Not-tany Lions Declawed

Not-tany Lions Declawed
Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
July 23, 2012

On the day following the dismantling of the statue of Joe Paterno on the campus of Penn State University the rest of the football program has rightfully suffered a more deeply impacting disabling.

Both the stripping of the campus of the statue of the iconic coach, six months to the day of his death, January 22, and the punishment thrust upon the university were appropriate and overdue. The objections by students on campus at the removal of the statue of Paterno, who coached at Penn State from 1966-2011, is demonstrative of how the culture of sports and hero-worship has far superseded what is right, proper and moral and perhaps indicative of how the NCAA did not go far enough in its punitive actions against the school.

The university, and the football team specifically, have been sanctioned by the NCAA for its complicity in the child abuse sex scandal that rocked the Happy Valley campus to its core last fall. This scandal saw former assistant coach Jerry Sandusky convicted of abusing 10 boys. The true number of young boys molested, violated and/or abused may never be known, and while the lost innocence of those boys can never be replaced, the sanctions against Penn State are a good start. Hopefully, the severity of the punitive actions, while not deep enough, will deliver a message across the nation’s campuses that humanity and morality will trump sports and the protection of so-called heroes at the risk and potential loss of children’s innocence.

Sandusky deserves nothing less than to pay for his vicious crimes with the ultimate penalty – his life. Yes, the death penalty is most appropriate for the perverse and unconscionable crimes of robbing young, impressionable children of their trust, protection and innocence – irrevocably altering their lives. Yet, the sanctions imposed upon Penn State have nothing to do with the ongoing criminal investigations, said Mark Emmert, NCAA president.

Sandusky may be the lowest of the low, but the cover up is just as much a part of this whole sordid tale – just ask the ghost of Richard M. Nixon. As such, the assistant coaches and Paterno are just as complicit, and the university obviously agreed, firing the coach proven to have feet of clay on November 9, 2011, along with relieving Graham Spanier of his duties as university president.

The current regime must now cope with the loss of $60 million – the financial penalty equivalent to one year of football’s gross receipts. The $60 million is to be paid out at $12 million increments over the next five years into an endowment to benefit victims of child sex abuse. This money cannot come at the expense of non-revenue sports or the student-athlete scholarships, yet, while academic sources were not ruled out, Emmert said such a plan would be inappropriate.

Ultimately, I fear a large chunk of this fine will come from the coffers of the taxpayers of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, which would be wholly unacceptable.

While not sanctioned with the so-called Death Penalty, the punishment imposed upon Southern Methodist University (SMU) in 1987 for paying players thousands of dollars, the penalties facing Penn State will certainly hamstring the football program for many years to come – presumably long after the penalty phase expires.

“We did not feel the suspension of play would be appropriate,” said Dr. Edward Bay, NCAA Executive Committee Chair and President of Oregon State University.

Such a punishment would send an eye-opening message that this scandal is bigger than the tarnished reputation of Joe Paterno, bigger than football, bigger than sports and certainly bigger than the demands of the fans, boosters and alumni. The need for a cultural change is vital, in spite of the unintended harm that would come from the secession of play for one season.

Clearly arguments can be made on both sides of the death penalty coin. The revenue lost to the university for the six home games, the exposure given to the band and cheerleaders, as well as the income lost to the vendors is at stake. The university would need to pay the schools of the six road games for lost revenue.

But the bigger picture is that the institution of football is not too big to fail; that the culture of sports is not too big to fail. These are tragic circumstances which require harsh and immediate meaningful actions.

For the next four years, 2013-17, Penn State is banned from participating in bowl or other post-season games, including the Big Ten conference championship. As for the conference title game, the university will forfeit about $13 million over the same four year period, also to be donated.

Additionally, the Penn State football program has been sacked in the scholarship department on two levels. The NCAA has limited new annual scholarships from 25 a year down to 15 for each of the next four years in addition to limiting the number of total scholarship players each of the same four years to 65, down from 85.

Clearly this will impact recruitment on top of the post-season ban. Major high school recruits will want to play where they have an opportunity to appear in a bowl or other post-season games. They will likely seek to avail their skills to other programs. On the other hand, Penn State head coach Bill O’ Brien must sell his program to players who might not have the opportunity to earn serious playing time at another major institution.

As for the current squad of Penn State football players, they will be allowed to transfer without the traditional penalty of yielding one year of their eligibility. Should players decide to remain at Penn State and not continue to play football, the university is required to honor the scholarships of those players. And those scholarships would count toward the 65 permitted for that season.

Penn State will also be placed on five years probation during which time it is expected to work with an academic integrity monitor, an independent, third-party to report on Penn State’s progress, at a cost to be absorbed by the university. This is designed to elucidate the university to embrace values appropriate for an institution of higher education complete with the virtues of fair play on the field, positive moral values off the field and a place where children can be nurtured, protected and educated.

This is a “horrifically egregious situation,” said Emmert. “No one feels good about this. This is an unprecedented, painful chapter in the history of intercollegiate athletics.”

