Snowden: Hero or Villain?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clearly there is a Fourth Amendment issue at work here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sentencing Laws Still Lacking

Sentencing Laws Still Lacking
Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
June 23, 2013

For Shamus Patton freedom after three years of an eight year sentence is as criminal as he is. To serve less than 40 percent of a prison term is more than “disturbing” as indicated by the June 21, page one headline, “Felon’s Case ‘Disturbing’” (The Indianapolis Star).

The new law passed during the past legislative session is marginally better, but still miles from where it ought to be. The General Assembly enacted a law requiring convicts to serve a minimum of 75 percent of their sentence, even with good behavior and completion of certain programs.

Patton was sentenced to eight years for shooting nine people at the Indiana Black Expo in 2010. Fast forward three years, and Patton is on the streets having a reduced sentence for good behavior and competing an educational program. Apparently Patton learned nothing, arrested for resisting police, while in the company of three other convicts and firearms.

So many aspects of the Patton case and new law are pathetically wrong, endangering the community at-large, from a lack of communication between prison and local authorities, to the dumb luck that Patton should return to his miscreant cohorts for additional illicit activity – evidencing his need to remain behind bars.

The focus must be on sentencing laws. Patton is merely a symptom of the need to tighten them. An eight year sentence should be just that – eight years behind bars. With good behavior and completion of certain programs, a prisoner could be released in eight years. With bad behavior and non-compliance, the sentence should be increased.

“I think serving 75 percent of a sentence, rather than just 50 percent should still be enough of an incentive for prisoners to follow the rules,” said Rep. Matt Pierce (D-Bloomington).

Pierce and others supporting this bill, now law, don’t understand – this is not about the incentives for convicts to behave behind bars, but the enforcement of a sentence handed down by a judge and jury. It should start with 100 percent and the incentive for prisoners to follow the rules is that every act of bad behavior or defiance is tacked on to the sentence on a 2:1 ratio – two additional days per incident.

Criminals should not be rewarded with early release. While they are entitled to justice under the law, it should not be by heaping insult to injury upon the victims.

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

Recalling D-Day Heroes and Reagan

Recalling D-Day Heroes and Reagan

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
June 6, 2013

Convergent forces saw the passing of former President Ronald Reagan, nine years ago yesterday (06/05/04), with the annual observance of D-Day, today 69 years removed from its June 6, 1944 landing on the shores of Normandy, France.

In his D-Day message, General Dwight Eisenhower said “We will accept nothing less than full victory.” Words of this strength have hardly been uttered during any war or conflict since, in which the United States has participated.

The landing at Omaha Beach and four other locales over a 50 mile span was the beginning of the end of the European segment of World War II. On this date 156,000-plus American, British, and Canadian troops hit hard the shores of those five beaches – initially suffering unprecedented casualties prior to wresting control from Nazi Germany.

Over 5,000 ships and 13,000 aircraft participated in the invasion where more than 4,000 Allied soldiers were killed and another 5,000 were wounded within the immediacy of the landings. This was a heavy price to pay, but was the turning point in defeating Hitler, Nazism, and Fascism.

“The free men of the world are marching together to victory,” Eisenhower continued in his D-Day message.

From the time of the D-Day landing through late August 1944, the Allied troops liberated northern France, including Paris. By May 1945, the Allies defeated Nazi Germany and the Axis powers of Europe.

Drafted into the Army shortly after the United States entered the war in December 1941, Reagan was not permitted to the front lines due to his near-sightedness. Instead, Reagan worked for the Motion Picture Army Unit producing training and propaganda films. For my impressions of Ronald Reagan: http://sanfordspeaksout.blogspot.com/2004/06/mourning-in-america.html

“…let us all beseech the blessings of Almighty G-d upon this great and noble undertaking,” concluded General Eisenhower’s D-Day message.

Eisenhower understood then, what many have since forgotten: that short of a belief in G-d and striving for total victory, military conflicts are merely an exercise in futility costing the United States an unnecessary loss of blood, treasure, and human capital.

May we and future generations never forget the sacrifices made by the brave soldiers on D-Day, June 6, 1944, and may the losses of those who made the ultimate sacrifice not have been in vain.

