Trump Speaks From His Rump

Trump Speaks From His Rump

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

July 19, 2015

My wife and I met Donald Trump at the Iowa Freedom Summit in January. We both enjoyed hearing him speak and appreciated his candor – candor – Trump’s ability and desire to speak without a filter while saying what many of us are thinking.

I write that way, more often than not, because I believe in telling it like it is, like it ought to be, and that tap-dancing is for the stage not the political stump. I ardently agree with Trump on illegal immigration, while not his all-inclusive rant about the entirety of the Mexican population. Illegal immigration is a scourge in the United States and deleterious to the American future as a leader on the world stage. (http://sanfordspeaksout.blogspot.com/2015/07/san-francisco-is-no-treat.html)

I blasted Macy’s, ESPN, and other businesses for summarily dismissing Trump from their rosters because he employed his First Amendment freedom of speech. Don’t shop at Macy’s, I wrote, for their hypocrisy. After all, Martha Stewart, Sean Combs (a.k.a. Diddy), and Justin Bieber are not without controversy and yet they adorn Macy’s ads or have product lines on the retailer’s shelves.

But now, Trump has reached an actual low with his disgraceful remarks about Arizona Senator John McCain, the GOP’s standard bearer in 2008. And while I defend Trump’s First Amendment right of free speech, as I imagine the patriotic McCain would, I take umbrage with his comments critical of McCain the soldier.

Oft-critical of McCain the moderate Republican, and for numerous reasons, the man still served in the United States Navy during the war in Vietnam, and was a POW for five years in the infamous Hanoi Hilton. Trump, who never donned the uniform of his country, slammed McCain. “He’s a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured,” Trump ignorantly opined. Trump doubled down when he not only refused an opportunity to apologize to McCain, but called him a “dummy” for finishing at or near the bottom of his graduation class at the Naval Academy.

While a POW in Vietnam, McCain actually had an opportunity to be freed, but turned it down, as his release did not include his fellow prisoners. He remained in captivity with his men enduring unspeakable torture for five years. Mr. Trump, I like people who respect our military heroes and know when enough is enough. Use your freedom of speech to apologize to John McCain, for McCain is representational of all the men and women who wore the uniform in the past and those proudly wearing it now.

This nation is mourning the loss of five members of the United States military, murdered by a domestic jihadist. Trump’s insult of McCain is also an insult to the memories of those recently slaughtered; wounds too raw, too deep to be assaulted by Trump, speaking from his rump.

If Trump seriously wants to be Commander of Chief he had better remember that if not for the men and women in uniform the United States would not have come to fruition as a concept in 1776; would not have preserved the Union during the War of 1812 and the War Between the States; would not have defended itself during the Mexican-American  War, and Spanish-American War; would not have defended and aided allies during World War I, the wars in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan; and would not have saved the world from dictatorial and despotic overthrow during World War II.

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

Domestic Jihadist Slaughters Marines

Domestic Jihadist Slaughters Marines
Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
July 17, 2015

Yet another government policy has proven disastrous as gun free zones leave four brave United States Marines murdered, like sitting ducks in a locked cage at the hands of yet another Muslim extremist.

Gunnery Sergeant Thomas Sullivan, 40, saw two tours of duty in Iraq, earning himself two Purple Hearts. The Springfield, MA resident had been a Marine since 1997.

Staff Sergeant David Wyatt, 37, a native of Russellville, AR and resident of Chattanooga, TN attended the University of Montana. Wyatt is survived by his wife Lorri and two children.

Sergeant Carson Holmquist, 25, was from Grantsburg, WI and served two tours in Afghanistan. Holmquist is survived by his wife Jasmine and his two-year-old son Wyatt.

Lance Corporal Skip “Squire” Wells, 21, from Marietta, GA had studied history at Georgia Southern University.

May the memories of the fallen always be for a Blessing. Several others were wounded and being treated for their injuries.

Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez, a radicalized Islamic jihadist, whose name should be forgotten as quickly as possible, is the piece of detritus responsible for the attack on both a Naval training facility and a Naval Reserve support center in Chattanooga.

This horrific slaughter leads to three important questions. Why are members of the United States military, trained in the use of firearms, left unarmed? Why is a Kuwaiti-born, naturalized American who spent one month in Jordan last year not on a terror watch list? And why is the same Kuwaiti-born, American who spent one month in Jordan last year, whose father was on a terror watch list, also not on the same list?