“We hope we are never here again,” said Bay.

Former NCAA and NFL coach Lou Holtz predicted “serious fan drop offs” from the more than 100,000 fans per home game to around 50,000.

One additional penalty, with which I found objectionable, but understand the reasoning behind it, is that all wins earned by Penn State and Paterno from 1998 through 2011 will be vacated. The year 1998 was selected as it represents the first reporting of abuse and the failure of Paterno and the university to act appropriately. For the record, 112 wins will be forfeited, all but one under Paterno’s name, dropping him from the winningest Division I coach  down to fifth place with 298 wins behind Bobby Bowden (377), Bear Bryant (323), Pop Warner (319), and Amos Alonzo Stagg (314).

While I understand removing Paterno from the top of that elite list, it also punishes the hundreds of players who presumably had nothing to do with the sex abuse scandal. It offers the implication of on-field cheating by otherwise honest football players. The wins earned by those players on the field should stand.

Make no mistake; I am not defending Paterno, by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, my animus toward Penn State far pre-dates this sex abuse scandal. As any University of Maryland alumnus can site, there is a bad history on the gridiron between the two schools – with Penn State leading Maryland in the all-time series 35 wins, one loss and one tie. Maryland’s lone victory occurred in 1961 and the Terrapins have not won since.

And while I am a tremendous sports fan, I have placed this monstrous scandal in its proper place and perspective. The Pennsylvania State University must suffer the consequences of the actions of its employees. The sanctions will undoubtedly prove deleterious to the football program, but hopefully the message will be received around the nation’s campuses that immoral, lascivious behavior, including, but not limited to, the molestation of children will never again be tolerated or covered up.

Paterno was not G-d and football is not a religion. Amen.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and educator living in Westfield, IN. He is an alumnus of the University of Maryland and a member of its Terrapin Club, supporting the scholarship program for athletes.

Obama's True Colors Make Right See Red

“If you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own…. If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.” – Barack Hussein Obama

Obama’s True Colors Make Right See Red

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
July 16, 2012

Christmas and Chanukah have come early for the Mitt Romney campaign – as it is not about black and white, but instead it is about red and green.

This is Barak Obama’s Joe the Plumber moment. During the 2008 campaign, Obama spoke one on one with Ohio plumber Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, who has since become a candidate for Congress himself. Obama told Wurzelbacher that “when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

True colors, Obama outed himself as more than just a far left Democrat, but someone who believes in the redistribution of wealth. That the haves should give to the have nots. This is not a belief in capitalism, but instead, socialism bordering on communism – the red menace.

It’s all about context, will claim the left-wing, lame-stream media in defense of its hero, Obama, who unleashed a firestorm when he brazenly announced that all those successful businesses in the United States owe their success to the government and not the hard working men and women who risked their own capital, time, ingenuity and sanity in the quest for the next best – fill in the blank – widget, underwater phone, or intestinal camera.

Those are Obama’s words above – direct from the Socialist in Chief’s mouth at a speech given in Roanoke, VA. The words that demonize personal wealth and investment; that denigrate those entrepreneurs who risked their personal capital, created something due to their own inventiveness, hired people to work and see that plan drawn up at the kitchen table become a three dimensional reality.

These entrepreneurs have earned their green and deserve to keep as much of it as possible. Those people who did not create businesses, wealth, or take the risks are not entitled to nickel one from those who earned their success.

One does not need a Ph.D. in political science to understand what Obama means, where he is coming from, and to where he is going. What little of his life known to the public has been a blueprint straight from the Saul Alinsky playbook Rules for Radicals (1971). Obama is a classic statist – the belief that government should control the economy and/or social policy – the complete antithesis of the creation by America’s Founding Fathers.

Obama’s conversation with Joe the Plumber and his speech in Virginia were not gaffes. He’s got Joe Biden for that. Those words, direct from Obama, is Obama in his truest incarnation. He damns success and wants people to be ashamed of it as he continues to be the Divider in Chief – playing the class warfare card to its utmost pinnacle.

Yes, roads, bridges, and tunnels are typically government projects. But they are funded with the people’s money – taxpaying Americans who have achieved success and are paying their fair share to ensure that people can get back and forth to work for that successful businessperson who pays their salaries and wages. The businessmen and women who pay their taxes to ensure the safety of the public domain so people can spend their money on the products that made that businessman and woman a success.

Obama cited Henry Ford as someone whose success was predicated upon government. Like the age old question, which came first, the chicken or the egg, did Henry Ford build cars for the existing roads, or were roads built to serve a growing need due to the new automobile industry? Ford’s expanding auto industry spawned the need for more roads to be built, not the other way around.

(Oh, FYI – the chicken came first. On the fourth day, “G-d created… all the winged birds of every kind.” [Genesis 1:21])

As for the claim by Obama that “there was a great teacher somewhere in your life,” that may be true. As an educator, there’s an enormous amount of pride to boast when a student succeeds. But make no mistake; those teachers are paid for with the property taxes afforded by successful Americans able to own their own homes. Again, no need to further prime the pump, Mr. Obama.