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

Nidal Hasan is a Terrorist

Nidal Hasan is a Terrorist
Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
June 5, 2013

On May 22, British soldier Lee Rigby, 25, was beheaded in broad daylight in London by two radicalized British Muslims, one of whom shouted Allah akbar (G-d is great). Both murderers were shot by a British policewoman as their act was immediately called terrorism. Rigby is survived by his two-year-old son.

Three days later, French soldier Private Cedric Cordiez, also 25, was stabbed in the neck by a convert to Islam. The attacker was arrested, while Cordiez survived the assault – an act called terrorism, was treated and released.

Flashback to November 5, 2009 where at Fort Hood, TX, Army Major Nidal Hasan, while shouting “Allah akbar,” opened fire slaughtering 13 innocent people – colleagues – and wounding another 32 innocents. This unquestionable act of premeditated terror was labeled “workplace violence” by the Pentagon on the directive of a feckless Obama administration.

This is not new news that Hasan has been charged with workplace violence instead of the obvious charge of terrorism, which is exactly what Hasan committed. But on the eve of the advent of jury selection in Hasan’s trial, it bears noting that this case should be tried in a military tribunal as opposed to the civilian court where it will be heard.

This entire case stinks from the top down. During the three and a half years of incarceration, Hasan has been paid his salary in full – to the tune of $278,000, vastly unknown to the taxpaying public who has foot this unconscionable bill. But, as Hasan has yet to be tried or found guilty, he apparently is entitled to his compensation, although he did absolutely nothing to earn it.

An additional obscenity in the Hasan case is that he has been granted permission to defend himself, with the presence of backup attorneys should the need arise. The only plus here is that Hasan has been declared sane in order to defend himself, and guilty by reason of insanity is out as a defense. Clearly the old adage of “he who defends himself has a fool for a client,” applies here.

The flip side of this travesty is that the surviving wounded victims can be called to the stand to be questioned by Hasan and forced to relieve that horrific day one more time, as if they already don’t relive it every day.

Furthermore, while Hasan is collecting his full salary, the wounded have not had the same access to medical care or benefits had this rampage been declared terrorism, as it should have been declared. And because of the workplace violence label, the living wounded victims and the 13 who were murdered will be unable to receive the Purple Heart, either live or posthumously.

Shockingly, the Defense Department said there is not enough evidence to call Hasan's heinous actions terrorism, yet it was Hasan himself who said the shootings were to protect the Taliban. Apparently the DOD can't see the forest for the trees.

In being tried in a civilian court, Hasan will be granted a forum to pontificate in ways that are linked to his defense, which due to all the witnesses, should not amount to much, but the show must go on, as they say on Broadway.

Bright lights and big city or not, Hasan, 42, an Army psychiatrist, made his objections to the war in Iraq and Afghanistan well-known as well as his animus toward his comrades. For this, the trial should be an open and shut case with the penalty being either life in prison or the death penalty.

But the trial is merely a symptom of a bigger problem, that being the mollifying of radical Muslims who seem to get a pass at every turn and rights not afford other groups or protections not afforded other groups.

A couple examples of this include workers making demands of employers to not fulfill certain aspects of the job for which they were hired because they might violate their religious beliefs, and punishing people for potentially offending Muslims, when the same offenses of other religious groups are allowed to occur unpunished.

There is a double standard growing in the United States simply because there is an administration sympathetic to the cause of radical Islam. This administration turns a blind eye and a deaf ear in an effort to placate the Muslim community to which this administration seem beholden.

Well, blind eyes and deaf ears will not be found here and we will be paying attention to the Hasan trial with the hopes that 12 men and women will do their jobs, find this terrorist guilty of workplace violence and sentence him to death.

The Obama administration can call this workplace violence all day long, but at the end of that long day, we the people know the truth – Nidal Hasan is a terrorist.

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

Democrats Blame Victims of IRS

“When the people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears the people there is liberty.” – Thomas Jefferson

Democrats Blame Victims of IRS

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
June 4, 2013

US Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) is shameless and feckless for the manner in which he denigrated witnesses who testified before the House Ways and Means Committee about the treatment they endured by a biased IRS.