Why? Because the same politically correct mishegas that got Kate Steinle murdered on July 1 of this year, in the illegal sanctuary city of San Francisco also produced four dead Marines, but for a different politically correct excuse. In the case of Steinle it was about not policing illegal aliens for fear of being called a racist or bigot. In the case of the four slaughtered Marines it was about not profiling radicalized Muslims with a propensity toward jihad, especially during the waning days of Ramadan when messages were remitted around the world calling for causing great calamity on the so-called infidels, for fear of being called a racist or bigot. (http://sanfordspeaksout.blogspot.com/2015/07/san-francisco-is-no-treat.html)

With domestic Islamo-terrorism on the rise in this country, it is not only incumbent upon the government, but imperative for the government to do its job of protecting the citizens of the United States, and not protect, in the case of Steinle’s murder, illegal aliens, and in the case of the murders of Sullivan, Wyatt, Holmquist, and Wells, domestic jihadists. Put law abiding Americans first.

The first action Barack Obama should take is the repeal of a Department of Defense (DoD) Directive 5210.56, signed into effect in February 1992 by Donald J. Atwood, Deputy Secretary of Defense under President George H.W. Bush.

Servicemen and women must have the wherewithal to defend themselves and the community around them at all times. American members of the armed forces must never be left in a defenseless state to be the prey of enemies of the state regardless of faith, nation of origin, race, gender, or any other group the government determines ranks higher in the pecking order over American citizens.

In recent history, was the lesson not learned after the slaughter at Fort Hood in Texas on November 5, 2009? Was the lesson not learned after the slaughter at the Washington Navy Yard on September 16, 2013? Obama could have put the works in motion prior to jetting off to New York City for a DNC fundraiser on July 17 as well as to catch a Broadway show on Saturday afternoon, according to Townhall.com. Nor did Obama have the decency to lower the White House flag to half-staff in memory of the fallen Marines. This is yet another example of the callousness of Obama following a tragedy.

Bottom line, the mere words “gun free zone” are an invitation to psychopaths of all stripes – see also the far too numerous school shootings. The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution gives law abiding Americans the right to bear arms. If it’s good enough for criminals it sure as hell should be good enough for the law abiding to protect and defend their homes, their businesses, and most importantly, their families.

As for the growing domestic terrorism and jihad inflicted upon innocent, law abiding Americans, yes, profiling is necessary. A closer monitoring of the travel plans of all individuals holding an American passport is vital. If someone is traveling to an enemy state, it behooves the proper authorities to know why.

A cessation of all immigration and student visas from not just enemy states, but any nation voting against the United States more than 50 percent of the time in the United Nations should immediately be implemented. Some points are just simple common sense, which admittedly isn’t all that common these days.

Juan Williams, on Fox News opined that arming military recruiters at the recruitment centers would be akin to the Wild West. What’s wild are the domestic Islamist militant terrorists with guns a blazing mowing down innocent Americans in their quest to spread evil. In the real Wild West, bank robbers ran wild robbing unarmed banks. The solution? To this day, most banks have armed security.

For those opposing arming our trained military personnel, what’s next my wife inquired rhetorically; disarming police? Maintaining this clearly failed policy renders our military impotent and vulnerable. Vulnerable military – a term I thought I would never utter or write.

The political correctness and perpetual heads in the sand must stop before more and more innocent Americans are eviscerated. Pay attention, people, and speak up before the First Amendment becomes obsolete.

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

Sadly, following the initial posting of this column, US Naval Petty Officer Randall Smith, 26, a Navy logistics specialist, succumbed to his wounds. Smith, who played baseball at Defiance College, leaves behind his wife Angie and three daughters.

San Francisco is No Treat

San Francisco is No Treat

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

July 10, 2015

John Edwards (D-NC) was right when the former US Senator and vice presidential nominee oft professed in 2004 there are two Americas. In this case, it is legal America and illegal America.

In legal America, when an American citizen or legal resident commits a crime, is captured, and arrested, he or she is brought before the United States system of jurisprudence to face potential consequences.

In illegal America, when an illegal alien commits a crime, is captured, and arrested, he or she is not charged unless the level of crime reaches that of concern to the government. Local authorities and even ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) are summarily ordered to release these criminal illegals back into the communities from whence they committed their crimes. So called small crimes are overlooked and these criminal illegals are often not even remanded to their country of origin. In far too many cases, such criminal illegals that are actually deported find their way back to American soil, time and time again.

The tragic, unnecessary, and preventable homicide of Kathryn “Kate” Steinle, 32, in the sanctuary city of San Francisco, CA committed by illegal alien Francisco Sanchez, 45, a Mexican national has once again illuminated the horrifically broken system of law and justice. Sanchez was not only convicted of seven felonies, but incurred deportation five times, returning illegally after each ousting. Contact San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee and the 11 members of the Board of Supervisors complicit in the murder of Steinle and politely express your outrage over this crime and continued illegality of the sanctuary city status.

