pastor Todd Lester of Forks of Elkhorn Baptist Church in Midway, KY. Lester was referring to his, and millions others’ belief, that Jesus rose from the dead on Easter Sunday, following his crucifixion on Good Friday.

But such restrictions were not limited to just Democrats as Indiana Governor Eric Holcomb, a Republican, issued his own edicts ruffling the feathers of religious communities across the Hoosier State. Holcomb called for houses of worship to be closed. He also required that in the case of drive-in services, there should be no interaction with clergy or any other personnel from houses of worship. Vehicles must be at least every other parking space, with no more than members of a given household in the vehicle - which rules out taking a neighbor, friend, or other family member who has no transportation. No portable bathroom facilities are to be provided on the grounds, and preferably no giving of communion. If restrooms are not closed or restricted in places like supermarkets, where undoubtedly more people shop than presumably the number of worshipers at individual churches or synagogues, why the restriction during drive-in services? And why can’t a service he held outdoors where parishioners are more than six feet away from one another?

These Draconian restrictions are also affecting the Jewish community, as Wednesday night at sundown ushered in Passover - a religious holiday of eight days runs parallel to Holy Week for Christians. Synagogues are unable to hold traditional services for daily prayers - minyan, Shabbat observances, and now Passover Seders. Traditionally individual congregations hold community Seders during the first two nights of Passover that typically serve those who don’t have family or a Seder to attend. In addition to the inability for Christians to receive communion or give confession, without a public service attended by the requisite 10 people above bar mitzvah age, the Jewish community is prohibited from reciting certain prayers during daily worship services. And while Zoom is a useful technological tool, that does not satisfy the all important rule of having 10 people physically present for the recitation of certain specific prayers according to Jewish law - also answering to a higher authority.

Governors and presidents sign bills to become law - they don’t write them; that is the responsibility of the legislative branch - elected directly by the people. For the legislative branch to cede power is more than just a little bit troubling, as our fundamental right of religious freedom, as found in the First Amendment of the Constitution, has been suspended. Where does it end? Totalitarian dictatorship the likes of which is found in communist Cuba, communist China, and socialist Venezuela? Be fearful, for this is the life a liberal-progressive atheist seeks to make America - another G-dless, faithless, socialist regime.

It is imperative to remember the words of Founding Father Benjamin Franklin (1706-90): “Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

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

What Religion is Your Chicken?

What Religion is Your Chicken?

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

April 16, 2018

“Welcome to Chick-fil-A. Before you order your chicken sandwich, have you accepted Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior? No? I’m sorry, no food for you! Next, please.”

I’ve visited Chick-fil-A restaurants in easily half a dozen states and have never encountered such a greeting. Folks, you know me, I would certainly have noticed!

Apparently, in the warped notion dreamed up by The New Yorker magazine’s Dan Piepenbring, Chick-fil-A is seeking global domination via the cow mascot/preacher’s attempt at proselytization of all who misguidedly deign to enter its restaurants. In his April 13 article, “Chick-fil-A’s Creepy Infiltration of New York City,” Piepenbring belies the cosmopolitan airs of the Big Apple with his small-minded, parochial fears that the mere existence of Chick-fil-A in New York City will bring on the second coming of witch trials, prohibition, and the loss of women’s suffrage.

“...the brand’s arrival here feels like an infiltration, in no small part because of its pervasive Christian traditionalism,” wrote an almost paranoid Piepenbring.

Infiltration? There are more than eight and a half million people living in New York City with but four Chick-fil-A restaurants; the latest, on Fulton Street, is the world’s largest at more than 12,000 square feet. Even with the proposed plans to open about a dozen more, does that sound like an infiltration, let alone a creepy one? Are there more than 16 McDonald’s in New York City? More than 16 Starbucks? Is there a fear of oversaturation by those franchises?

Of what is Piepenbring afraid? Is he afraid of juicy, good tasting chicken sandwiches? Is he afraid of good service from clean-cut workers with good manners and the ability to speak English proficiently? That is what he will experience, and more, when choosing to dine at a Chick-fil-A. Workers greet customers with a smile, visit tables offering refills on beverages, even clearing away refuse while patrons are still finishing up their meals. Is it Shangri-La? No, of course not. And to be fair, their iced tea is often weak, but the restaurants are crowded for a reason. It certainly is not the least expensive of the fast food options, but business is good, because Chick-fil-A is a good business.