Adding insult to injury, McDermott told those patriots brave enough to come forward that “each of your groups are highly political,” and that they basically deserved the treatment dealt them by the IRS in their quest to achieve 501(c)(4) status. Would McDermott and the other Democrats be that insensitive to blame rape victims for their horrifying ordeals?

McDermott went on to chastise those testifying on Monday, June 4, that they represent the “most controversial views,” including “opposing the president’s health care plan.” The cherry-picked organizations are conservative, anti-gay marriage, pro-life, pro-Israel, have TEA Party, patriot, or liberty in their names and have been targets of the IRS throughout the Obama administration.

McDermott dug himself in deeper when suggesting the conservative groups have nothing about which to complain as the head of the IRS was a George W. Bush appointee. “If you didn’t apply for this status, you wouldn’t have to answer questions,” chided McDermott, clearly never having read Dale Carnegie’s How to Win Friends & Influence People.

US Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) took McDermott to task when he sarcastically said to the witnesses, “So you’re to blame…,” adding, “I guess that’s the message.”

One such witness to testify was Wetumpka, AL TEA Party president Becky Gerritson who fought tears in describing the harassing experience hers and other organizations faced in attempts to achieve tax exempt status. Targeted groups, if granted a tax-exempt status at all, waited an average of 635 days, while groups not discriminated against, such as Planned Parenthood and the ACLU, achieved their tax-exempt status in roughly 90 days.

“You have forgotten your place,” said Gerritson of the IRS and government in general. She continued to explain how they were singled out because they have TEA Party in their name. “This was not an accident, but an attempt to intimidate us,” said Gerritson, who told of how the IRS demanded names of donors, how much the donors contributed, names of volunteers, names of potential candidates, positions advocated by the group, copies of speeches, and biographical data on speakers.

None of those investigations are kosher. Those lines of questioning are “outside legitimate inquiry,” said American Center for Law and Justice attorney Jay Sekulow, defending 25 such victims of IRS bias, harassment, and intimidation.

Gerritson concluded her testimony telling the committee she is “terrified” the America she grew up in “is slipping away.”

The inquisition offered up by the IRS is designed to squelch dissent. The Constitution both encourages and protects dissent. When there is no dissent, government is unchecked and when government is unchecked, there is potential for tyranny.

We the people fund the government – it works for us, not the other way around. The government owes the people explanations for its unscrupulous actions, then punishments for its illegal acts.

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

In the Lies of the Be-Holder

In the Lies of the Be-Holder

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

May 30, 2013

Because of his clear inability to be honest before a Congressional committee do I feel compelled to say liar, liar, pantalones en fuego to hopefully soon to be former Attorney General Eric Holder.

This is the same Eric Holder, who, as Deputy Attorney General during the Clinton administration interceded to help secure the pardon of Marc Rich. Rich “stood accused of racketeering, defrauding the Treasury out of tens of millions of dollars, and trading with our nation’s enemies–including Iran, which Rich supplied with desperately needed funds while Khomeini’s embargoed regime held American hostages.” (McCarthy, A.C., National Review Online, January 21, 2009)

As Deputy AG, Holder claimed to not be familiar with who Rich was or the crux of the case against him. Ignorance was his Holder’s salvation when questioned in 2001 before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Yet it was later proven that not only did Holder know who Rich was, but had the occasion to sue a company controlled by Rich while Holder served as US Attorney for DC as a Clinton appointee.

This is the same Eric Holder, who, as AG has been embroiled in the Fast and Furious scandal. Again, Holder feigned ignorance before the House Judiciary Committee claiming not to know anything about the gun walking operation that allowed American firearms into the hands of so-called intermediaries for the purpose tracking them back to Mexican drug cartels.

Fast and Furious was a botched effort that saw precious few of the firearms returned to American hands. So badly gone awry was Fast and Furious that United States Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was slaughtered in December 2010 and Holder became the first sitting cabinet member charged with Contempt of Congress. There has been no justice for the Terry family.

Enough is enough.

Now Holder has lied to the House Judiciary Committee about, once again, his ignorance. This time in a most egregious abuse of power – spying on members of the press and violating their right of privacy, and dispelling the notion of a free press being able to perform its duties in the independent manner for which they are tasked, and guaranteed via the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, a document with which Holder ought to be familiar.

