Sexism v. Rule of Law

Sexism v. Rule of Law
Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
September 23, 2018

In the United States of America we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights - including the presumption and preponderance of innocence until proven guilty. This applies to Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike. Believe it or not, this even applies to Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

“Justice, though due to the accused, is due to the accuser also… We are to keep the balance true.” Those are the words of Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Cardozo from 1934.

They key word here is balance - something Democrats, both currently and formerly in the Senate, Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford, and her attorney Debra Katz seem to have conveniently forgotten.

“This woman is to be believed. This was attempted rape,” said former Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA).

“I believe her,” said Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA). “Coming forward to testify takes an extraordinary amount of courage,” she added.

“During every step of this process, I’ve found every single piece of information from Dr. Christine Blasey Ford eminently credible, sincere, and believable,” said Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA).

“Not only do these women need to be heard, they need to be believed,” said Senator Mazie Hirono (D-HI). “There’s not even a modicum of fairness extended to her through an appropriate FBI investigation so there can be at least some attempt at corroboration.” 

“She must be believed,” said Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), adding that Ford should not participate in the hearing, calling it “a sham.”

“I believe Dr. Ford, the survivor. There’s every reason to believe her,” said Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT).

To this collective group of fawning, obsequious sycophants who have forgotten about the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven, where is the proof? An accusation has been levied, and Ford, 51, a professor at Palo Alto University in California and research psychologist, should most assuredly be heard by the Senate Judiciary Committee. 

Heard? Absolutely. But the tough questions must be asked. Believed? Not so fast. The women quoted above are sexist in their expectation that the mere accusation be taken at face value. Courtroom or not, Kavanaugh is still innocent until proof of guilt is produced. Four so-called witnesses named by Ford have each denied any knowledge of these accusations - either they were not present, did not know Kavanaugh, or simply do not recall any such incident. Of the four people who refuted Ford’s assertion, one, a woman, and lifelong friend of Ford’s, Leland Ingham Keyser, said she does not know Kavanaugh nor has any recollection of the event in question.

(As Ford’s allegations pertain to an alleged incident dating back more than three decades, the statute of limitations has expired. Three decades-plus ago, both Kavanaugh and Ford were teenaged high schoolers. Kavanaugh attended the upper-crust Georgetown Prep in North Bethesda, MD while Ford attended the equally hoity-toity Holton-Arms School minutes away in Bethesda. While Ford and her supporters have described the all male school as white, privileged, rich, and elitist, little has been said of Holton-Arms. Having lived and worked in the Capitol region for years, Holton-Arms is a female version of Georgetown Prep, and the schools have earned their reputation as more than its fair share of immoral behavior - sex, drugs, alcohol - has been executed by both males and females.)

To Boxer, it must be asked, how do you know it was attempted rape? Because Ford said so? And no woman has ever lied about rape or sexual assault before. Oh wait…

In March 2006 Crystal Gail Mangum, a student attending North Carolina Central University falsely accused three Duke University lacrosse players of rape. This reduced the reputations of the three innocent Blue Devils to cinder, virtually unable to show their faces publicly.

In September 2012 Jackie Coakley lied about being gang rapped at the University of Virginia fraternity house Phi Kappa Psi. This story appeared in Rolling Stone magazine before ultimately being fully discredited. No retraction can return the reputations to the accused.

Sadly, false accusations and lies only hurt legitimate victims who must get justice, not a slap on the wrist, as was meted out to Brock Turner, the scumbag at Stanford University, thanks to an ineffective judge. That judge, Aaron Persky, this year, became the first California jurist recalled in 86 years - long overdue. 

This is not a war on women, but instead, a war by an insidious group of political hacks hellbent on keeping the last shred of power they are able to hang onto regardless of who gets destroyed in the interim - be it a Supreme Court nominee, his marriage, or his young daughters, forced to endure the smarmy and the salacious. With no evidence, justice clearly will not be served for Brett Kavanaugh.

To Feinstein, it must be asked, what are all these pieces of information to which you referenced? Where are they? Have you been sitting on them since the receipt of the July 31 letter about these accusations in the first place? Why did you not come forward sooner? It should be noted that Feinstein later admitted that she’s not sure “everything’s truthful” from Ford. Speaks volumes, but barely registered above a whisper from the mainstream media who is working in concert with the Democrats in their complicit efforts to derail the Kavanaugh appointment to the High Court.

To Hirono and Gillibrand, it must be asked, are you aware that the FBI does not conduct the type of investigation you are demanding? That this would be a state matter were the statute of limitations not expired?

To Senator Blumenthal, it must be asked, what are the specific reasons to believe Ford? Do you know something the rest of us don’t know, including, apparently, Ford herself, who said she neither remembers the when or where of the alleged attack?

As for coming forward to testify, Ford won’t take yes for an answer. Virtually all her demands have been acquiesced to by the Republicans serving on the Judiciary Committee. Chairman Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) said, “we’re doing everything we can to make her comfortable,” including, but not limited to, having the hearing open or closed, public or private, next Monday, next Thursday, could be next Shavuot for all anyone knows at this point.

Once certain demands had been agreed to, Ford and her attorney moved the goal line with increasing demands such as only committee members could question Ford - no outside attorneys, that Kavanaugh cannot be in the room, and that Kavanaugh should be questioned first. That last one is ridiculous, because as George Washington University Constitutional Law Professor Jonathan Turley said, “you swing, then we pitch.”

Crafty demands - make Kavanaugh testify first. To what? “I didn’t do whatever it is my accuser will accuse me of later?” Not allowing him in the same room with Ford. Whatever happened to the right to face one’s accuser? Has the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution been eviscerated? I realize this witch hunt is an attempt to destroy the reputation of a potential Supreme Court nominee, but to deny him the standard rights afforded to any accused as found in the Constitution?