Obama is so anti-business, it’s no surprise he is calling for the raising of the tax rates on dividends and capital gains. Both are currently taxed at 15 percent, but if Obama has his way, the tax rate on capital gains will rise to 23.8 percent and dividends will be taxed at an astronomical rate of 43.3 percent. (www.foxnews.com) This will send the stock market into a tither just prior to those new rates kicking in. People will be less willing to risk their capital when the returns will be so diminished, thanks to Obama’s desire to punish the risk takers. Where is the reward for those people taking the risks?

With the potential for fewer people to take risks, invest, or open businesses, unemployment will continue to rise, and, eventually the economy will be crippled by more people being dependent upon government largesse which will ultimately dry up as the tax coffers progressively dissipate.

More investments and jobs will be driven overseas to more friendly economies as this administration continues to call for stark reductions in the defense budget and still refuses to balance its own budget as debt figures approach $16 trillion.

Obama should answer the following: if government is responsible for the success of business due to the existence of taxpayer funded public school teachers, is the same government responsible for the increasing numbers of drop outs?

If government is responsible for the success of business due to the existence of taxpayer funded roads, bridges, and tunnels, is government responsible for the drunk drivers that inhabit the same infrastructure?

If government is responsible for the success of business due to the existence of taxpayer funded research creating the internet, is government responsible for the cyber stalkers who prey on children?

Government is nothing without the entrepreneurs, inventors, and innovators, who erect, create, hire and fill the tax coffers to allow government to build the roads, bridges, tunnels, cyber infrastructure, public airwaves of television and radio and public schools.

Obama’s words were “insulting to every entrepreneur and innovator in America,” said Romney. Of course Romney is right in his assertion, and as a businessman who saved the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympics, he would know.

Government more often than not interferes with business. It overregulates business to the point of pushing it out of the United States. Even the simplest business – that of a child’s lemonade stand. In this era of uber-litigiousness, a permit costing more than the child might reasonably expect to earn is crushing young entrepreneurship.

Rugged individualism is the cornerstone upon which the United States was founded, built, and expanded from sea to shining sea. Yet, with the Obama administration, government is to be praised as the reason behind anyone’s success. According to the Obama blueprint, the only good jobs are government jobs. This is an abandonment of capitalism that could lead to the dilution of the Republic.

It is not too late to change course back to the direction intended by the Founding Fathers and give Romney, a proven business success, a chance to right the ship that is America.

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

Obama Opens Front Door for Illegals

Obama Opens Front Door for Illegals
Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
June 15, 2012

Another disgraceful decision by the insipid Obama administration is to be implemented immediately. In a continuing attempt to redistribute wealth and hamstring legal residents and American citizens, amnesty-lite is being awarded to upwards of 800,000 illegals who are lawbreakers simply by their mere presence in the United States.

Young illegals - defined as under age 30, will no longer be deported, but instead be given work permits - because the unemployment figures are so damn low - provided they meet certain criteria: in the US for five years prior to age 16, graduated from a US high school or earned a GED, or served in the military, and having no criminal record.

FYI – stepping one foot on American soil MAKES an illegal a criminal. This is an executive order, unilaterally issued by Obama, bypassing Congress and violating the separation of powers once again. The dictator in chief has spoken. We cannot oust the unctuous Obama fast enough. This must be overturned on January 20, 2013 for the sake of the nation, for the sake of the republic and for the sake of our economic survival.

This only opens the flood gates further. How stupid is this latest scheme just based on the recent announcement that the newest graduates are facing unemployment above 30 percent? This only rewards bad behavior, whether the "young" person's or their criminal parents. That the announcement is coming from the Department of Homeland Security also does not bode well as this is a national security issue.

DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano said we are a nation of laws when announcing Obama’s latest edict. If that is true, why are lawbreakers being given rights? This most certainly is a political move made by an obsequious administration pandering to a constituency that should oppose this directive with vim and vigor. It absolutely IS amnesty and a slippery slope toward citizenship and suffrage rights. Clearly this violated the rule of law and sets a poor precedent.

For those who support this deplorable decision on the grounds that children should not be punished for the wrongs committed by their parents, consider the concept of “fruit from the poisonous tree.” When a search is deemed illegal by a judge in court, all evidence collected as a result of said search is considered exculpatory and thrown out, not to be considered by a jury when rendering their verdict. Such evidence is deemed “fruit of the poisonous tree.” As such, so should the children of parents who are in the United States illegally. The parents broke the law coming to this country illegally and bringing their children makes them just as illegal, all of whom have no right to remain.

One possible solution to mitigate the concern by those objecting to Obama’s thoughtless decision would be if the aforementioned 800,000 illegals are permitted to remain in the United States, they must register with the government – federal and state as being in the country illegally, not be granted citizenship or enfranchisement rights and any criminal act is a one way ticket back to their country of origin.