A good business with a business model that works for them. But a “pervasive Christian traditionalism?” Squads of preachers are not waiting at every table with church applications or asking anyone to join a prayer circle. What is so visibly Christian about these restaurants? And what would be wrong if Chick-fil-A were overtly Christian, replete with Bible verses or even crosses on the walls? Walk into a kosher restaurant and you will see a mezuzah on the doorpost along with sinks for hand washing and the appropriate Hebrew prayer, as well as the blessings for before and after meals. I’m pretty sure that won’t lead to planetary dominion by the Orthodox community.

But why the condemnation of a Christian-owned restaurant? Is it simply because the owners believe in G-d in the first place? Yes, the restaurant’s corporate purpose begins “to glorify G-d.” And sure, Chick-fil-A is closed on Sundays to give its employees a day of rest to spend as they choose. They are not required to attend church, or any other religiously affiliated building. Quite frankly, if I owned a restaurant I might want to close Friday after lunch through Saturday in observance of my Sabbath. Like Chick-fil-A, that would be my choice, just as it is Piepenbring’s choice whether or not to patronize the restaurant.

Is Piepenbring’s condemnation because Chick-fil-A believes in traditional values such as marriage and contributes money to anti-LGBT groups? Chick-fil-A also contributes “thousands of pounds of food to New York Common Pantry,” as Piepenbring begrudgingly admits. I don’t think a person in dire need of food is overly concerned about the political leanings of the donor. Chick-fil-A does not discriminate in who it serves or who it hires.

Where is the condemnation of restaurants that support Planned Parenthood? Where is the condemnation of Starbucks for their vocal anti-Second Amendment stance? Hearing crickets. Why? Because of the far left, secular agenda of publications like The New Yorker and its ilk - which is their right, as I am an avid defender of the First Amendment. But don’t claim to be objective or speak for the people, especially when those people are in line purchasing a Chick-fil-A sandwich every six seconds at one New York City restaurant, according to Piepenbring himself.

The bottom line is that Chick-fil-A is an honest business serving the community good food, putting money its pockets, and is successful enough to be able to support the communities’ tax coffers, that in turn help all the people whether or not they eat more chicken. If their belief system includes a belief in G-d, more power to them - there is nothing to fear there.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and educator living in Westfield, IN. Having grown up in North Jersey, he is thrilled Chick-fil-A is in New York City.

Crying Fowl over Free Speech

Crying Fowl over Free Speech
Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
August 4, 2012

It’s not about Chick-fil-A. Chick-fil-A is merely the conduit to a larger dust-up – that of the First Amendment right of free speech and the denial by fascist mayors of legal institutions to conduct business in “their” cities.

The backstory is about Chick-fil-A and its president, Dan Cathy, expressing an opinion early in July that marriage is a Biblically-based institution and his commitment to marriage being a man-woman union sanctified by G-d.

“We are very much supportive of the family – the Biblical definition of the family unit,” said Cathy in an interview with the Baptist Press, according to commentator Cal Thomas in his July 29 editorial “Chickening out on free speech.”

That quote was widely unnoticed for several weeks until it was “discovered” that Cathy and Chick-fil-A contributes financially to conservative organizations such as the Family Research Council. As if Chick-fil-A’s conservative credentials were ever in question. After all, the 1,615-plus-restaurant chain, headquartered in Atlanta, and spread liberally throughout the Bible Belt has been closed on Sundays since its inception in 1967.

However, once the homosexual lobby and liberal media determined that Cathy shouldn’t contribute money his company earned to organizations of his choosing, the culture war entered yet another front.

The liberal mayors of liberal cities Boston, Chicago, San Francisco, and Washington, DC – yes, that’s two liberals in the same sentence, three if you count this one, but those mayors and cities are just that far to the left, have vowed to keep Chick-fil-A out of “their” cities.

“Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values,” said Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, in support of a city alderman who declared he will block any proposed Chick-fil-A in his district.

Yes, Chicago values include murders on an almost daily basis, illegal drugs as available as aspirin, out of wedlock birth reaching epidemic proportions and a public school system on the verge of imploding.

“There is no place for discrimination on Boston’s Freedom Trail and no place for your company alongside it,” wrote Boston Mayor Thomas Menino to Cathy.

Chick-fil-A is not discriminating against any group. All paying customers are welcome – gay, straight, black, white, yellow, brown.

Additionally, in what could be viewed as a threatening tweet, San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee wrote that “the closest Chick-fil-A to San Francisco is 40 miles away, and I strongly recommend that they not try to come any closer.”