This is not about the passing of comprehensive immigration reform. This is not about the DREAM Act, about which I have written calling it a bona fide American nightmare. This is not about GOP presidential aspirant Donald Trump and his recent comments.

This is about the criminal actions of the more than 200 sanctuary cities harboring hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens in violation of federal law. Cities such as Austin, Baltimore, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, El Paso, Houston, Miami, Minneapolis, Phoenix, Portland (OR), Salt Lake City, Seattle, and Washington, DC are among the roster costing taxpayers $113 billion per year. This is about the continued and worsening plague of illegal aliens invading the United States. This is about the rule of law and how it is intentionally flouted by subversive sanctuary cities in favor of its own anarchistic system of chaos and crime. (For a comprehensive list of sanctuary jurisdictions: http://www.apsanlaw.com/law-246.List-of-Sanctuary-cities.html)

I have long written about not just the need to strip all sanctuary cities of any federal funding, but to end all entitlements for all illegal aliens – including, but not limited to receiving health care and hospitalization, education and in-state tuition, welfare and food stamps, as well as jobs and housing. I have been consistent in my call for deportation of all illegal aliens. After all, if the laws are not applied equally, what is the point of the laws?

At long last, legislation has been proposed by US Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) to block the more than 200 sanctuary jurisdictions from receiving federal law enforcement grants. This is a landmark attempt to finally strip sanctuary jurisdictions from ignoring federal law and placing millions of American citizens in harm’s way. Kate Steinle’s death should not be in vain. Nor should the deaths of thousands of other Americans at the hands of criminal illegals. (http://ow.ly/PlPDC)

As for the unlikely probability of deporting nearly 20 million criminal illegals, and yes, from the moment they step on American soil sans permission, they have committed a crime, if all entitlements are stripped from these people, some may self-deport, Make no mistake, calling for deportations is not racist, as the word itself sends red flags a-flying amongst knee-jerk liberals and anarchists wanting to compare me to the Nazis.

This comparison is a red herring designed to make those supporting deportation look like the closed minded xenophobes liberals hope to color them. Nazis, under Hitler, deported legal citizens from Germany typically to Poland simply because they were Jewish. It had nothing to do with having broken laws or being illegal aliens. In the US, deporting those who are here illegally is just.

This is not about race either. It is not racist to expect all people in the United States to abide by the same set of laws. This, once again, is about the rule of law. Let’s make this as simple as possible – a person in the United States illegally – without permission – has broken the law. Those people must be returned to their country of origin – after being photographed, fingerprinted, and included in a database of illegals captured and deported.

Should they return to the United States they should be imprisoned. The cost of such imprisonment should be billed to the illegal’s country of origin. Charging the native country for the incarceration of illegals is not a hyperbolic, symbolic gesture. These costs should be subtracted from any aid given to these countries.

Additionally, in support of strengthening immigration laws, the 14^th Amendment to the US Constitution needs amending itself. No longer should “anchor babies” be considered legal American citizens simply because they happen to be born on American soil. When faulty or illegally obtained evidence is ruled as inadmissible in a court of law, it is typically referred to as “fruit of the poisonous tree.” As such, children born to those in this country illegally should not enjoy the privilege of American citizenship.

As with the children, why should the parents be rewarded with the privilege of legal status and eventual citizenship when their first act is to break the law of the country to which they will be asked to pledge allegiance and perhaps defend? This is not to say all illegal aliens are bad human beings and have sinister motives for stealing to this country, but this is about rule of law and how it need be applied across the board. Ironically, the Mexican government is stricter regarding those entering that country than the US is concerning the illegals crossing its borders.

When will America be for Americans again?

Sanctuary cities are illegal. They do not work, and are the machinations of liberals scheming to harbor those not deserving of protection, while abandoning the rights of taxpaying American citizens and legal residents. There is no defending the sanctuary city system, yet Barack Obama refuses to enforce the 1996 law enacted under the Bill Clinton administration stating that illegals are to be turned over to ICE.

All jurisdictions and those employed by those jurisdictions refusing to obey the law are complicit in the deaths of, as well as the other crimes such as rape, robbery, and assault committed against people by illegals.

With so many people claiming to be able to multi-task, why can’t the federal government, in concert with state governments, work together to deny entitlements, deport, and build an electric fence?

Sadly, securing the border did not occur under the Reagan administration even after he granted three million illegals amnesty. Reagan, a man, not a G-d, was saddled with a Democrat Congress, and while the issue of illegals and sanctuary cities did not start with Reagan; his administration seems a reasonable benchmark for the “modern era” of the issue.

