More Morantics, and Mrs. Morantics, Too

More Morantics, and Mrs. Morantics, Too

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

January 26, 2009

Usually we can count on the irascible Democratic Congressman Jim Moran (VA-8) for entertainment whenever he decides to open his mouth, but this time the irascibility was a tag-team effort with his wife LuAnn Bennett who both caused a scene on Inauguration Day at the Capitol.

Shortly after Obama uttered the words “the time has come to set aside childish things,” during his inaugural dicta, Moran’s wife demanded entry into the Capitol Building during the time when the Obamas were escorting the Bushes to their departing helicopter. Capitol police put up a barricade during President and Mrs. Bush’s departure, allowing entry to members only, which apparently ruffled the feathers of Bennett who after loudly arguing with the officers phoned her husband.

Moran, who upon hitting the scene was full of his usual bluster, shouted at the officer who refused Bennett entry – correctly doing his job, until he relented and allowed Bennett entry. By the way, the officers did not allow Mrs. Larry Summers entry. John Lawrence, Nancy Pelosi’s Chief of Staff, understood the rules and waited patiently.

Cleary this is not an attack on Democrats as two of them had no issues with the policy. As usual Moran and apparently his wife believe the rules are not for them. This may seem like a non-issue, but it is a prime example of what is wrong with our alleged leaders. Moran’s behavior has been chronicled since his days before being elected mayor of Alexandria. Between his litany of physical assaults and foot in mouth disease the voters, ignorant that they are, continue to return this buffoon to Congress every other year like clockwork.

Since 2002 I have seen GOP candidates come and go in the revolving door attempting to take down this Brahman bully, who for some reason has always been nice to me – really. (Probably until now, that is.) Quite frankly, if I could raise $3 million, I would challenge him in 2010. Any fund raisers out there?

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and political consultant living in Alexandria, VA.

GOP Waves White Flag on Hillary

GOP Waves White Flag on Hillary

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

January 21, 2009

With a vote of 94-2, the GOP has surrendered and capitulated, thus becoming the party of superfluousness. Two Democratic parties are not necessary, as the original is bad enough. In addition to the elected Democrats, there are now the RINOs behaving like fawning sycophants. Not only should Clinton not have been approved, neither should Geithner (Treasury), Holder (AG), Solis (Labor), Daschle (HHS), Duncan (Education) and La Hood (Transportation) be confirmed - EVER. For reasons why, please read my column: "The Time is Now for GOP to Grow a Set" at www.sanfordspeaksout.blogspot.com.

Kudos go to Senators Jim De Mint (R-SC) and David Vitter (R-LA) for having the stones to stand up, do what is right and cast the two lone "nay" votes against Hillary.

Even the reliable Republican Kansas Senator Pat Roberts told Geithner during his continuing confirmation hearing that he would be confirmed. How can the Senate vote to confirm a tax evader and one who harbored an employee whose legal status expired under his watch. Do we really want a person in charge of the IRS who flagrantly snubbed his nose at that institution?

RINOs who continue down their current path should be prepared to face tough primary fights from real Republicans in 2010.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and political consultant living in Alexandria, VA.

The Time is Now for GOP to Grow a Set

“I will make mistakes.” – Barack Obama, January 17, 2009

“All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree.” – 4^th President James Madison

The Time is Now for GOP to Grow a Set

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

January 17, 2009

Truer words could not have been spoken on the day the rhetoric express train pulled out of

30^th Street

Station in Philadelphia with stops in Wilmington, DE to pick up the Bidens before stopping in Baltimore prior to the ultimate destination of Washington, DC.

Simply examine the choices Barack Obama has made for his cabinet. “We need to build up this government,” Obama said in the City of Brotherly Love, which demonstrated its nickname with an outpouring for Obama, his wife Michelle, who was celebrating her 45^th birthday, and their two daughters.

Well, to paraphrase the greatest president of the 20^th Century, Ronald Reagan, message to Obama: “Tear down this government!” Make no mistake, this is not a plea for anarchy, but instead for smaller, sensible, reasonable government.