Additionally, the parents of these illegals would be required to self-deport in exchange for allowing their children to remain in the United States. Should the parents return to the United States, their children would be deported along with their miscreant parents.

For those who might consider such a plan draconian, law breaking is not to be rewarded and those who violate the statutes of the United States or the several states should be subject to strict punishment to hopefully deter other potential scofflaws to follow in the footsteps of their fellow illegal travelers.

That rumbling under the ground is the sound of the Founding Fathers spinning in their graves like Chanukah dreidls. May G-d save the republic, because mere mortals don't seem to have a chance in hell of doing so.

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

The War on Women

The War on Women

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
March 9, 2012

Democratic National Chairman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is right.

Now before you all think I am suffering from a mild stroke and get all apoplectic, I will explain myself.

Wasserman-Schultz, also a Florida Congresswoman is right when she recently said there is a war on women.

Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Laura Ingraham, Star Parker, Ann Coulter, and countless other conservative women have been the victims of so-called comedian Bill Maher’s and commentator Ed Schultz’s repeated filthy and unconscionable verbal invective. In the case of Schultz, he called commentator and author Ingraham a “right wing slut,” on more than one occasion in 2011 on the air, but did apologize.

In the case of Maher, who hosts a program on HBO, his use of words so vile, decorum prohibits their mention in this column, to describe former Alaska Governor Palin and Minnesota Congressman Bachmann are not just disrespectful to women holding elected office, but any woman. Maher is a classless, tasteless misogynist.

Yet, when conservative women are viciously maligned, where is the NOW (National Organization of Women) gang? Where is Gloria Steinem? Where is Gloria Allred? Hell while we’re at it, where is Gloria Estefan for that matter.

Sadly, Allred is taking up for contraception poster girl Sandra Fluke. Allred is a hypocrite with a law degree; a hired gun hell bent on bringing down radio personality Rush Limbaugh for calling Fluke a slut and a prostitute. In fact, Allred wants Limbaugh prosecuted. For what? Name calling? What is this – third grade?

Where was Allred when Maher called Palin a c*nt? Where was Allred when David Letterman told a disgusting joke about a baseball player impregnating one of Palin’s daughters during the seventh inning stretch? Where was Allred when Schultz called Ingraham a “right wing slut?”

Where were any of the liberal women in Congress when Palin and Bachmann were being excoriated by so-called comedians and even national magazines? (Don’t think folks forgot about the horrid cover photo used by Newsweek during Bachmann’s bid for the GOP nomination.) Where was Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX) or Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)? Or Wasserman-Schultz, for that matter, she of the “war on women” cries? Hmm? I hear the crickets chirping loud and clear.

It seems perfectly okie-dokie for liberals of all stripes to bash conservative women from here to Oxnard, but G-d forbid a negative word is uttered about a liberal woman, there’s hell to pay, jobs to be lost, lawsuits to be brought, and genitalia to be severed. Women’s organizations are pathetically silent when conservative women are lambasted, lampooned and lasciviously leered at, but those same groups are the first to defend their injured sisters at the drop of a hat.

Liberals demand campaign contributions be returned when an off-color joke is told by a supporter of a GOP candidate for any office from dog catcher to president. However, where is the call from NOW to demand Barack Hussein Obama return the million dollars given his Super PAC? Forget about the fact that candidates are not supposed to be involved with the Super PACs. If Obama wanted to do the right thing, he would request the funds go back to Maher. If Maher wants to do some good with a million dollars, donate the money to women’s shelters that house women beaten and raped by men who think Maher’s misogynistic attempts at humor are amusing.

Former Obama campaign press secretary defended Maher, calling him a comedian, and therefore not subject to the same scrutiny as Limbaugh, who Burton labeled the de facto head of the GOP. Would Burton and all the silent liberals continue to carry Maher’s water if he decided to call conservative writers Star Parker and Angela McGlowan n*ggers, under the same guise as comedy? How fast do you think Maher would be jerked off HBO?

Where is the objection that Obama’s former Senior Advisor and current reelection campaign Communications Director David Axelrod will soon appear on Maher’s program?

Major credit does go to Fox News contributor Kirsten Powers, also a reporter for the Daily Beast. Powers, a liberal, blasted the double standard of defending liberal women all the while throwing conservative women to the wolves. She also took Maher to task as well and rightfully so, for being the pusillanimous piece of detritus that he is.

As for Wasserman-Schultz’s war, it really should be a war on the United States Constitution. That would be more accurate because of the claim that the war on women is all about men denying women the right to taxpayer funded contraceptives. Enter Fluke and her absurd claim that she and other Georgetown University female law students are paying $3,000 during their law school careers for contraception when it can easily be procured for $5 to $9 a month at various pharmacies.

The United States government does not have the right to dictate how an entity conducts its business, particularly a religious-based institution such as Georgetown University, a Jesuit school. Its teachings and laws prohibit the dissemination of contraceptives, something Fluke should have known prior to accepting admittance into the prestigious law school. This is not about contraceptives. This is, instead, about religious freedom and preventing government interference therein.