The words of those mayors smacks of fascism. Yes, fascism, because they are single-handedly attempting to thwart potential efforts of a legal enterprise to conduct business in cities where all they need do is apply for the proper permits through the city departments that handle such applications. As in most typical American cities, mayors serve alongside a city council and all members have but a single vote.

In the case of Emanuel, his brand of hypocrisy goes pretty deep. As chief of staff under the Barack Obama administration that was opposed to gay marriage, Emanuel did not stand on principles and resign his position.

Now that Emanuel has come out of the closet in favor of gay marriage, is it only restaurants he opposes? Why has he not spoken out against the virulently anti-Semitic and anti-gay Louis Farrakhan who is negotiating with the city to help reduce the out of control homicide rate? Farrakhan is OK, but Cathy is not?

Reverend William Owens of the Coalition of African-American Pastors declared his own and his organization’s fervent support of the Biblical definition of marriage a la Dan Cathy and there has not been a single word of protest against the Pastors group. They have as much right to opine on this or any other issue as does Cathy without recrimination, threats of boycotts or threats of being barred from an entire city.

Are the economies in the cities of Boston, Chicago, San Francisco, and Washington, DC thriving to such an extent that their mayors can afford to turn away business? And steady, stable, popular business at that. In fact, franchisees are local owners, not a corporate executive. Chick-fil-A hires thousands and thousands of people, serves thousands and thousands of people regardless of race, creed, or religious affiliation.

This is not about chicken, but about standing up for one’s rights as people of faith. Recently, Catholics came under fire over the issue of free contraceptives being mandated by Obamacare. Now Christians are being harassed and bullied by so-called tolerant liberals – tolerant, of course only to their own opinions. And this is not just a Christian issue. Observant Jews also subscribe to the Biblical view and definition of marriage.

This is an issue of freedom of speech, something guaranteed in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Cathy has the right to opine on his belief of the definition of marriage. The mayors of the aforementioned cities have their rights of free speech as well, but they do not have the right to deny commerce opportunities to businesses with whose owners they disagree politically and religiously.

There is a fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives. When liberals don’t agree with a business or television or radio program, they call for it to be shut down or cancelled so no one has access to it. When conservatives do not like a business or media program, they simply patronize another business or change the channel. They believe in the rights of businesses to conduct business and for people to enjoy their First Amendment rights.

No one seems to be calling for the elimination of Starbucks, Apple, or Amazon – all of whose owners contribute substantially to gay causes. If someone finds Howard Schultz’s contributions to gay causes offensive, they are welcome to not patronize Starbucks.

Don’t agree with Cathy, don’t go to Chick-fil-A – it’s that simple, but you have no right to demand the business cease to exist. Go patronize a business with whom you do agree and contribute to their causes, or those of your own beliefs. Build up your causes, don’t tear down others’ causes.

But, if a statement is to be made to the mayors seeking to bar Chick-fil-A from their cities, how would they feel if conventions suddenly shifted from Chicago to Indianapolis, from Boston to Providence, and from San Francisco to Sacramento? What if people from all across the United States who shared Chick-fil-A values suddenly decided to take their vacation dollars away from the cities whose mayors said Chick-fil-A values are not Boston, Chicago, San Francisco, or Washington, DC values? Surely those cities would feel the bite and all the mayors would be left holding is an empty bag and ousting on Election Day.

As Chick-fil-A goes, so goes the nation. The company had its best single day in history on Wednesday, August 1, thanks to former Arkansas Governor and current Fox News Channel host Mike Huckabee, who called for that day to be Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day. Restaurants were filled with patrons lined up around blocks, corners, stores, waiting to support a business with which they share values or simply support the right of free speech, even when they may disagree with the values.

As a response, a “kiss-in” was held two days later. This was a plan for members of the homosexual community to arrive en masse at Chick-fil-As and demonstrate their objections to Cathy and his beliefs by kissing at the restaurants. Thousands were expected, yet mere dozens showed up, turning the kiss-in into a kiss-off.

Noting the huge turnout at Chick-fil-A, perhaps to ensure victory in November, Chick-fil-A should begin applying for permits to sell sandwiches at the polling places – of course provided they are the requisite distance from the entrance so as not to be accused of influencing voters. They make money and the voters have a snack while waiting to oust Obama. It's a brilliant combination of democracy and capitalism in action. Oh, and have an iced tea as well.