Consider the words of the third president, Thomas Jefferson, who in a letter to Thomas Cooper in November 1802 wrote “I think we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious.” No doubt the patriarch of the modern Democratic Party is spinning six feet under at the notion of how large this government is 207 years later. During Jefferson’s administration there were but five cabinet departments: State, Treasury, War, Navy and Attorney General.

Today there are three times as many cabinet departments and numerous cabinet-level positions to be filled by people who, so far, have proven Obama’s words, “I will make mistakes,” all too true. Even if the Obama cabinet were of Jeffersonian proportions, objections should be cast on three of the five departments: State, Treasury and Attorney General.

This is where the Republicans in the Senate, regarding confirmation hearings, must heed the words of another Reagan – Nancy, and “just say no.” It is not the least bit obstructionist for the minority party to vote against a cabinet nomination who, for one reason or another, should not be approved. For some reason too many Republicans feel the need to rubber stamp Obama’s nominees, either out of fear or a go along to get along philosophy, which is not why those people were sent to Washington in the first place.

“Spineless,” is the word former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee used on January 17 to describe members of his own party. “We used to stand for something,” he said.

The Republicans would do well to remember the words of Dwight Eisenhower, the 34^th president of the United States. “A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both.”

For starters, Hillary Clinton (D-NY) should not be confirmed as Secretary of State.  She carries with her too much baggage. Former President Bill Clinton has a multi-billion dollar conflict of interest with the money donated to his foundation by foreign governments, some of which are suspect at best. The now former Senator Clinton said she couldn’t understand why she was questioned about her husband’s dealings making an obtuse statement about how a cabinet nominee’s spouse has never been an issue before. How many cabinet nominee’s spouses have been president of the United States? Not a trick question, Hillary.

It’s probably a fair assumption that Elaine Chao fielded a question or two pertaining to her husband, Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY), prior to signing on as Labor Secretary. Aside from a minor dust-up over Bill, the remainder of the Hillary hearing featured the committee sycophantically fawning over the one-time presidential hopeful. Hillary Clinton no doubt will become the next Secretary of State, but it should not be handed to her on a silver platter.

For this next nominee of Treasury Secretary designate Timothy Geithner, readers will assume hell has frozen over as I assert conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer is wrong and the New York Times was right – there it is in print boys and girls. Krauthammer calls Geithner’s unpaid taxes a “triviality,” while the Times calls his nomination “tainted.” It is far from trivial when the person nominated to oversee, among other things, the IRS, has tax issues. In this case, Geithner failed to fork over about $43,000 in back Social Security and self-employment taxes, including interest, but no penalties, from his days working for the IMF. If everyone else is subjected to paying their taxes, so should the person picked to be top dog at Treasury.

Additionally, Geithner continued to have a housekeeper whose legal status lapsed in his employ claiming he was unaware of the situation. Ignorance is no excuse. This person worked for Geithner, he should have been on top of things. Too many Republicans want to give Geithner a free pass because he was a Wall Street guy and would probably be a better pick from the GOP perspective than someone else Obama could nominate. But there is a principle at stake here – first the tax issue and then the lapsed legal status of the housekeeper. Do the names Zoe Baird, Linda Chavez and Kimba Wood ring any bells? Geithner will also win confirmation, but shouldn’t.

Attorney General nominee Eric Holder conjures up thoughts of the Peter Principle. He was a disaster as Deputy Attorney General under Bill Clinton, now he’s up for a promotion, in a way. Staring with Holder the private practice attorney, he represented banana producer Chiquita, who paid boatloads of “protection” money to AUC and FARC terror organizations in Colombia. These organizations were responsible for exports of cocaine and massacres of thousands of people.

As Deputy AG, Holder recommended pardons for tax-evader-fugitive Marc Rich as well as members of FALN, a Puerto Rican terror organization – only one of which Holder claims he regrets. He said he made mistakes as Deputy AG, but mistakes that will help him on the job at the nation’s top lawyer. This from the guy who wrote that there is no definition of terrorists or terrorism. It should be a cold day in Guam before Holder is made Attorney General, but he will be confirmed by the Senate lemmings – Elephant and Jackass alike. With little exception, it’s becoming harder to tell them apart.