Wasserman-Schultz’s assertion that there is a war on women is correct with regards to conservative women. There is no war on women’s ability to attain contraceptives. There is, however, a war on both the United States Constitution and religion in this country. These are two wars we the people cannot afford to lose – ever. To lose either, is to lose America and all she stands for.

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.

Food, Glorious Slop

“FOOD FIGHT!” – John “Bluto” Blutarsky

Food, Glorious Slop

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

February 16, 2012

The hypocrisy of the Obama administration continues to march on like the Nazis in 1939 Poland. This time they have invaded the lunch boxes of school children.

Thanks to government edicts from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the food police are inspecting the lunch boxes and brown bags to see if mom or dad has packed what government deems an appropriate midday repast.

Since when is a turkey and cheese sandwich, a banana, potato chips and apple juice an unacceptable lunch? Sounds like a good lunch to me – except for the turkey and cheese combo – but then I keep kosher, so either the turkey or the cheese would work independently.

Apparently in Hoke County, NC, such a lunch did not pass muster, as a four-year-old preschooler attending West Hoke Elementary School was terrorized by the food police being told her lunch was substandard while having a government-authorized school lunch thrust upon her. Terrorized, because a four-year-old is being told the lunch packed by mom is wrong.

Just what did the government determine was a better alternative for this four-year-old? Chicken nuggets – processed, battered, fried pieces of unidentifiable chicken parts. And adding insult to injury, the school sent the girl home with her original lunch in tact with a note telling mom she would also be charged $1.25 for the food forced upon her daughter. Apparently the mom-made lunch lacked vegetables, which was given to her daughter, was in turn were rejected.

The mother emphasized her daughter does not like vegetables, but under her supervision she can get the child to eat some. Yet, the lunch had fruit – a banana, which even my niece, when she was three-years-old, knew is high in potassium. And sliced turkey and cheese versus processed and fried chicken nuggets is a no-brainer as well.

Did the food police ever stop to contemplate potential allergies this four-year-old girl might have? Is a four-year-old equipped to tell the food police what she can’t eat or drink? Perhaps she was on a gluten-free diet – the sandwich eliminates that notion. Perhaps she was lactose intolerant – the food police gave her milk. Perhaps she observed kashrut – the turkey and cheese excludes that idea. Perhaps she has a nut allergy. What kind of oil were the chicken nuggets fried in – peanut, canola, vegetable?

Full disclosure, I was a foodie before the word existed. In fact, I was almost thrown out of junior high school as a seventh grader for authoring a petition against the school cafeteria food, calling it “slop.” My parents, both of Blessed memory, were called into school to meet with the principal due to my disruptive and scurrilous activities – I dared question authority.

My father wasn’t sure which tact to take – either kick my ass for having my parents summonsed to the principal’s office or congratulate me for using my First Amendment rights of speech and petition as taught to me at that very school.

It’s no wonder the following year in our eighth grade musical I was given “Food, Glorious Food,” from Oliver to sing throughout our three day run.

Having taught in urban public and charter schools, I can attest first hand to what is passing as school lunches. Fried, oil-laden, carb-rich offerings riddled with salt and sugary desserts. Sure there is some fruit – canned or fresh, but rarely consumed. One school at which I taught had a salad bar – but, alas, for teachers and staff only.

The invasion by the food police is just another sterling example of government overreaching into places it does not belong. Our freedoms are being eroded one by one and far too many Americans are standing idly by allowing their freedoms to be stripped away. This administration continues to count on ignorance and apathy in order to ensure full governmental control of our lives, from the bedroom to the board room and from the school house to G-d’s house.

We the people are ignorant because we do not know the law and the Constitution. We the people are apathetic because outside of our little corner of the world we realize how little control we have, and therefore we do not speak up.

Well, it’s high time we raise our voices in unison and tell the government to STOP. The Obama administration, nor any other administration, cannot spend our money better than we can. Nor can they make better food choices than we can. Nor can they tell us how to pray. And they certainly can’t raise our children better than we can.

This is an administration run by ultra-liberals who don’t want anyone peering into their bedrooms, or being asked for photo identification when voting, but they’re real quick to inspect children’s lunch boxes, tell us what light bulbs to use and what kind of cars to drive. Yet, this is the same Obama administration smashing the Constitution to smithereens by forcing religion-run institutions to violate their principles, and demanding under financial penalty that we the people must buy a product we may not want.

When will it end? If it does not end on November 6 this year, it may never end. If this regime is not turned out of office this year, we may not recognize this country in another four years. Certainly the Founding Fathers won’t; and that’s not hyperbole.

Now, before I enjoy my lunch of a turkey sandwich on a bagel, a banana, some b-b-q potato chips and a cup of green tea – don’t report me to the food police – I offer this quote from one of our great Founding Fathers, Patrick Henry:

“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people; it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government.”