Both the Republicans and the Democrats are complicit with passing the buck from one administration to the next like a hot potato while the numbers of illegals invading the United States continue to rise exponentially. Democrats see illegals as the next generation of Democrat voters, while the GOP sees them as cheap labor for the corporate donors to Republican campaigns. Illegals should never have the opportunity to vote in American elections and businesses hiring illegals should be fined the equivalent of 10 times a minimum wage worker working a 40-hour week for a 50 week period. There are millions of unemployed, underemployed, and otherwise able-bodied Americans in need of a paycheck.

And while the blame game continues, with Obama spokesman Josh Earnest both blaming Republicans for not passing comprehensive immigration reform, another red herring when discussing sanctuary cities, as well as simply referring the press to the Department of Homeland Security saying the White House does not comment on specific cases.

Such a load of crap and hypocrisy. While still fluid, Obama himself commented on the Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, and Freddie Gray cases – because they served his political and racial agenda. The Justice Department and FBI were dispatched to Ferguson, MO and Baltimore to investigate. What about to San Francisco? Yeah, not so much. Additionally, Obama sent three administration representatives to the Brown and Gray funerals. How many were on hand to bear witness at the funeral of Kate Steinle as she was laid to rest on July 9? Hearing crickets from the White House. Why? Because it doesn’t serve Obama’s narrative in the issues of race and immigration reform.

Friends, we are at a precipice in these United States. Are we to return to the days when America was for Americans – those born here, those who legally immigrated here from the world over for better lives and to contribute to making America a better, stronger nation? Or will this nation continue to traverse a road toward a bastardized, third world status living in an environment ruled by a feckless government with no intestinal fortitude racing toward anarchy?

The choice is ours, but we must work for what is best for the future of the United States of America – so help us G-d.

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

Contacting the San Francisco Mayor and 11 City Supervisors:

Mayor Ed Lee – mayoredwinlee@sfgov.org – 415-554-5184

District            Supervisor                             E-mail                                     Phone number

    1                  Eric Mar                     Eric.L.Mar@sfgov.org                      415-554-7410

    2                  Mark Farrell               Mark.Farrell@sfgov.org                   415-554-7752

    3                  Julie Christensen      Julie.Christensen@sfgov.org           415-554-7450

    4                  Katy Tang                   Katy.Tang@sfgov.org                      415-554-7460

    5                  London Breed           Breedstaff@sfgov.org                       415-554-7630

    6                  Jane Kim                    Jane.Kim@sfgov.org                        415-554-7970

    7                  Norman Yee               Norman.Yee@sfgov.org                   415-554-6516

    8                  Scott Wiener              Scott.Wiener@sfgov.org                  415-554-6968

    9                  David Campos          David.Campos@sfgov.org               415-554-5144

   10                 Malia Cohen              Malia.Cohen@sfgov.org                   415-554-7670

   11                 John Avalos               John.Avalos@sfgov.org                    415-554-6975

It's Called Independence Day

It’s Called Independence Day

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

July 2, 2015

Bear with me, this is more than a gripe session, but I’m sick and tired of the Independence Day holiday being referred to as simply the Fourth of July. People wishing one another a happy Fourth, commercials offering Fourth of July sales, newscasters discussing the Fourth of July holiday weekend. There is a Fourth of July on every printed calendar in whatever language is spoken in whatever country one resides.

But, is there really independence in places like Angola, China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, or Yemen? They hopefully “yearn to breathe free,” to borrow from Emma Lazarus’ poem “The New Colossus.”

Thomas Jefferson, credited with writing the Declaration of Independence, summed up a plurality of grievances in a rather brief document that helped give birth to a nation that has stood since 1776 – through peace and war, through economic depression and financial successes, through division and rebirth, through attacks and rebuilding – but always knowing that our independence and freedoms are endowed via our Creator – yes, G-d.

Founded on Judeo-Christian principles and the “laws of nature” our nation was born under the desire to break free from the yoke of despotic rulers seeking to enslave the American people without proper representation an ocean away and thrust overburdening taxes upon the people, again, without consent of the governed. And thus the Declaration that “declare[d] the causes which impel[ed] them (us) to the separation.”

Now, 239 years later, this nation finds itself on the precipice of returning to those dark days of a distant government – Washington, DC – despotically ruling over a people with barely a whimper from the majority of the rank and file.

In 1973 nine men in black robes, in a 7-2 decision, have since denied more than 60 million people their unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That was the Supreme Court decision on Roe v. Wade. With many decisions, some better than others in the interim, fast forward to 2015 when nine entirely different men and women in their black robes made decisions deleterious to the American people as a whole without consent of the governed. Oh, yeah, the Supreme Court does not answer to anyone. The legislative branch of this tripod of governance is responsible for passing and enacting laws, not the courts. Someone missed that lecture in Government 101 on some liberal college campus.