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

How Memorial Day Intersects with Shavuot

How Memorial Day Intersects with Shavuot
Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
May 25, 2012

This Memorial Day weekend, as the United States prepares to trot out grills, picnic baskets, baseball gloves, and swim suits for unofficial advent of summer, there is an interesting religious intersection in the Jewish community with the observance of the holiday of Shavuot.

Originally known as Decoration Day, Memorial Day, officially proclaimed on May 5, 1868 by General John Logan, national commander of the Grand Army of the Republic, was first observed on May 30 of that year as a day of remembrance of those who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country.

This is a solemn and sacred time not just for veterans who lost comrades in arms or the families of the fallen but for ALL freedom-loving Americans to take time from their activities and remember why and how the United States is the freest nation on earth.

Take time to remember how the right to a free press, free speech, free assembly and the freedom to worship as we choose came about and has been defended time and time again – against the British in the Revolutionary War (1775-83) and the War of 1812; against Mexico (1845-48); against Spain in 1898, during World War I (1917-19), World War II (1941-45), during the Korean War (1950-53), the war in Vietnam (1954-75), the Gulf War (1990-91) and the continuing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Brave men and women from various ethnic backgrounds and religions have donned the uniform of the United States only to make the ultimate sacrifice defending the American way of life, the Constitution of the United States, the law of the land, which has stood the test of time since ratification in 1791.

As to the connection between Memorial Day and Shavuot, for the uninitiated, Shavuot literally means weeks and is the culmination of a seven week period beginning during Passover.

Fifty days following the first day of Passover comes the observance of “the single most important event in Jewish history” (aish.com) – receiving the Torah by the Jewish people. The Jewish people – those who brought monotheism to the world, the Ten Commandments and the Torah – the law of the Jewish people wherever in the world they may reside.

The key here is the receipt of the Torah. It is one thing to be given something; it is something else entirely to receive it.

This is also a solemn and sacred time where the study of Torah is commanded to be undertaken throughout the night leading into the morning prayers on Shavuot morning where included is the reading of the Biblical Book of Ruth.

But it begs the question, why wait seven weeks to give the Jewish people the gift of the Torah? Why not once they found safety upon crossing the Red Sea escaping Egypt’s Pharaoh? To ensure that the recipients of such a gift were in the right frame of mind and spirit to accept such a responsibility.

It is customary to recite the Yizkor prayer for the departed on Shavuot morning as well, which this year on the Hebrew calendar is Monday, May 28, coincidentally coinciding with Memorial Day.

May they both be meaningful.

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

Birth Control Thrust upon Catholics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obama Wants To Be Judged By His Deeds

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of a Happy Ending

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of a Happy Ending
Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
March 4, 2012

The Declaration of Independence grants us, the American people, “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” not life, liberty and the pursuit of a happy ending.

Thus should be the message Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke takes away from her testimony before Congress when she demanded that the government pay for her birth control in order to enjoy her more carnal pursuits.

The issue of contraception/birth control should be a non-starter in the grand scheme of campaign 2012. However, for Barack Hussein Obama, it is an excellent diversionary tactic to sidetrack the nation’s attention from his complete and utter incompetence in handling the affairs of state as apologizer in chief while continuing to run the economy into the ground.

Yet, because the issue of contraception has been Page One for weeks as an aspect of Obama-care and the mandate that forces American citizens to purchase a product, time must be wasted to remind people that they are not entitled to something simply because they claim they cannot afford it. Not to mention such a mandate violates the Commerce Clause – Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution.

Catholic institutions such as hospitals, charitable organizations and educational institutions, of which Georgetown University is one, have objected vehemently, with the support of patriots of other faiths, that forcing them to offer contraceptives as part of its healthcare insurance coverage violates church teachings. Of course it also violates the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Yet, there sat Fluke, a law student, age 30, seeking to have government force her university to violate its principles based upon the teachings of the church to which it adheres. Was Fluke not aware of the connection between her Jesuit university and the Catholic Church? If so, her request is disingenuous at best, and if this issue were that much of an imperative for her, she could most certainly gained admission into another law school. Georgetown is an excellent law school, after all.

Fluke further claimed she would spend $3,000 on contraceptives during her law school career – three years. At $1,000 per year Fluke is spending $83.33 per month. Apparently either Fluke is a poor shopper or an extremely active woman between the sheets. First issue first – Fluke’s ability to comparison shop. Condoms can be procured for less than $10 a box of a dozen or about $25 per month at a condom a day. She is in law school after all; does she study?