Representative Hilda Solis (D-CA) should not be confirmed as Labor Secretary for the simple reason that she has stated publicly on more than one occasion that she is opposed to secret ballots for union workers. In this republic of the United States secret ballots have been used for a couple hundred years with much success, but Solis does not think union workers should be afforded such a “luxury.” She is wrong and her nomination ought to be rejected.

Arne Duncan, the now former head of schools in Chicago, should go back to the Windy City instead of standing to be the next Education Secretary. Only 17 percent of eighth graders are able to read at grade level in Chicago. In addition to being mired in academic hell, as test scores demonstrate, Duncan supported a “gay high school.” This is not 1896 and Plessy v. Ferguson is no longer law of the land. The notion of a gay high school, or any other segregated school, for that matter will not be good for its students who will be sheltered from the real world that they inevitably will have to face. Duncan should get a permanent time-out.

And to be fair, not all nominees to be rejected are Democrats. Former Representative Ray La Hood (R-IL) should be denied the opportunity to be the next Transportation Secretary. In 2008 alone La Hood sent up legislation calling for $60 million in earmarks, ranking him in the top 10 percent of all Congressional porkers. This was partly made possible by sitting on the highly coveted Appropriations Committee and allowed La Hood to funnel larded-up legislation toward some of his more generous political donors.

One specific example is the $330,000 earmarked for the Lakeview Museum in Peoria, IL as part of a project financed by Caterpillar – La Hood’s biggest donor. The project is a museum of the history of the company. Do not misunderstand, museums are good learning experiences. I am a founding member and contributor to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum as well as the National Museum of the American Indian. But if corporate America wants museums to honor themselves, they can also pay for it themselves. Give La Hood a bus ticket back to Illinois.

In addition to the earmarks, wrong in their own right, there are the bailouts – of anyone and any institution that wants one apparently. Bailouts were wrong under George W. Bush and will be just as wrong under Obama. Not just wrong, but unconstitutional to boot. Republicans who voted for the bailout prior to November should have been turned out of office. Those who do so after January 20 should be dismissed in November 2010. Bailouts are not part of core GOP values. Real Republicans ought to be lining up to challenge the RINOs who support bailouts in primaries. Two sets of Democrats in Congress are not necessary.

Republicans should not be afraid to do the right thing. It is not obstructionist to tell potential homeowners to only buy a home they can actually afford. It is not obstructionist to tell businesses to sell what consumers will actually want to buy. If the auto industry is not willing to change itself in order to succeed, the government should not throw good money after a stubborn, insolent group of CEOs who feel entitled simply because their companies have been around for a century or more.

“The power to tax is the power to destroy,” said Chief Justice John Marshall.

The federal government should not be taxing the so-called rich more simply because they earn more money than their less fortunate peers. They key word is “earn.” The federal government should not be giving people who did not pay taxes a tax “rebate.” That is called state-sponsored welfare. This is not France, not yet, anyway; this is still the United States of America.

Couple Ike’s words with those of Mr. Conservative himself, Barry M. Goldwater, who said “We shall return to proven ways – not because they are old, but because they are true.” When the GOP can do that, they will stop wandering the desert in obscurity and irrelevance and return to their former greatness when they were leaders, not followers, this nation will also return to its status as leaders of the free world instead of cow-towing to an allegedly mainstream media that is socialist at best, a Europe that is an economic and moral wasteland and radical left-wing extremists seeking to turn the United States into a government-run, cradle to grave caretaker.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and political consultant living in Alexandria, VA.

Kaine's Prison Plan Should Be Handcuffed

Kaine’s Prison Plan Should Be Handcuffed

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

January 13, 2009

So Virginia Governor Tim Kaine is interested in letting a few “good” prisoners out of the gray bar hotel 90 days early as a cost-cutting measure claiming they are “non-violent offenders who have been model inmates” and were due for a 30 day early dismissal, according to an article written by Anthony Barkow of New York.