Within a week the nine black robed men and women did not dispense justice, they enacted legislation – twice.

Chief Justice John Roberts has twice personally upheld Obamacare, which on its surface would seem an anathema to Constitutionality. Upheld is a law requiring Americans to purchase a product they may or may not want, often at costs beyond people’s means or at the very least more than they paid when even a modicum of competition existed. More money for fewer choices – that does not sound like independence to most Americans. Not only should Obamacare be repealed, but national competition, not just state, should be granted to ensure Americans get the best possible healthcare with as little government interference as possible.

A week later, the High Court, and they must have been on a trip to Denver before issuing their ruling in support of nationwide gay marriage, again enacted legislation. Prior to this decision, gay marriage had heretofore been a states’ rights issue – with compliance to the 10^th Amendment to the Constitution. Once again, for those asleep during Government 101, Amendment X says:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

By its imposition of gay marriage on the nation as a whole, the slippery slope becomes immeasurably more slippery. (I will have a column on this before long.) Marriage, as per a little bestseller known as the BIBLE or the TORAH, is defined as one man and one woman – period. Now, in 2015, the Supremes have redefined marriage in the warped image of a group of five justices, two of whom have performed gay marriage ceremonies and should have recused themselves from this case.

The next test case will undoubtedly be the attempts to legalize polygamy. As it is, there are already complaints that those who oppose gay marriage on religious grounds are being forced to issue permits or even perform civil marriage ceremonies. This should not be the case as religious liberty was one of the precepts on which this nation was founded.  To be fair, issuing a marriage license, as a clerk would do, is not the same as performing the ceremony, as a judge would do.

There will no doubt be a concerted effort by the homosexual cabal to interfere with and destroy the sanctity of religious entities and organizations – not just churches and synagogues, but Catholic Charities, Chabad houses, and numerous religious-based educational centers and schools.

There is no doubt that religion in the United States is under attack with more and more governmental decisions siding against the free operations of religious organizations. This violates the First Amendment of the Constitution and restricts the independent nature of faith-based organizations to operate in accordance with religious dogma, and not governmental oversight.

Government oversight is the bane of most people’s existence – massive regulation on businesses and a tax system that is chasing businesses overseas and crippling Americans’ ability to create jobs and ultimately financial success and independence.

There is a public school system controlled by government with government balking at private, parochial, and charter schooling as a way to circumvent the evils of the public school brainwashing, as well as language. No longer can Americans freely express themselves without the wrath of a government entity or a business beholden to a governmental agency passing career ending judgment.

Remember the words of Jefferson who noted, “Any government that is big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything that you have.” No need to remind the victims of eminent domain. And this should also be a warning to those demanding more from government and expecting less via their own personal responsibility.

As the United States celebrates its independence, dust off your copy of the Declaration of Independence and do as I do every year – read it aloud with your families – several parts of which becoming vital aspects of the Constitution. Remember that freedom isn’t free and we owe an enormous debt of gratitude to the men and women in uniform who gave their lives for the ideal of freedom and independence in hopes that we the people maintain ours while helping others gain theirs.

Have a happy, safe, and meaningful Independence Day; and may G-d continue to Bless these United States of America.

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

Lowering the Confederate Flag: Politically Correct or Just Correct?

Lowering the Confederate Flag: Politically Correct or Just Correct?

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

June 27, 2015

I have never lived in the “Deep South.” Three years in El Paso, TX and 15 in the DC/Northern Virginia area far from constitutes the South, let alone the Deep South. That said, as a historian, writer, and Jewish American, I understand the complexities surrounding the issue of the Confederate flag.

Yes, complexities. For while the flag represents Southern pride to many people who are neither bigots nor racists, the flag itself is emblematic of a bygone era of just that – bigotry and racism. It is the rebel flag. Rebelling against what? Against the way of life lived by the Union, represented by the Stars and Stripes. A life of freedom for all – black and white – living up to the words of the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal.”

The bygone era is that of slavery and the stings and pangs of enormous pain brought to bear by the representation of that flag adorning the plantation homes of thousands of slave owners. And while no one in these United States has been a slave or slave owner, legally, since 1865 and the finality of the War Between the States, the message of the Confederate flag lives on.

Because more than a message of Southern pride, the Confederate flag is still a message of hate, separation, and superiority to far too many for whom it is a source of arrogance. The flip side is that the flag serves as a source of degradation, shame, and inferiority.