Having spoken with several women friends, they confirmed birth control costs at $16 a month at Costco and either $5 per month or $9 per quarter at Wal-Mart. Fluke cold also visit her local Planned Parenthood which would no doubt offer her a helpful discount. Not to mention, at most public institutions of higher learning, such as the University of Maryland, condoms can be garnered for free at its health center.

As for the second issue – that of Fluke’s potential promiscuity, not to pile on to Rush Limbaugh’s remarks calling Fluke a slut and a prostitute while asking for her to make sex tapes available for public purview in light of taxpayer funding of her sexual escapades, but he has a point, in spite of his apology for his overzealous speech. Limbaugh was wrong to call Fluke a slut – a slut gives it away, while Fluke is expecting, in her liberal sense of entitlement, for government to pay for her sexual activities. That in turn is the essence of prostitution. Limbaugh was also wrong and, quite frankly, creepy, to expect video of Fluke to be made public.

And while Limbaugh was opining on air, Obama, who apparently had nothing better to do than call Fluke and applaud her for standing strong and offering his support, thus sealing Fluke’s image as the national face of contraceptives. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney supported Obama’s call to Fluke explaining that it is wrong to publically attack private citizens, yet did not castigate his boss’s public criticism of the Koch brothers – David and Charles, also private citizens. Just another example of the Obama administration’s hypocrisy.

Regardless of who is standing on which side of this non-starter of an issue, it is wrong for Fluke to make demands of her university that go contrary to its beliefs. What next – will non-Mormons demand beer and coffee at Brigham Young University?

As a taxpayer, I should not be subjected to pay for Fluke’s or anyone else’s sexual proclivities. I know I’m not having the sex, but I sure feel like I’m getting screwed.

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

Why Islam is Winning

Why Islam is Winning

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

February 26, 2012

A Koran is burned; Muslims murder American servicemen and Barack Hussein Obama can’t apologize fast enough.

Mohammad is depicted in cartoons; fatwas are placed on the heads of the artists. In fact a fatwa is still on the head of British-Indian author Salman Rushdie for his late 1980s tome The Satanic Verses. There is a fatwa on the life of outspoken Dutch politician Geert Wilders as well as Muslim human rights activist Raheel Raza.

Muslim taxicab drivers at the Minneapolis airport refuse passengers carrying alcohol and/or dogs – aside from minor objections and little said in the lame-stream-media, no problem. Additionally, Muslim demands for footbaths at various public facilities, including airports, are also granted at taxpayer expense.

A Muslim convert to Christianity is sentenced to death in Iran, not just for the conversion but for his becoming a Christian pastor as well. Youcef Nadarkhani faces execution without warning.

A Muslim teacher sues to get leave for her pilgrimage to Mecca. Although the leave is denied on the grounds that her absence would create an undue hardship on her employer, she resigned her position. In fact the lawsuit on behalf of Safoorah Khan, a middle school math teacher in the Chicago suburb of Berkeley, was orchestrated by Obama’s chosen Attorney General Eric Holder.

Demands on behalf of Muslim students attending Catholic University in Washington, DC to have crucifixes removed are made. No student claimed to be a part of this complaint made by John F. Banzhaf, III, a public interest law professor at nearby George Washington University, but the complaint itself is demonstrative of the ongoing path by Muslims to impose their beliefs on the world, often under the threat of death.

More and more outcries coming from liberals and feminists supporting a people who would deny them rights. Women not permitted to vote or drive in Saudi Arabia, single women required to have male chaperones in many Muslim countries, pre-marital sex as grounds for execution as is marital infidelity by women are part of a people that liberals and feminists are supporting. Were Christians or Jews enforcing such restrictions on women, there would be protests in the streets.

The left also complains that it is wrong to profile Muslims as well as calling Islam a religion of peace on par with Christianity and Judaism, when in fact the Koran implicitly calls for the extermination of “infidels,” – non-Muslims. What religion of peace accepts the rape of children and honor killings?

How then is Islam winning?

They remain true to their faith – even the outlandish and outrageous tenets.

Consider the same liberals and leftists and their fervent attack not just on Christianity, but all things religious. There is more secularism in the United States, Canada, Europe and Western Civilization as a whole. Meanwhile, Muslims are infiltrating countries like England, France and Germany rioting and demanding those countries’ centuries old customs be changed to meet Muslim edicts.