Barkow, who authored “In Kaine’s Budget Plan, a Reality Check for Prisons,” is executive director of the Center on the Administration of Criminal Law at New York University School of Law. He penned this biased editorial to sing the praises of this early release plan of the non-violent, noting that “prominent Republicans” with backgrounds in criminal justice policy support this plan, but only names one Republican. Barkow then criticizes the current Virginia Attorney General, Bob McDonnell, the presumptive GOP nominee for governor later this year for not marching in lock-step with this less than savory idea.

Meanwhile, in Barkow’s Empire State, the king of the Ponzi Scheme, Bernie Madoff – pronounced Made-off, as in what he did with $50 billion – yes, billion with a “b” in people’s retirements and charitable organizations’ funds, rests easy in his $7 million home, instead of in a prison cell. People nationwide are outraged, and rightfully so, that a lowlife like Madoff is allowed to breathe the air of a free person while countless numbers of people have been bilked out of their life savings and charitable organizations are unable to do the good works they have done for years.

Just because a criminal is non-violent doesn’t mean he or she shouldn’t be incarcerated. In the case of Madoff, the death penalty is not unreasonable, after all, his misdeeds have inalterably affected the lives of people too old to return to work and certainly could not recoup their losses. Some people have even committed suicide because of the actions of this miscreant.

But back to the Commonwealth of Virginia and down the slippery slope the prison system is about to slide. Barkow claims more than $1 billion is spent annually on incarceration in Virginia and labels tough-on-crime positions “irrational,” suggesting that the non-violent offender who pose no danger to society not be imprisoned. As is typical of liberals, Barkow offers no suggestion as to his appropriate method of punishment, for although they may be non-violent, they are still convicts.

Barkow also suggests that to continue to incarcerate the non-violent offenders, schools and additional police on the streets will lose funding. Of course those scare tactics are exactly what he has in mind. Instead of calling for an to pork-barrel spending and a diminution of special-interest funding, which would make the most sense, Barkow wants to instill fear in the hearts and minds of the citizenry in order to garner support for a lame-brained idea.

There’s a reason Republicans like former governor and senator George Allen pushed hard for no parole in Virginia. When a criminal is sentenced to a term of 10 years for example, he or she serves that amount of time. There should not be early release for good behavior. Instead, there should be extended sentences for bad behavior. Stricter sentences should be the order of the day, not more lenient sentences.

Barkow went so far as to praise Kaine as a governor with “guts” for telling “people that the criminal justice system has gone too far.” Well, to be fair, Barkow is right – the criminal justice system has gone too far, just not in the way he thinks or in the right direction.

Prison should not be a pleasant experience for any inmate – white collar, blue collar or ministerial collar. Since when do prisoners have a constitutional right to cable or any television, for that matter. Weight rooms? Athletic equipment? Gone. If prisoners don’t want their muscles to atrophy, don’t commit crimes and end up in the clink. There’s some money saved as well. Strip these prisons down to their bare bones minimum. Prisoners ought to live like minimalists – smaller cells allow for more prisoners to be housed. If a prisoner wants books, newspapers or other reading material, let them procure it from the outside when family or friends visit. No more computers, radios or other electronic luxuries – after all prison is just that, and not summer camp.

Busy prisoners ought to be productive prisoners learning trades such as carpentry, plumbing, cooking, even first aid skills, all of which are marketable on the outside upon release having served their entire sentences. Any prisoner with a skill or a talent can teach other inmates.

Governor Kaine would be wise to procure a page out Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s playbook. Known around the country as “America’s Toughest Sheriff,” he runs the force in Maricopa County Arizona where there are both male and female chain gangs, prisoners painting over graffiti, cleaning the streets and even burying the indigent. Inside the prison Arpaio is known to have the cheapest meals in the United States – averaging roughly 15 cents and the inmates are only fed twice a day.