As a Jewish American I understand the feelings of those hurt by the sight of the Confederate flag. It is akin to seeing the Nazi flag, emblazoned with its swastika. Both flags represent pride to some, pain to others. Both also represent the losing sides in grave conflagrations.

The burning question remains – is the lowering of the Confederate flag politically correct or just correct?

In war, just as in elections, to the victors go the spoils. The Union emerged victorious in the War Between the States, and thus the Stars and Stripes soar high above state capital buildings across the fruited plains. Flags of the vanquished should be lowered and relegated to museums for people to see, learn about, and study why it is there. Both South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley (R) and Alabama Governor Robert Bentley (R) have already called for the removal of the Confederate flag from their respective capital domes – a flag raised by Democrat governors in the first place.

One cannot erase history, nor should attempts to do so succeed. One cannot sanitize or whitewash the past, nor should attempts to do so succeed. After all, “those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” (George Santayana)

The Confederate flag must remain a visible part of American history – in its appropriate context, which now, in 21^st Century America, is in museums, textbooks, and battlefield sites. And with regard to battlefield sites, the Pittsburgh Action News reported Gettysburg National Military Park will no longer sell items featuring the Confederate flag by itself. Items paired with the American flag will continue to be available, and educational materials depicting the Confederate flag will also remain on the shelves. Additionally, USA Today reported that the National Park Service will also remove Confederate flag items from its bookstores and gift shops.

The same paper also reported that Apple is removing all games and apps containing the Confederate flag – much to the chagrin of a developer. The developer, Game-Labs, was told if they altered the game, sans Confederate flag, it could return to the shelves. Game-Labs declined noting it would weaken the integrity of the game “Ultimate General: Gettysburg.” It would seem odd for a game or app pertaining to the War Between the States to not depict the flags of both sides of a war. Perhaps Game-Labs will find another tech company to market the product.  Business is business and should consumers want the item they will buy it while those finding it objectionable will not.

The Battle of Gettysburg, a very pivotal battle during the War Between the States, was fought in Adams County, PA, July 1-3, 1863. The teaching and study of history is vital, cannot be expunged and to attempt to do so is supremely arrogant.

Should businesses opt to remove items from the shelves containing the Confederate flag, they are within their purview to do so. The public will speak with its wallets. My wife Vicky raised a good point when suggesting one can still purchase Nazi paraphernalia and perhaps that should no longer be permitted. Granted, one would be hard pressed to find swastika-laden items in Target, Wal-Mart, or any other mainstream store, but if one wants to find them, they can find them. It’s an economic concept that has succeeded for years called supply and demand.

After all, Nation of Islam leader and anti-American race hustler Louis Eugene Wolcott, a.k.a. Louis Farrakhan, called for the removal of the American flag. “We need to put the American flag down.” There is little support for that idea, and any American opposed to the American flag can get the hell out of our country. Yet, Farrakhan is free to utter such bilge, and just as free to not shop at any store selling American flags. The difference between the two flags is that one represents a bygone era of a lost war and the other still waving proudly over capital buildings, stadiums, schools (for now), businesses, and even embassies overseas.

The perniciousness of an idea, concept, written or spoken word, however distasteful or offensive, still falls under the protection of First Amendment of the United States Constitution. It is incumbent upon the people to ensure that the government of the United States does not overstep its bounds where the people’s right to decide is concerned.

The symbols portrayed by the Confederate flag and the Nazi flag are known to the people. Should someone decide to wear a Confederate flag belt buckle that is his right. He in turn outs himself as someone supporting the tenor and ideology behind those symbols – for better or worse. The Confederate flag no longer represents the current ideology of the states of the former Confederate States of America. There is no longer a Confederate States of America, but it is still an important subject in history books and museums. That is where its flag should reside – for all to learn about the greatness of the South as well as the sins of the South.

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

Courage Award Not Courageous

Courage Award Not Courageous

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

June 7, 2015

Falling prey to the politically correct crowd does not in any way demonstrate courage, nor is it living up to the credo of the Arthur Ashe Courage Award as presented by ESPN in their annual ESPYS award program.

The award, named for the late, great tennis player, and first black man to win a Grand Slam event, who demonstrated courage for fighting AIDS, a disease he contracted from a tainted blood transfusion. As the stigma pertaining to AIDS and the HIV virus was still overwhelmingly negative across virtually all corners of society in 1988 when Ashe learned he had the disease, he remained silent about his condition until 1992 when a newspaper planned to print a story about his health.

Interestingly, Ashe’s early career mirrored that of Jackie Robinson, who broke Major League Baseball’s color barrier in 1947. Both graduated UCLA followed by stints in the military. Ashe served for two years in the United States Army. Sadly, both Ashe and Robinson died far too soon.