Holder claimed on May 15 he knew nothing of the search warrants/subpoenas sought to investigate several Associated Press employees as well as Fox News’ reporter James Rosen and an FNC producer. Yet, it has since been unearthed that Holder himself pursued said warrants/subpoenas for e-mails and telephone records, initially being rejected by two judges before a third acquiesced. Such high level investigations require the signature of the Attorney General – in this case, Eric Holder.

Not only were the privacy rights of Rosen et. al. violated, so too was their right of due process by not having been notified prior to such an investigation.

When asked about potential charges of perjury against Holder, US Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), a 35-year veteran of both Congress and the Judiciary Committee said, “absolutely.”

Both Sensenbrenner and Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) said that to investigate Rosen for a possible violation of the 1917 Espionage Act for doing his job is an outright assault of the First Amendment freedom of the press.

Yet, right there to politicize this entire scandal was US Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) who said that Holder did not mislead the committee. But it was another Democrat, US Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) who asked Holder the damning question regarding his knowledge of the Rosen investigation prior to it becoming public.

There is the FBI affidavit signed by Holder, followed by his denial – hotter than the ubiquitous smoking gun.

Holder has since called this entire controversy a “teaching moment,” to which Sensenbrenner replied, “Because he got caught.”

Now, the fox has been assigned to guard the henhouse – meaning Holder is tasked with investigating the Justice Department – meaning himself. Yep, the Keystone Kops of the Obama Administration.

When The Huffington Post and George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, both left of center entities call for Obama to fire Holder; when David Axelrod, Obama’s former senior advisor publicly calls for Holder’s ousting; when The Washington Post and The New York Times have lost faith in the Justice Department, the handwriting is on the wall.

Attorney General Eric Holder either lied to a Congressional committee and the American people or he simply is not in control of the Justice Department demonstrating abject incompetence. Either way Holder must be fired by Obama and then charged with perjury and obstruction of justice for hindering a Congressional investigation.

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

Three Strikes and Out - Obama's Tickets to Impeachment

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” – First Amendment; United States Constitution

Three Strikes and Out – Obama’s Tickets to Impeachment

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

May 24, 2013

Those are not just mere words found on some old decaying piece of parchment. Those are the words that have great, unbending meaning – deeply rooted in the history of the United States of America – then considered a grand experiment in republican democracy. With little exception, a successful experiment that continues to pay hefty dividends in these United States, but also serving as a beacon for those nations and peoples seeking to emulate our grand designs given us by the likes of John Adams, Ben Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, George Mason, Thomas Paine, and George Washington.

And make no mistake, when the First Amendment fails, the Second Amendment takes over.

And let Watergate remind Barack Obama and his administration that no man is above the law. Obama’s righteous indignation, feigned that it is, cannot shroud the facts that this administration is up to its tuchus in a triumvirate of scandals, each smelling worse than the one before it.

So often we quote the likes of Jefferson, Franklin, Mason, and Madison who lived during those early days of the republic not knowing whether it would survive beyond the drying of the ink on the Constitution, let alone the 237 years we currently celebrate. Perhaps it is due to the tenuousness of the era in which they lived did their words resonate so strongly as to be recalled today.

“A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have.” – Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson’s wisdom and brilliance transcend time and history. Yet, even Jefferson might not imagine the size and scope of the federal government growing so out of control that more and more people, particularly the younger generations, expect, nay, demand that government provide for them from womb to tomb. Personal responsibility is non-existent. Taxes are used to pay for the lives of the lazy, the obstreperous, and the illegal.

Yet simultaneously, this government, so large and out of control, can hardly keep track of its own activities as the likes of Steven Miller, Lois Lerner, Doug Shulman, Sara Hall Ingram and a cast of many more unknowns continue to deny, claim the Fifth Amendment, pass the buck and otherwise obfuscate the issues in the myriad scandals sure to bring down any other administration. But not the Obama administration, for even after the media is caught up in the quagmire, they are still fawning sycophants giving their blinding support for this man who should be facing impeachment charges for high crimes and misdemeanors making Richard M. Nixon look like a Boy Scout. To be fair, both the New York Times and The Washington Post have recently begun to castigate the administration.