Now before all the ACLUeless attorneys get their briefs in a twist, once again, for those prisoners who object, don’t become a criminal. They make their choices and those choices come with consequences. There’s a boatload of money to be saved and trimmed from the budget without violating anyone’s rights or giving free passes to non-violent offenders.

While on the budget-trimming subject, any non-indigent sentenced must pay a fine and the money goes in the education and/or transportation coffers. Illegals should not be put in American prisons, but instead, deported to their country of origin. Notice, I do not say illegals who have committed a crime, because once they have taken that first illegal step on American soil, they have broken the law. And for those white collar criminals who have stolen from investors, raided pension funds, bilked charities, all their assets should be liquidated in order to make some form of remuneration to the victims. They may be non-violent, but their crimes certainly are not victimless and they do deserve to fulfill their reservations at the gray bar hotel – sans room service.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and political consultant living in Alexandria, VA.

Israel v. Hamas - No Moral Equivalent

Israel v. Hamas – No Moral Equivalent

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

January 3, 2009

“We will have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate us.” – Golda Meir (1898-1978), former Israeli Prime Minister

For Israel, the axis of evil is Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran with the latter supporting the two terror groups. With all three entities hell-bent on the destruction and eradication of the Jewish state, aside from ignorance and jealousy, one must wonder why.

In the current conflagration pitting democracy against terrorist organization, as usual, Israel is criticized globally for, first, defending itself, then deigning to retaliate in an effort to defeat its enemy. This is an enemy that places martyrdom and the elimination of Israel above the betterment of its own people.

When given Gaza by Israel in 2005, a colossal mistake supported by Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, a candidate for Prime Minister, the Palestinian Authority allowed its rule to be usurped by Hamas who did nothing to create a livable infrastructure, economy, educational system or employment prospects for its own Palestinian people. Instead, Hamas focused its energies on smuggling in weaponry and armament, digging tunnels from which to attack Israel and continuing to blame Israel for its further failures and shortcomings as an alleged society.

Israel, for all its initial restraint, not only has the right to defend itself, but must destroy an enemy emphasizing the extermination of Israel as priority one. If Israel loses a war, it ceases to exist. If Hamas is only defeated militarily, yet remains in existence, eventually they will reload and continue down their destructive path of terror and teaching their children to hate and kill Jews, Israelis, Americans and the United States.

President George W. Bush issued strong condemnation of Hamas for provoking Israel as well as Hamas’s willingness to violate the ceasefire that Egypt helped to arrange. “Another one-way ceasefire that leads to rocket attacks on Israel is not acceptable,” said Bush as part of his radio address on January 3, 2009.

That Israel should be criticized and condemned by so many for alleged disproportionate retaliation against Hamas demonstrates pure ignorance. This is especially true of American Jewish liberals who are so quick to call for land for peace agreements. Should the Nazis have been allowed to continue to exist in a diminished capacity? Of course not, and neither should any other entity whose primary goal is the elimination of any democratic nation. By the way, critics of Israel, what would the appropriate proportional response by Israel be to terrorist attacks? Join hands and sing Kumbaya?

The late, great Rabbi Meir Kahane (1932-90) was absolutely correct when he said that one does not cede land for peace nor does one return captured land in victory. When you lose, you lose, Kahane would frequently remind people. After all, was Panama returned to Colombia? Was the former Czechoslovakia returned to Germany? Is there a free and independent South Vietnam? Did the United States return the portions of Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah won after defeating Mexico in 1848?

Former Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who hopefully will ascend to that office again this year, correctly opposed the ceding of Gaza, as land for peace is mere lip service. Once the land is gone, it is lost, while peace is fleeting or even mythical at best.

Don’t make the mistaken assumption that there is any moral equivalence between Israel and Hamas. Not only does Hamas have no qualms targeting civilians – including, and especially, women and children, they enlist their own women and children as homicide bombers. Hamas also hides and stores their munitions in civilian-sensitive locales such as schools and mosques knowing that Israel would be faced with a Sophie’s Choice of either not striking those sites, or doing so as the risk of global political and media condemnation. And don’t forget that Hamas leaders also hide within the civilian population for the same reasons. Shrewd, maniacal cowards.