Ashe died at age 49 on February 6, 1993 (also Ronald Reagan’s birthday), but not before spending his remaining days being an outspoken advocate promoting AIDS awareness. The award named for Ashe in display of his courage is presented to that person leaving an imprint beyond the field of play.

What ESPN did was make a mockery of the award and worse yet, the memory of Ashe by announcing that the 2015 award would be presented to former Olympic gold medalist and winner of the decathlon in the 1976 Montreal games, Bruce Jenner.

Jenner, while going through some ungodly, immoral, body transformation is still alive, while the bona fide recipient of the award should be presented posthumously to Lauren Hill of Greendale, Indiana. Jenner, unhappy with his identity as a man, decided to tinker with the gifts G-d gave him in order to call himself a woman. This is not courageous, but to the PC crowd, this makes Jenner some sort of icon in a world where he represents barely a percentage of the people.

Lauren Hill, who, among other things, was a collegiate basketball player at Mount St. Joseph University in Cincinnati. At age 18 Hill was diagnosed with a rare inoperable brain cancer called Diffuse Intrinsic Pontine Glioma. In spite of the odds weighing heavily against her, Hill continued her basketball regimen of practices with the team in an effort to suit up for the Heartland Collegiate Athletic Conference schedule.

Because of the rapid progression of the cancer, the NCAA permitted not only a date change, but a venue change that would bring Hiram College to Cincinnati two weeks earlier than scheduled instead of Mount St. Joseph’s making the more than 300 mile trip to Hiram. Hiram is located in northeast Ohio and was the one time home of President James A. Garfield.

So eagerly anticipated was Hill’s appearance in the game versus Hiram, that fan support warranted moving the game from Mount St. Joseph’s gym seating 2,000 people to the Cintas Center at Xavier University, also in Cincinnati, with a capacity of 10,250 – all of which would prove necessary. In that November 2 game, Hill scored the first and last baskets of the game in Mount St. Joseph’s 66-55 win over Hiram.

The Cintas Center would once again host Hill on April 13 in a public visitation and memorial service three days following her April 10 passing at age 19 at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.

In the interim, Hill would play in three more games for the Division III Lions, making three baskets before her health declined to the point she could no longer suit up. In January, Hill served as an assistant coach for a game and in February, Hill was awarded an honorary Doctorate of Humane Letters by the university. In March, Hill was named to the all-conference first team “in recognition of her courage and outstanding leadership,” said conference Commissioner Chris Ragsdale. Five days before Hill died, she was presented with the Pat Summit Courage Award, named for the longtime Hall of Fame coach of the University of Tennessee women’s basketball team.

Additionally, Hill helped raise over $1.5 million for pediatric cancer research through a Cincinnati telethon for The Cure Starts Now Foundation and beyond the telethon itself. For more information about the charity, visit www.thecurestartsnow.org. This charity is a member of GuideStar Exchange which rates and evaluates the legitimacy of charities.

It would seem rather obvious that if Lauren Hill was courageous enough to be named to the all-conference team and be given the Pat Summit Courage Award, she sure as hell deserves the Arthur Ashe Courage Award over Bruce Jenner who is roaming around like a hermaphroditic cross dresser. Jenner’s behavior neither needs nor deserves public endorsement.

Jenner can dress as he wishes, call himself any name he chooses, dance with a panda bear if he so desires, but that does not warrant an ESPY for courage over a young woman who not only displayed indomitable spirit and gave hope to thousands of sick and dying children, but literally played through pain and adversity while dying. Lauren Hill brought attention to a disease in a dignified manner while managing to not only put a human face to it, but raise much needed funds to hopefully find a cure. She died at the painfully young age of 19, and was more than courageous and graceful in touching the face of G-d.

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

Obama Jewish? My Tuchus He Is

Obama Jewish? My Tuchus He Is

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

June 4, 2015

Recently Barack Obama opined to his former senior advisor David Axelrod, “You know, I think I am the closest thing to a Jew that has ever sat in this office. For people to say that I am anti-Israel, or even worse, anti-Semitic, it hurts.” (www.jpupdates.com)

Well, Mr. Obama, stop reading because there’s going to be a whole lot of hurt to follow, as if Obama is actually reading this.

On its prima facie, there can easily be a knee-jerk reaction to Obama’s visceral behavior toward Israel, its Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and by extension the Jewish people not just in the United States, but universally.