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

Oakland Ought Oust Occupiers

Oakland Ought Oust Occupiers

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

January 31, 2012

Once again the Occupy Movement is demonstrating its base instincts for violence, mayhem and hypocrisy as it has taken Oakland by storm for a second time wreaking havoc and destruction in its wake.

The miscreants and denizens, behaving like Nazis tearing through a synagogue, broke into Oakland City Hall ransacking the property, destroyed a historic model of the city hall building, destroyed valuable antiques, destroyed elementary school children’s art displays, burning American flags as well as hurling bottles, bricks and rocks at Oakland law enforcement.

During the rioting and melee over 400 so-called protesters were arrested. They are so-called protesters because they beg the question of what the hell were they protesting? Seems their actions were nothing more than wanton destruction of property that does not belong to them for the sake of nothing more than pettiness. Every one of those arrested should be made to share in the restitution to the city to the tune of more than $5 million. The names of the guilty should be printed in the newspapers with their mug shots for all to see and jeer.

The dollar amount had been levied by Oakland Mayor Jean Quan, having toured the destruction, and who is just as irresponsible as the petty thugs who invaded and vandalized her city. Ironically, she made the absurd statement that “people in the community and people in the Occupy movement have to stop making excuses for this behavior.” In her television press conference Quan seemed surprised by the actions of those who committed such violent destruction.

Quan’s statement is both ironic and absurd as she defended the Occupy movement when they last invaded Oakland in November for the purposes of shutting down the Port of Oakland, occupying the airport and attempting to take over city hall. Quan supported the actions of the Occupiers while throwing her own police force under the bus.

Following the insolent and violent behavior by the petulant criminals invading Oakland, at least three police officers were injured, including one by a thrown bicycle. Now, the police may be on the wrong end of a lawsuit as many of the so-called protesters are thinking of filing a lawsuit against the Oakland police for unlawful arrest as well as denying protesters their First Amendment right of free speech and expression.

When asked in his daily press conference on Tuesday, January 31 about Obama’s response to the Oakland mayhem, spokesman Jim Carney said this is an issue of “local law enforcement,” and an issue of a line between the First Amendment and violence. Certainly this is the coward’s way out, especially when Obama did not even have the guts to condemn the burning of the American flag.

Looking at the Constitution, there is nothing in there calling violence and vandalism free speech and free expression. Any such lawsuit should be dismissed as frivolous and the filers made to pay court costs. The so-called protesters were given ample opportunity to disperse and no one forced them to commit the criminal acts of breaking and entering, arson or vandalism. Some even made the ridiculous claim that they were not told how to depart the scene. Leave. Just leave. How challenging is that?

Some of the so-called protesters suggested that the use of tear gas in the presence of children should be actionable in suit and cost the police officers who used it their jobs. The tactic of bringing children to such an “event” by the so-called protesters is akin to Arab/Muslim terrorists hiding their armaments in elementary school basements and milk factories as well as strapping bombs to infants. The parents of those children should be charged with child endangerment.

Whatever message the so-called protesters are attempting to deliver is falling painfully flat, unless their message is that those unhappy with their lot in life, take to the streets to disrupt civil society because the government hasn’t given you enough of a living.

The government does not owe you a living. The government owes you streets safe from the likes of you and your violent, disruptive actions, a strong national defense from foreign and domestic invaders, again, such as yourselves and that’s it. The government does not owe you jobs, housing, health care or even an education. The sooner this is understood, the better. (Yes, government has a moral obligation to take care of those physically and mentally unable to care for themselves.)

The purpose of people working is not to support those who refuse to do so. The job of government is not to steal from the haves and give to the have nots. People make choices in their lives and those decisions impact their futures. The thugs who invaded Oakland should have their choices on a police record for all potential employers to see and decide if those decisions are the kind of responsible actions requisite for gainful employment.

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

A Picture Worth A Thousand Votes

A Picture Worth A Thousand Votes

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

December 25, 2011

Gin and tonic, please.

Certainly, sir. May I see your ID please?

That’s it! Call Jesse; call the ACLU – you’re a racist!

Are you as incredulous reading this as I was writing it? I certainly hope so.

Asking someone to produce an item that identifies him/herself as who he/she claims to be is neither racist, nor disenfranchising as Attorney General Eric Holder would have the nation believe as he attempts to eliminate any form of identification standards for potential voters.

As responsible American citizens we are asked to show proof of age and/or identity when purchasing alcohol, cigarettes, lottery tickets, real estate, automobiles, checking in at an airport or hotel, gaining admittance into secure locations, when writing checks and even when using a credit card at times. Do I understand correctly, that no one without an ID does any of the above? Or drives? Or has a bank account? Wow, what cloistered little lives they must lead.

Why when asked to produce a valid photo ID at the ballot box, do some people go completely apoplectic?

For those American citizens for whom voting is that important, and it should be that important, and who do not possess a valid photo ID – get one. Yes, it is that simple. Holder is using cost as an excuse why the old, young, and minorities would be disenfranchised by the heinous requirement of an identification card. But that excuse is disingenuous at best as the state of South Carolina, whose voter ID law Holder just struck down on Friday, December 23, will provide said identification gratis to its Palmetto State citizens.