The slaughter of four Americans in Benghazi, the Internal Revenue Service’s unbalanced scrutiny into conservative organizations’ non-profit and/or tax-exempt status, and the Justice Department’s secretly rooting through the phone records of members of the media are categorically worse than Nixon’s Watergate and Warren Harding’s Teapot Dome scandals.

Under Obama there has been the abuse of power, political corruption, arrogance, and stupidity rising to new levels of stench, especially coming from the administration that claimed from day one it would be the most transparent administration in American history. And before anyone starts clamoring that other administrations have been guilty of their own share of dalliances with the shady side of the law, I categorically aver that two wrongs do not a right make. It’s time for Obama to put on his big boy pants (not his mom jeans) and take ownership of his administration’s corrupt and illegal practices.

When Harry Truman was president, the sign on his desk in the Oval Office read “The buck stops here.” President Truman took responsibility for the actions, or inactions of his administration.

Fast forward 60 years after Truman’s departure from the White House to the current occupant, Barack Obama and his scandal laden administration. With Obama, the buck stops anywhere but with him – as the pile under the bus grows on an almost daily basis.

In Benghazi, Libya, four members of the diplomatic mission, Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, Navy SEALS Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, along with information officer Sean Smith were slaughtered by Islamic militant terrorists on September 11, 2012.

First under the bus was US Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, who was tasked with appearing on five Sunday talk shows regaling all who would listen that the attack was not terrorist related, but an impromptu riot against an anti-Muslim video. That story had the shelf life of milk outdoors on the Equator as the video was nothing but a façade.

“No matter how imperfect things are, if you’ve got a free press everything is correctable, and without it everything is concealable.” – Tom Stoppard from his play Night and Day.

As in Watergate, the cover up was worse than the truth. The truth is that more security was requested, begged for even, but was never approved by then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. She subsequently suffered a convenient concussion and then had the gall to shout during her testimony, “What difference, at this point does it matter,” regarding the actual circumstances behind the death of four Americans. Tell that to their families, who more than eight months later are still demanding answers, and rightfully so. Tell that also to Mark Basseley Youssef, a.k.a. Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the filmmaker still in an American prison for a film that was not the root cause of the Benghazi terrorist attacks.

But there was Obama, in front of the cameras telling the American people the Benghazi attacks were not terrorist attacks but motivated by a film never seen by the terrorists – a word Obama opted not to use for days. How could security be so lax and porous on September 11 of all days?

While the Benghazi scandal still reverberates around the ether, the country has been shaken to its core as privacy rights and a free press have been challenged by the Obama administration.

“The freedom of the press is one of the great bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained but by despotic governments.” – George Mason; Virginia Declaration of Rights, 1776

So bereft of scruples, the Obama administration has taken to spying on the media – the very press that carried his water throughout two presidential campaigns and elections to get him to the White House and keep him there, when having served as a back bencher in the Illinois State Senate and then as a US Senator for 147 days before announcing his intentions of “fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”

Under the guise of national security and the alleged leadership of hopefully soon to be former Attorney General Eric Holder, the Justice Department, unbeknownst to its victims, secured the phone records and e-mails of not just members of the Associated Press, but Fox News, family of members of the press, and potentially other media outlets yet to be discovered.

Naturally, Holder has denied any involvement in this scandal, yet defended his department’s secret gathering of the phone records claiming there was “a grave national security leak.” If such a leak occurred and if such a potential national security issue existed, wouldn’t it behoove the AG to be in the loop on such investigative activities? Holder can’t have it both ways.

If there was a breach in national security and Holder was unaware of it, he should be out and whoever unearthed such a breach should have his post. If not, as is suspected, the Justice Department is guilty of violating policy and procedure and possibly countless laws. When the government seeks phone and e-mail records, it notifies the organizations first, even secures subpoenas, not engage in cloak and dagger nonsense.

Holder and his Justice Department are more and more culpable with the unearthing of the fact that Holder himself authorized the investigation into Fox News reporter James Rosen’s e-mail – an investigation that stretched to include that of Rosen’s parents as well. Yet the denials continue. Even the liberal site Huffington Post has called for Holder’s ousting as the Attorney General.