Yet even I understand that just because Obama may not have the warmest relationship with Netanyahu doesn’t make Obama anti-Israel. Is Obama anti-Israel because he disparaged Netanyahu in November 2011 over an open microphone in a conversation with then French President Nicolas Sarkozy? Is Obama anti-Israel because he refused to meet with Netanyahu during his September 2012 UN visit? Is Obama anti-Israel because he made no effort to determine which member of his administration called Netanyahu a “chickenshit” in October 2014? Is Obama anti-Israel because from January through March of this year he repeatedly criticized Netanyahu for coming to the United States and delivering a speech to the body Congress, by invitation from Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH)? (http://sanfordspeaksout.blogspot.com/2015/03/bibi-brings-down-house-and-senate.html) Is Obama anti-Israel for not meeting with Netanyahu following his Capitol Hill speech? Is Obama anti-Israel for trying to influence and interfere with Israel’s elections in March? Taken individually, probably not – just personal animus toward Netanyahu.

However, Obama’s demands for Israel to return to its pre-1967 War borders certainly was not in the best interest of the tiny Jewish state, roughly the size of New Jersey. Obama’s continual turning of a blind eye to Iran’s proliferation of materials for the construction and ultimate use of nuclear weaponry against Israel is demonstrative of someone who is anti-Israel. In the last year and a half, Iran has increased its nuclear stockpile by 20 percent, according to the New York Times. The Obama State Department says it is “perplexed” by this activity, conducted right under Obama’s nose. Russia is brashly building a nuclear power plant in Iran.

This is the same Iran who will not allow nuclear inspectors within its borders. The same Iran committed just as ever to the destruction of Israel. The same Iran whose government denies the Holocaust. Obama sits idly by fiddling a la Nero as Iran prepares to burn down the world, or at least the Middle East.

Yet, Obama appeared on 60 Minutes where he dismissed Israel’s concerns about Iran’s future as a nuclear power as merely “noise.” With a June 30 deadline looming overhead like the Sword of Damocles a bad deal with Iran is worse than no deal regarding its potential nuclear prowess to the detriment of Israel, what Iran calls the Little Satan, and eventually, the United States, what Iran calls the Big Satan. Even France has condemned the deal.

Obama’s actions are demonstrative of one who is anti-Israel, while his words merely pay lip service as he glad-hands and fist bumps his way through campaign stops and fundraisers collecting millions from liberal Jewish supporters who continue to fawn over Obama like obsequious weasels. Fortunately, Obama’s hold over the Jewish constituency was begun to wane, as more Jewish voters are coming to their senses and finding a home with the Republican Party. (Not enough yet, but it’s a work in progress.)

Is Obama an anti-Semite? Obama continues to literally bow down to the Muslim world. He made his first overseas visit upon taking office to Egypt. Obama said he would create daylight between himself and Israel. Obama refused to cease aid to the Palestinian Authority, even following a peace deal between the PA and Hamas. Obama has put Israel and terrorist groups Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad on an equal plane. Obama has made demands that Israel needs to consider a two-state solution, yet made no demands of concessions that should come from the terror groups. These terrorist organizations won’t even recognize Israel let alone accept its right to exist among the community of nations. Yet, there is Obama, sidling up to them as though they were legitimate states. What do those entities have to offer that Israel doesn’t in terms of economic or strategic partnerships? Nothing. Thus something must be drawing Obama and his minions toward terrorists while shunning the only democratic country and long term ally in the Middle East.

Obama has surrounded himself with anti-Semites, and to suggest that there is no guilt by association, one can define a person by the company with which he keeps – starting with Reverend Jeremiah Wright, himself a virulent anti-Semite. In his administration, Obama has UN Ambassador Samantha Powers, an outspoken supporter of a Palestinian state. Obama’s former Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel is a rabid anti-Semite having said, among other things, “the State Department has become adjunct to the Israeli foreign minister’s office.”

Obama’s National Security Advisor Susan Rice sharply rebuked Israel for continuing to build settlements in the territory occupied in 1967, demonstrative of her lack of knowledge of history and of warfare – when one wins a war, one does not return territory. And Obama’s current Secretary of State, John Kerry, also demanded Israel make concessions to Palestinians or suffer global condemnation and possible financial repercussions.

To call himself, or simply suggest, that he is “the closest thing to a Jew that has ever sat in this office” is a disgrace and an affront to every self-respecting Jewish man, woman, and child the world over. The Jewish people, for one, are not “things.” Obama was completely insensitive by moving the White House observance of Chanukah in 2011 to suit his scheduling. Was Christmas observed on any day other than December 25^th? Was Obama’s precious Ramadan celebrated in a month other than that which the calendar states? (http://sanfordspeaksout.blogspot.com/2011/12/obamas-inconvenient-chanukah.html)

With “friends” like Obama, do Israel and the Jewish people need enemies?

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