The questions to be asked are why should Israel give a rat’s tuchus about criticism in the pages of the London Times and the New York Times, on the airwaves of NPR and the hardly-viewed MSNBC or in the halls of the useless United Nations? They should not, especially as Israel warns civilians via fliers and leaflets, at their own peril, of pending retaliation. Israel fights a battle or a war first from a defensive tack, then from a position of attempting to limit civilian casualties.

“We don’t thrive on military acts. We do them because we have to, and thank G-d we are efficient.” – Golda Meir

Israel is not seeking to reestablish control of Gaza, but instead end Hamas control over the land that could be a Palestinian homeland. (I object to this strategy and believe Israel should never have ceded Gaza in the first place, but instead push out all of Israel’s enemies toward Jordan, which should be the Palestinian homeland.)

Palestinians should have a homeland in Jordan, but not as a reward for inciting violence and continued terrorist attacks against Israel. Israel has the right to exist and defend itself by whatever means necessary. Peace will occur when terrorists cease and desist and Palestinians begin to care more about their own people than do Israelis. Until that time Israel should forge ahead vigorously to ensure its survival for its own sake as well as for the moral betterment of civilized society.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and political consultant living in Alexandria, VA.

Blago's Senate Pick - Taint Right

Blago’s Senate Pick – Taint Right

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

January 2, 2009

Circus Maximus plays the palace – the palace being the governor’s mansion in Springfield, IL. For a man who doesn’t know how to keep his mouth shut, embattled Illinois Governor “Lightening” Rod Blagojevich (D) is a shrewd genius for his selection of Roland W. Burris to become the Land of Lincoln’s junior senator. Yes, genius, as the choice of Burris, 71, deflects Blagojevich’s legal and political troubles while turning the selection into a commentary on race.

Simply enough, Blagojevich’s infusion of race into the appointment of Burris now forces the Democratic majority of the US Senate into a veritable Sophie’s Choice – accept the pick by a tainted appointer – Blagojevich, or reject the potentially only black member of that body. And that’s what makes an otherwise imbecilic Blagojevich a shrewd genius. Sure, he’s on his way out of the governor’s house and into the big house for, among other alleged misdeeds, attempting to sell Barack Obama’s Senate seat. Auctioning it to the highest bidder seems more accurate. But before leaving the governor’s mansion, seemingly by force rather than choice, Blagojevich apparently wants to make his last work memorable.

Yet, Democrats nationwide, led by Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, called upon Blagojevich to not fill the vacancy left by Obama. They, along with a number of key Illinois Democrats, have called for Blagojevich’s resignation in order to avoid the inevitable impeachment battle that will only further solidify Illinois as one of the most politically corrupt states in the nation – in any era of American history. Should Blagojevich find himself behind bars, he could share a cell with his predecessor George Ryan (R), currently serving six and one half years for corruption.

Additionally, Dan Walker (D), governor from 1973 to 1977 served a year and a half of a seven year sentence in the fun house on charges of bank fraud, misapplication of funds and perjury. Before Walker, Otto Kerner (D), governor from 1961 to 1968 spent less than a year of a three year sentence in the gray-bar hotel having been convicted of bribery and tax evasion as well as arranging favorable horse racing dates in return for getting horse racing association stock at reduced prices. And just for kicks, throw in William Stratton (R), governor from 1953 to 1961, indicted on charges of income tax evasion, but acquitted.

Blagojevich said he would not make this appointment and now there’s a “shadow cast over him,” said Illinois Lieutenant Governor Pat Quinn (D) of the governor’s pick. He’s contradicting himself, has “unclean hands…, should be replaced and convicted with speed and removed from office by the Illinois Senate. He’s not fit to serve,” continued Quinn, who as governor would have the constitutional authority to select Obama’s successor.