In order to capably do its job, the notion of a free press should be sacrosanct. Having worked as a reporter for a number of years, I fully understand and respect the notion of deep background, keeping pertinent information out of a story when an ongoing investigation was the subject, as well as what off the record means. Even in this day and age of the biased media, a free press remains a cornerstone of the American democratic-republic.

“Without a free press there can be no free society.” – Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, 1954

The American public needs more than just a modicum of confidence that the media is working freely, independently, and unfettered, even as biased as it is. Potential reliable sources need to feel protected or unreliable sources will destroy the state of the media. News is factual and must remain so – in spite of too many so-called reporters attempting to be the next Woodward or Bernstein by injecting themselves into the news and opining where is does not belong. Separate fact from fiction from opinion.

This scandal will not, nor should not, go quietly into this good night.

“Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.” –Thomas Jefferson, 1789

People’s liberty is also at stake when a behemoth government organization, the IRS, recently charged with running Obamacare and needing to hire 16,000 new agents to ensure it is being run properly, is also mired neck high in a scandal.

Seems the IRS zealously audited and investigated an enormously disproportionate number of conservative organizations with TEA Party, liberty, freedom, other patriotic names as well as pro-Israel and conservative Jewish organizations. Their 501(c)(3) status was held up for months or downright denied unilaterally without explanation.

This harassment had been taking place since before the 2012 presidential campaign. These audits targeted organizations having a beef with Obama or seen to run contrary to Obama’s beliefs or plans for winning reelection and governing thereafter. Demands should be made for all the pertinent e-mail communications just as the Nixon tapes had been subpoenaed during the Watergate investigations.

Law abiding American citizens and organizations have the Constitutional right to freely associate, freely worship, and freely contribute to the candidates of their choosing without being harassed by the IRS or any other government agency. The IRS does not have the right to ask members of an organization to whom they contribute their money, how they pray, or even what prayers they recite. This scurrilous behavior by the IRS and the Obama administration at-large is tantamount to George Orwell’s 1984 becoming reality.

Pro-life organizations were delayed in achieving their tax-exempt status or denied outright, while Planned Parenthood has enjoyed such status for years. Conservative, patriotic, and pro-Israel organizations were placed under a microscope so intrusive it made a prostate exam seem like a day at the beach. Other groups crying out for investigation were simply given a pass by the IRS, an arm of the government people fear on a good day.

“When people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty.” – Thomas Jefferson

Even US Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY), a loyal Obama supporter and member of the House Ways and Means Committee, expressed his disgust with the IRS. Having his own tax evasion issues, Rangel said he was offended by the behavior of the IRS.

Replete with more “I don’t know” responses than Jeff Spicoli in Fast Times at Ridgemont High, and more claims of knowing nothing to make Sergeant Schultz of Hogan’s Heroes look like a Phi Beta Kappa, those who testified before the House Ways and Means Committee as well as the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee took poor counsel from the pettifoggers advising them, making them look even more guilty, if that is at all possible.

Miller, Lerner, and Shulman offered denials and took the Fifth Amendment with derisive sneers and arrogance as though they had no responsibility in these scandals. They should not be allowed to behave this way. Are ordinary American citizens and organizations allowed to shun an IRS audit? Are they allowed to not know things? Are they allowed to take the Fifth? No, no, and no. Clearly there is yet another double standard in play here.

Keep them in their seats to testify the truth. Barring that, cite them with Contempt of Congress. There have been some take charge members on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, namely US Rep. Trey Goudy (R-SC) who reminded the committee that witnesses can’t have it both ways – provide statements to defend themselves, but then refuse to answer questions from the members.

No one knew anything. No one did anything wrong. No one knew anyone who knew anything. No one knew anyone who did anything wrong. Yet, Obama himself said, “Let’s ensure this doesn’t happen again.”

I don’t want to say heads should roll for fear of being called Islamophobic, especially with this administration, but not only do people need to be fired, I support what House Speaker John Boehner asked. “My question isn’t who’s going to resign… my question is who’s going to jail.” In addition to jail, since the buck really does stop with Barack Obama, he should be out of a job, and we the American people should not have to wait until January 20, 2017.

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