The State of Georgia attempted to do likewise, yet the ACLU still objected, calling the voter ID a racist attempt to disenfranchise minorities who could not get to the ID producing locales. Georgia then offered to go to the voters who were unable to make the allegedly arduous trek to procure their own ID card.

States could establish mobile ID producing units and send them to bars, liquor stores, kiosks at shopping malls, airports and anywhere else ID may be required to provide them for those who claim the cost to get them would be too prohibitive or that they could not travel to get them for the same reason. (Once those without ID get them, I’d like to see the voter turnout statistics as compared with the rest of the voting populous.)

And what will Holder’s next complaint be once the ID-less become identifiable? The old, young and minorities are being disenfranchised because they can’t afford to take the time from their low-paying job to go and cast their ballot? Or perhaps those same groups can’t go vote because they can’t afford to take the bus, taxicab or other paid mode of transportation? There will always be something about which to complain. But while thousands of people behaved with violence and mob-like mentality last week for the opportunity to spend $180 on a pair of sneakers, how many of those very people will be in line to vote on Election Day?

Only those seeking to defraud the system and thus the republican process of legally electing representatives would object to a voter ID requirement. Without voter ID laws firmly ensconced someone else could claim to be you or me and thus disenfranchise us by stealing our precious votes – and those votes are indeed precious.

Demanding that a potential voter properly identify him/herself is not a suppression of voters’ rights, but instead a protection of voters’ rights and the suppression of potential voter fraud. The Wisconsin ACLU claimed voters’ 14^th Amendment rights are violated and a “severe burden” (WI ACLU) is placed upon them in spite of a Supreme Court April 2008 ruling that states can require voters to produce photo ID without violating their Constitutional rights.

The law “is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting ‘the integrity and reliability of the electoral process,’” wrote now retired Justice John Paul Stevens for the six to three majority in the 2008 ruling. Stevens, a typically reliable liberal, was joined by associate justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Chief Justice John Roberts, all conservatives, save for Kennedy a moderate swing voter. Backers of the decision said it was vital to squelch voter fraud.

Those opposing the High Court ruling were traditional liberal associate justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the now retired David Souter. ACLU legal director Ken Falk said such voter ID laws tend to inhibit voting yet could produce no supporting evidence.

“We cannot conclude that the statute imposes ‘excessively burdensome requirements’ on any class of voters,” continued Stevens in his opinion for the majority.

“The universally applicable requirements of Indiana voter-identification law are eminently reasonable. The burden of acquiring, possessing and showing a free photo identification is simply not severe, because it does not ‘even represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting,’” wrote Justice Scalia, also for the majority.

Now there is a corrupt Justice Department led by an incompetent attorney general – see also the Fast and Furious scandal Holder claims to know nothing about – who wants to eradicate all voter identification laws because of the potential inconvenience it might impose on some old, young and minority voters. This is the same AG and Justice Department that ignored the New Black Panther Party blatant and overt voter intimidation activities in Philadelphia on Election Day 2008.

Not only does Holder need to resign, but perhaps face charges for fraud, perjury and corrupt practices. But more importantly, while Holder is merely a symptom, it is vital that all 50 states in the Union ensure their 10^th Amendment rights to create laws that the federal government does not create and protect the rights of all legal voting American citizens by requiring them to properly identify themselves prior to casting their all-important ballot on each and every election day.

Voter fraud comes at a cost of up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine, which should be upheld to the maximum in order to send a message that voting is a privilege and shall not be infringed upon by miscreants who would steal an election that could not otherwise be won.

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

Keep Your Shirts On

Keep Your Shirts On

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

December 24, 2011

The administrators at the Oak Hill School in Newton, MA must have acorns for brains.

Taking political correctness to its most vituperative point yet, this suburban Boston middle school is banning the wearing of what it calls “celebratory clothing” in the schools serving grades six through eight.

Such clothing would include articles that refer to a classmate’s recent celebration such as a birthday, bar or bat mitzvah or sweet 16 (which presumably would be for a 10^th or 11^th grader).

In a continuing attempt to coddle children and protect them from the big bad world outside the four walls of the sanitized school community, Oak Hill principal Eva Thompson said “we’re trying to be as inclusive as possible,” noting that the wearing of such celebratory garments would hurt the feelings of those students who were excluded or not invited to such events.

While Thompson said this is not enforceable school policy and no punishment will be meted out against the violators of this suggested practice, she also noted that class time is being used to discuss this issue. And one wonders why the United States educational system is in such crisis and falling further and further behind the rest of the civilized world.

Not only is such a discussion a colossal waste of time, time that should be spent on academics, but entertaining it as a potential punishable policy is beyond ludicrous. Administrators and teachers need to stop coddling their students and students need to learn sooner rather than later that the world is full of disappointment and uninvited parties.