With the selection of Burris, however, Senate Democrats find themselves in the untenable situation of actually not seating him and suffering the wrath of the ignorant. So, let’s deal with the 800 pound elephant – or in this case – jackass in the room. Yes, this is about race. No, this is not about race. Either way, this is not about Roland Burris – a man who on any other day would more than likely sail right through the Senate doors and take what could be his rightful place in Obama’s former seat.

Politics aside, Burris has been a solid, long-time public servant in Illinois becoming the first black candidate elected to statewide office serving as comptroller from 1979 to 1991, then garnering the post as attorney general, serving in that capacity from 1991 to 1995. However, Burris suffered several electoral setbacks, thus as a perennial runner-up, when offered the Senate seat, he could hardly turn it down. Or could he?

Burris was not the first person Blagojevich attempted to appoint. US Representative Danny Davis (D) rejected Blagojevich’s offer saying “I thought the environment had been poisoned.” Additionally, rumors swirled around US Representative Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D) as to his being asked to serve.

On the one hand, this is not about race because there is no such thing as a “black Senate seat,” despite the injection of such an idea from US Representative Bobby Rush (D), the former Black Panther and current hypocritical member of Congress. Hypocritical because on December 9 Rush said that in no way should Blagojevich be charged with the responsibility of appointing the next Illinois Senator, as “any appointment would be tainted.” Yet, on December 30,  Rush applauded the choice of Burris and turned the already circus-like atmosphere into one of a full blown racial carnival.

“This is a matter of national importance. There are no African-Americans in the Senate, and I don’t think that anyone, any US Senator who’s sitting in the Senate right now, wants to go on record to deny one African-American for [sic] being seated in the US Senate. I don’t think they want to go on record doing that,” Rush said. To further intensify his already overheated racial speech, Rush implored “the public not to hang or lynch Burris because of the charges against Blagojevich.” If Rush were really that concerned about ensuring the seat be filled without controversy, he would have strongly encouraged Blagojevich to make no selection, and suggest several potential choices to Quinn for a clean appointment upon the governor’s resignation or impeachment.

Further demonstrating that there is no hyphenated-American Senate seat, Colorado Governor Bill Ritter (D) is prepared to announce the appointment of Michael Bennet, superintendent of Denver’s schools, to replace Senator Ken Salazar upon Salazar’s confirmation as Obama’s choice for Interior Secretary. Salazar’s seat is no more a “Hispanic seat” than Obama’s is a “black seat.”  With Salazar’s probable departure, two Hispanics remain in the Senate – Mel Martinez (R-FL) and Robert Menendez (D-NJ). Martinez announced last year that he will not seek reelection upon the expiration of his term.

In spite of Rush’s guilt trip, and clearly he played the guilt card hand-in-hand with the race card, even the liberal Washington Post would not fall for such shenanigans. The Post called the Burris pick a “tainted choice in Illinois,” in the headline of its December 31 editorial. “…No one selected by Mr. Blagojevich can take the office with any legitimacy,” said the editorial with pleas for the governor’s resignation.

Even Obama, who supported Burris over Blagojevich in the 2002 Democratic gubernatorial primary, and has no problem with Burris as an eventual US Senator, has called upon Blagojevich to resign and allow for his successor to make the appointment.

Despite Rush’s best or worst efforts, clear thinking people will realize this is not about race, nor is this about Burris or any other potential appointee – black, white or brown. This is about honesty, integrity and clean hands making an appointment that passes the smell test. The US Senate would be right to deny any Blagojevich appointee a seat amongst their ranks. Such denial would be the first since 1947 when Theodore Bilbo (D-MS) was refused his seat due to corruption. Once Illinois cleans its own house, then they can add to the nation’s upper house. Until then, taint right.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and political consultant living in Alexandria, VA.

Birthday Cake Creates Furor

Birthday Cake Creates Furor

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

December 26, 2008

At what point do the lines between censorship, free speech and the concept of the customer is always right get blurred? That question was put to the test about a week before Christmas of all times.

Heath and Deborah Campbell, residents of Hunterdon County in south Jersey, were thwarted in their attempts to procure a decorated birthday cake for their three-year-old son from a ShopRite Supermarket in Greenwich, NJ. Apparently this is the third year in a row that the supermarket rejected the request.