Perhaps a case can even be made that Jewish secularism in 1930s Germany contributed to the Holocaust. Consider the Jewish people living in a nation seemingly educated and cultured as Germany. The Jewish people were, certainly in the major cities, integrated and assimilated in many ways and they considered themselves proud German citizens, veterans of the Great War, who had rights and would be protected.

First came the Nuremburg Laws of 1935 then Kristallnacht in 1938. But what was the reaction to the burning of synagogues, Torah scrolls, other religious items, the rounding up of innocent Jews in the streets, the looting of Jewish-owned stores and businesses? German Jews did not riot in the streets or murder random Germans. (Perhaps they should have.) No; they were too civilized and believed in the rule of law – much to their chagrin and ultimate fate. Nothing of the kind has been imposed upon Muslims.

All this about a people persecuted, hunted, rounded up and slaughtered simply for their faith. Muslims are not enduring Nazi-style attacks; instead they are perpetrating such assaults.

Should religious Christians and Jews respond to Muslim insurgencies both physical and cultural in kind? While some would say yes, I say a stepped up vigilance is imperative. Greater security measures, increased profiling and more restrictions of residents of Muslim countries from entering the United States – for any reason is mandatory. How many student visas have been violated by so-called students overstaying, and then disappearing into the wind, only to crop up later in “sleeper cells?”

How many Fort Hoods are necessary before we get the message? Are there fanatics in other religions? Of course there are. But let’s stop carting out Timothy McVeigh as a counter each and every time violence at the hands of Muslims occurs.

Stop listening to the Rosie O’ Donnells of the world who bellow that radical Christianity is worse than radical Islam. The radical Islam practiced in Ahmadinejad’s Iran would have O’ Donnell murdered for being a lesbian. I don’t hear threats on her life from devout Christians or Orthodox Jews. They may not approve of her lifestyle; some may even protest, but there’s no Christian fatwa on O’ Donnell’s head.

A lack of religiosity and faith as well as a tremendous increase in secularism in the United States and Western Civilization as a whole, now make many people uncomfortable in religious environs or with the public profession of one’s faith. People of faith are mocked – look at how the so-called mainstream media treats men like Tim Tebow, quarterback of the Denver Broncos; Jeremy Lin of the New York Knicks and presidential candidate Rick Santorum (R-PA). They are often excoriated for the pronouncement of their faith. I would rather surround myself with men like them than people the likes of Casey Anthony, Robert Blake and George Soros.

I have often been told that the only reason Christian conservatives love and support Israel is to convert the Jews. The problem with that notion is that Jewish people of faith and conviction as Jews would never fall prey to such possibilities. For the record, no Christian conservative has ever tried to lure me away from my faith. Quite frankly, religious Jews have more in common with those very Christian conservatives who love and support Israel than with secular Jews.

Secularism and liberalism removed prayer from school, put condoms in schools, and saw an increase in campus violence. Secularists and liberals are demanding the removal of “under G-d” from the Pledge of Allegiance as well as the Ten Commandments from public display.

Secularism, liberalism, and atheism are what are allowing Islam a clear path on which to march forward toward their unholy victory. The time is now to say NO MORE and return to the churches and synagogues and reclaim our peace loving G-d.

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

It's Only the Constitution, Mr. Obama

It’s Only the Constitution, Mr. Obama

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

February 12, 2012

Barack Obama STILL doesn’t get it. Please send a copy of the United States Constitution to the White House because it is obvious he hasn’t read it recently, if at all. How on earth did Obama get through Harvard Law School?

Obama was flagrantly wrong when attempting to force Catholic institutions such as schools, hospitals and charities to provide contraception as part of the mandated Obamacare. Obama lost track of something called the First Amendment, wherein it says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

Obama demanded that the aforementioned Catholic institutions abandon Church doctrine and principles or face financial penalties for not caving to government interference with how a religion operates in these United States.

Having faced the justified ire of thousands of Catholics, pro-life adherents and many more from other faiths who support religious liberty, Obama changed course. But in doing so, he still has yet to learn his constitutional lessons.

Obama announced that instead of mandating Catholic institutions provide contraception, he would force insurance companies to provide contraceptives directly to the employees of those organizations for free.

Is the federal government now mandating an entire industry that it must give away a product? And, does anyone actually believe the insurance companies are just going to bow to Obama’s demands out of pure altruism? Don’t count on it. Instead, count on the insurance companies passing along the cost of the contraceptives they “give” away to us, the taxpayers.