First there are sports leagues that don’t keep score and award all its participants a trophy. That simply is not how the real world works, but there are supporters of this clothing policy, excuse me, suggestion, who believe that is exactly how the real world should work. Well, I’m sorry, this isn’t Fantasy Island and I am not Mr. Roarke. The real world has winners and losers and the sooner children learn how to lose graciously as well as win the same way – I fervently believe in sportsmanship – the easier they will adapt to the real world.

After all, if these middle schoolers are prohibited from wearing the aforementioned garments for fear it might hurt the feeling of their classmates, will the prom be cancelled when they reach high school if not all the students have dates for such a momentous occasion?

Where will it end? Will students be told they can’t wear the jersey of the winning super bowl team because some of their classmates rooted for the losing team and their feelings might be hurt? Will the school bar its own athletes from wearing their own team jerseys on game day simply because some of their classmates didn’t make the team?

My high school football team wore its jerseys on Fridays prior to the Saturday game as a way to inject some school spirit into the building and encourage more people to attend the game. No one’s psyche was damaged by that because they were not part of the team. I know, I was one of those students not physically talented enough to play any of the sports – I wanted to, but my talents lie elsewhere.

Should schools not have writing societies, student newspapers or poetry slams because not all the students are talented enough to participate? What are those students who get rejected by colleges going to do if they do not know how to handle rejection?

Rejection is part of life. The guy doesn’t always get the girl; the applicant doesn’t always get the job; we’re not all going to be professional athletes, president of the United States or CEO of a Fortune 500 firm – that’s life.

It’s already bad enough that so many schools have sanitized themselves to the point that songs mentioning Christmas cannot be sung during a winter concert, that displays of Christmas and Chanukah are banned, that even the exchange of holiday specific greetings are frowned upon.

If the school, or any school, seeks to prevent what they envision as potential problems due to wardrobe concerns, make the leap and require uniforms of the students. I taught at schools with uniform/dress code demands and I support it as a workable plan.

If you think this unofficial policy is as absurd as I think it is, call Principal Thompson at Oak Hill Middle School, 617-559-9200 and politely offer your thoughts on the matter.

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.

It's a Christmas Tree, Damn It!

It’s a Christmas Tree, Damn It!

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

December 4, 2011

Alex, I’ll take “things that don’t make sense” for $100.

The answer is: “a holiday tree in America’s smallest state.”

“What is a Christmas tree in Rhode Island?”

Sadly, that is correct.

Never missing an opportunity to be a complete and utter bonehead, Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee (I, former RINO) emphasized his desire to refer to the state’s Christmas tree as a holiday tree. And just what holiday does this tree represent? There’s nothing nebulous about it. Christmas, you imbecile! It’s enough to make one apoplectic.

The tree certainly doesn’t represent Chanukah. I’ve been Jewish all my life and I’ve never had a tree in my house. The occasional cactus, sure, but that doesn’t make me a Druid.

When is all this ubiquitous politically correct nonsense going to stop? The Jewish population in the United States is roughly 1.5 percent and about 85 percent of the country identifies themselves as Christians; thus when people wish each other a Merry Christmas, there’s going to be an 85 percent chance that they are wishing it upon a fellow Christian. Those are pretty good odds. If I were a gambling man, I would take that bet. And if it is wished upon me, I take it in stride – after all, the odds – and it sure as hell won’t damage my self-esteem. I take it for what it is – a friendly gesture.

I wish my Christian friends a Merry Christmas and my Jewish friends a Happy Chanukah – it even says so on the cards I mail out. None of this season’s greetings crap. Greetings of what season? Are we actually celebrating winter? Winter is simply lugubrious. Pass. Anyone who knows me knows I hate the cold and the only season I celebrate is baseball.

Chafee claims his need to refer to the Christmas tree as a holiday tree is so not to offend anyone or impose any one religion on the populous. If Chafee is thinking of the Establishment Clause, he can go back to thinking of Santa Claus because calling the tall bushy thing a Christmas tree does not violate the Establishment Clause. Chafee is being obtuse and licentious in his pandering to the PC crowd.

The Establishment Clause refers to government’s imposing a specific religion upon the masses. A Christmas tree does no such thing. No one is required to pray to or before it. It in no way damages anyone’s precious self-esteem to have a Christmas tree at the town square, in front of city hall or in the governor’s mansion.

In my home town we had a large enough Jewish community that we took it upon ourselves to construct a menorah and gift it to the town. For years the tree and menorah were placed side by side, and lit in an ecumenical ceremony honoring both Christmas and Chanukah. This is the problem with the objectionists – they want to eliminate everything, while the inclusionists look to enjoin the community in the festiveness of both holidays.

The same goes for observing the holidays in the schools. Some school districts have gotten so outrageously PC that they have banned the simple greetings of Merry Christmas and Happy Chanukah. With all the bullying going on in the schools, a little holiday cheer is the least we can all share and enjoy.

I am going to invoke my First Amendment right of free speech and expression and wish my readers a Merry Christmas and a Happy Chanukah. To do otherwise just wouldn’t be kosher.

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