The furor stems from the fact that the boy’s name is Adolf Hitler Campbell. At least this year the request for the named cake was toned down to not include the swastika the Campbells asked for in previous years. "We reserve the right not to print anything on the cake that we deem to be inappropriate," ShopRite spokeswoman Karen Meleta said. "We considered this inappropriate."

In order to purchase the desired cake the Campbells actually had to cross the Delaware River and conduct their business with a Pennsylvania Wal-Mart. Now, before anyone decides to boycott Wal-Mart, the store simply honored a paying customer’s request for a birthday cake with their son’s name iced on to the dessert. Nobody asked for the cake to be put on display in the bakery’s window and as soon as the cake was iced it could have been boxed with the name “Campbell” written atop for the parents to pick up when ready.

Sure, there’s a principle involved in the action taken by ShopRite, but where is the line drawn regarding what is or is not appropriate and who has the privilege of making such a decision? The Greenwich ShopRite is much closer to Philadelphia than New York. Could the bakery manager unilaterally determine a cake that said “Let’s Go Mets” be “inappropriate” because he or she is a Phillies fan? Could a cake congratulating Barack Obama for a customer’s inauguration party be deemed inappropriate if the bakery manager supported John McCain?

Make no mistake, I do not in any way, shape or form endorse the name chosen by the parents with which they saddled their child. A strong case could be made that such a moniker is a form of child abuse. One can only imagine the treatment and ridicule this child will be exposed to in school. Heath Campbell said he named his son after Adolf Hitler because he liked the name and because "no one else in the world would have that name." Campbell said his ancestors are German and that he has lived his entire life in Hunterdon County. Amazingly, both Heath, 35, and his wife Deborah, 25, expressed shock and surprise with the intolerance to which they claim they have been subjected, as well as the numerous angry postings on various internet sites directed toward the couple. Shocked? Surprised? What a couple of morons.

"I think people need to take their heads out of the cloud they've been in and start focusing on the future and not on the past," Heath Campbell said in an interview conducted in Easton, PA. "There's a new president and he says it's time for a change; well, then it's time for a change. They need to accept a name. A name's a name. The kid isn't going to grow up and do what Hitler did." Although Campbell claims no racial animus toward any group, he said he was raised to avoid people of other races and neither mix with, or get romantically involved with them. Quite frankly, the schools he attends should keep a close watch on this child. His name is just begging to keep him from making friends or getting dates. What parent wants their daughter coming home with Adolf Hitler Campbell.

Meanwhile, business is business, and Wal-Mart should not be chided for accepting the business of the Campbell family. It’s not up to Wal-Mart or ShopRite, for that matter, to determine the appropriateness of a person’s legally given name. The child will have enough problems later in life with which to battle. After all, what law firm, accounting firm or medical practice wants the name Adolf Hitler Campbell on its door, letterhead or website as a partner? Sure, his last name is Campbell, but what about when people see his full name on the diploma while I the waiting room? And, of course, there’s no way on earth young Mr. Adolf Hitler Campbell could ever get elected to anything – ever, no matter how good his ideas are or how well he presents them. Don’t forget serial killers, sociopaths, psychopaths and the infamous are typically tri-named: Lee Harvey Oswald, John Wayne Gacy, John Wilkes Booth, Jim Guy Tucker, James Earl Ray, Mark David Chapman, John Walker Lindh, John Allen Muhammad and Anna Nicole Smith, just to name a few. I’m not crazy about Philip Seymour Hoffman, Hillary Rodham Clinton, or Tommy Lee Jones, either, for that matter.

Sympathy for the child, yes; he is but three years of age. Hopefully he won’t be too damaged by the time he is old enough to either legally change his name if he so chooses or at the very least drop the middle name. A rose by any other name may still smell just as sweet, to paraphrase Billy Shakespeare, but not when its parents name it Adolf Hitler Campbell.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and political consultant living in Alexandria, VA.