Obama still just doesn’t get it. The federal government does not have the authority to force an industry to simply give away to some, for what others must pay. The Constitution does not give the Executive Branch such authority. The insurance industry, for all its pitfalls and foibles, still has the right to makes its own decisions and turn a profit. It’s part of the system of capitalism by which the economic principles of the United States are based.

Couple the contraception controversy with the overall constitutionally questionable Obamacare as a whole and we have a president who really must have been absent the semester the Constitution was taught. Here Obama is commanding the American people to purchase a product it may or may not want – medical insurance.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution, commonly known as the commerce clause, gives Congress the power “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with Indian Tribes.” Nowhere does the commerce clause grant the Executive Branch ANY power, instead giving it to the Legislative Branch. And nowhere does the commerce clause give the Legislative Branch the authority to mandate how individual citizens spend their money or force them to purchase a specific product – in this case, medical insurance.

Should a person not wish to make such a purchase, he or she should have the freedom to not make that purchase knowing that the onus of responsibility for medical expenses falls exclusively on these people who have chosen to remain uninsured.

And make no mistake; this issue is also not about restricting the rights of women to procure contraceptives either. That is merely a canard by the left to scare people into supporting unconstitutional edicts by an administration seeking to control individuals’ rights regarding medical care. Women are perfectly able to purchase contraceptives on their own and we the people should not be paying for them with our tax dollars.

This issue is as much about contraception as Roe v. Wade (1973) is about abortion. Both are unconstitutional and both trample on freedoms. Obamacare tramples on the freedom of religion and violates the commerce clause. Roe v. Wade violates the 10^th Amendment of the Federal Constitution when the rights within that decision should have remained with the several states.

To Obama, I say get ye to a copy of the Constitution of the United States.

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

Obama Crosses Line on Church-State

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” US Constitution, Amendment I

Obama Crosses Line on Church-State

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

February 2, 2012

To paraphrase Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, today we are all Catholics.

Following the tragic events of September 11, 2001, that claimed the lives of nearly 3,000 men, women and children due to the airplane attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in Shanksville, PA, by radical Muslim terrorists, Netanyahu said “we are all Americans.” He said this to demonstrate the mutual support and grieving by decent people the world over.

Today we are all Catholics – at least those of us who are vehemently opposed to the complete overreach of government by Barack Obama and his unconstitutional mandate of state sponsored health care. Now more than ever it is vital that we the people stand united in opposing this heinous demand by an administration so hell-bent on pole vaulting over the fine line of church-state relations.

In yet another step toward total domination of government over the lives of a so-called free people with a constitution compete with a bill of rights, the Obama administration is attempting to destroy the formerly protected conscience clause by demanding that all health care plans include coverage for sterilization and contraception – including those that induce abortions.

This edict will force Catholic institutions such as schools, charities and hospitals to act contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church. This odious law is tantamount to government interference with church business.

So why am I, a non-Catholic, so apoplectic about this? First, this is a monstrous blow against religious liberty potentially affecting other religions. The slippery slope will lead us all into the depths of hell in a nation under siege by its government. This isn’t Communist Russia after all.

Second, it begs the question what religion will come under fire next? Will the insidious Obama-care outlaw circumcisions as unnecessary and elective in nature? And the Catholics don’t have a monopoly on being pro-life either. Clearly, this is an excessive entanglement impeding the free exercise of faith.

“This is not how our country was founded,” said Rabbi Aryeh Spero, in an interview in the Fox News Channel regarding his staunch opposition to Obama-care in general and the intrusion into the business of religious institutions. Spero is president of the Caucus for America, a conservative organization “dedicated to the preservation and promotion of the historic American civilization,” and “battling for the soul of America,” he explained.

This is an ongoing battle over the morality and culture of the United States – a war on religious liberties.

If the NCAA can jigger its March Madness schedule to prevent BYU from being forced to play Sunday games, surely the federal government can keep from violating the First Amendment to the Constitution by forcing Catholic organizations to act counter its teachings.

Does the federal government have the right to force its citizenry to purchase a product it deems necessary – in this case health insurance? Does not this violate the commerce clause in the Constitution? The Supreme Court will have to right the wrongs of the Obama administration, and sooner rather than later. The Obama administration cannot be allowed to trample over the Bill of Rights in an effort to forever amend the nature of the free society we call the United States of America.

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

Christmas Banner Has Protesters in the Pits

Christmas Banner Has Protesters in the Pits

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

December 15, 2011

Pitman, NJ is a quiet south Jersey borough roughly 15 miles south of Philadelphia boasting a population of just over 9,200 people. However that quiet has erupted into a din over the hanging of a sign across Broadway reading “Keep Christ in Christmas.”

According to Mayor Michael Patten, the Knights of Columbus sponsored sign has been hung for 60 years with nary a complaint. However, this year, an anonymous voice has expressed contempt for the sign saying that because the Borough fire department hung the sign and that the sign is hung on public property it is akin to an endorsement of Christianity by the Borough of Pitman.

This does not violate the Establishment Clause.

Borough attorney Brian Duffield confirmed that the sign is hung on a privately owned bank on one side and a utility pole on the other, which is also not owned by the borough.

Additionally, Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Freedom from Religion Foundation claim that such a sign alienates and offends people of non-Christian faiths and those of no faith at all.

Once again, this is political correctness run completely amok. Christmas is a Christian holiday observing the birth of their savior Jesus Christ. Keeping Christ in Christmas is EXACTLY the correct thing to do. Show of hands: who, other than Christians, celebrates Christmas? If anyone other than Christians raised their hands, then they are enjoying the non-religious aspects Christmas has to offer – the tree, lights, decorations, egg nog and gifts.

As a non-Christian, let me assure Ms. Gaylor and the rest of her Freedom from Religion witch hunt, that I am not the least bit offended by the Knights’ sign. In fact, that is what Christmas is all about and should be revered and observed in the religious nature it was intended.

I am strong enough in my Jewish faith to neither be threatened by such a sign nor its message. I applaud its message because it hopefully will bring Christians closer to the real meaning of Christmas.

I will enjoy the lights flickering in and around my neighborhood, and not have to pay the electric bill, secure in the notion that freedom OF religion guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution will allow me to enjoy the lights flickering from my Chanukah menorah.

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

Obama's Inconvenient Chanukah

Obama’s Inconvenient Chanukah

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

December 9, 2011

On Tuesday night, December 20 the worldwide Jewish community will gather around menorahs, light two candles, chant three blessings ushering in Chanukah – the Festival of Lights.

Except at the White House.

For at the Obama White House, Chanukah came early – “celebrated” last night – Thursday, December 8 – 12 nights prior to the advent of the actual observance.

This is just another insult from the Obama administration toward the Jewish people, not just in the United Stated, but the world over. Obama had his pick of eight nights from which to hold this so-called celebration. But because he feels compelled to take a 17 day vacation – the likes of which the average American who Obama claims to support would hardly be able to enjoy – he managed to squeeze in the Chanukah event to check off the box on his list of things to do.

Make no mistake, I don’t begrudge Obama, or any working person a vacation. In fact, the more time Obama spends driving golf balls is less time he can continue to drive the economy into the water.

Obama’s relationship with the Jewish community is approaching the critical list, as it should. He has demonstrated animus toward Israel, calling for a return to Israel’s 1967 borders, his cacophonous and insulting treatment of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and made overtures toward Israel’s enemies, who are also enemies of the United States. Why there are still members of the Jewish community who continue to support this man and this administration is completely nebulous. This should render the Jewish community apoplectic.

Obama proved his hypocrisy in his remarks, noting “our unshakable support and commitment to the security of the nation of Israel.” Not so, when calling for a return to the 1967 borders. It demonstrates his lack of historical knowledge and how obtuse he really is.

Obama also got it wrong when he said the Chanukah story is about “right over might.” Were it not for the Maccabees victory in war against the Assyrians, 167-165 BCE, the Jewish people may very well have been wiped out and there would be no Chanukah observance.

Liberal Jews, of which there are still far too many, will ebulliently praise this so-called Chanukah event. Look, he likes us; he likes us, a la Sally Field’s oft-mocked Academy Award speech from 1984. No, he merely gives lip service in an effort to placate the obsequious liberal Jewish community and protect a source of campaign funds. Obama is nothing short of licentious.

Does anyone believe Obama would schedule Ramadan or Eid celebrations on days other than the officially listed dates according to the Muslim calendar? Certainly not. He has bent over backwards and bowed down – literally to that community with which he so strongly identifies. What next – the Easter Egg Hunt in June? That just wouldn’t be kosher.

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