Another crafty demand of not permitting outside attorneys to question Ford, just the stodgy, old, white men sitting on the Judiciary Committee. Think of the optics. Apparently Gillibrand already has when she called the potential hearing “a sham” while recommending Ford not sit for the hearings. Gillibrand also said the mere attempt to have Ford testify in the first place is “bullying,” assuming Ford is some waif or wallflower who is unable to face the committee without falling apart.

Then the goal line was moved yet again, when Ford said she is afraid to fly and the testimony would have to be delayed until she could drive to Washington from California. Anyone ever hear of Skype? Even a technologically stunted individual such as myself is still able to manage Facetime (thanks to my daughters, of course).

This is an obvious political ploy by the Democrats to prevent an otherwise qualified jurist from being seated on the Supreme Court, in hopes the clock will run out until the midterm election this November, not that that should stunt the proceedings. During the Bill Clinton administration it famously was “deny, deny, deny,” while now the mantra is “delay, delay, delay.”

“Sexual assault allegations should not be deployed strategically for political gain,” wrote Grassley in a letter to Feinstein. He is right, of course, and even liberal pundit Jessica Tarlov, a frequent guest on Fox News agreed as much, saying, “this is absolutely political.”

The Democrats are defending Ford while the Republicans are defending the process.

Additionally, Kavanaugh said this is a case of mistaken identity. Ford’s lawyer, Katz, said “zero chance,” yet ignoring that Ford herself cannot recall the when and where.

“People can have false memories and still pass a polygraph,” said Turley.

Further, for Kavanaugh to suggest a case of mistaken identity, is to consider that something did happen to Ford, sadly, but that Kavanaugh was not the perpetrator. My words, not Kavanaugh’s.

Now, at the 11th hour, with Ford’s assertions lacking credibility, and with Kavanaugh publicly supported by a cadre of women who have known him personally and professionally for decades, another accuser has come forward. Deborah Ramirez, a classmate of Kavanaugh’s at Yale claimed Kavanaugh flashed her at a party. Statements from named people close to both Ramirez and Kavanaugh during their time at Yale have categorically refuted her claim, attesting to his character, including Ramirez’s best friend from college.

“This is a woman I was was best friends with. We shared intimate details of our lives. And I was never told this story by her, or by anyone else. It never came up. I didn’t see it; I never heard of it happening,” said the friend, as reported by the Judicial Crisis Network, a conservative group supporting Kavanaugh.

To be fair, there are numerous sexual assault/rape victims who do not talk about their assault, do not report the assault, block out the assault for years, for myriad reasons. There is no procedural timetable by which victims must adhere. They should all be heard, as averred above, but the level of credibility by which they should or should not be believed, should be on a case by case basis. Further, The New York Times, hardly a conservative bastion by any stretch of the imagination, reported it could not corroborate the allegations from the second accuser, Deborah Ramirez.

What’s actually more disturbing than the accusations themselves, is the absolute rush to judgement sans evidence. This is a mockery of the system of jurisprudence under which we the people of the United States have lived for the last 231 years.

Worse than that, is the possibility that should Kavanaugh’s nomination fail, he will not only appear guilty, but the nomination process will be destroyed in perpetuity with only a mere baseless accusation enough to implode the nomination of anyone for any reason, or worse yet, no reason other than politics. 

The Supreme Court is to be devoid of politics, and not too long ago that was evidenced by the near unanimous support for two polar opposite justices - the late Justice Antonin Scalia and current Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. In 1986 Scalia secured his place on the High Court with a 98-0 vote of approval, including yea votes from such liberal luminaries as senators Joe Biden (DE), Al Gore (TN), Ted Kennedy (MA), and Pat Leahy (VT). On the flip side, in 1993, Ginsburg earned her seat on the Court by virtue of a 96-3 favorable vote, including yea votes from such conservative senators as the aforementioned Grassley, Orrin Hatch (UT), Mitch McConnell (KY), and Strom Thurmond (SC). If Kennedy could vote for Scalia and Thurmond could vote for Ginsburg, the political shenanigans should, and must cease. The continued polarization and politicization of the Senate process and the Supreme Court itself is damaging the Republic.

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

September 11 - What Real Sacrifice Looks Like

September 11 - What Real Sacrifice Looks Like
Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
September 9, 2018

September 11 falls, yet again, on a Tuesday, just as it had in 2001. The day started out as a picture-perfect peaceful, bucolic day - bright sunshine, puffy, innocent white clouds - only to be permeated by death, destruction, devastation, and terrorism.

While the pre-ordained intent of the 19 Islamic extremist terrorists became clear upon impact, and the loss of human life intentional - male and female, Jewish, Christian, and Muslim, the nearly 3,000 slaughtered became the first casualties of the current war on terrorism.

A brief timeline of the harrowing events of September 11, 2001:

Between 7:59 AM and 8:42 AM four flights take off from Boston’s Logan, Washington’s Dulles, and Newark airports, each headed for Los Angeles except the Newark flight, headed to San Francisco.

8:46 AM: American Airlines flight #11 is flown into #1 World Trade Center - the North Tower - by five Muslim extremist hijackers murdering the 11 crew, 76 passengers and hundreds inside the tower instantly. This is an example of unintended, yet real sacrifice.

9:03 AM: United Airlines flight #175 is flown into #2 World Trade Center - the South Tower - by five Muslim extremist hijackers murdering the nine crew, 51 passengers, and hundreds inside the tower instantly. This is an example of unintended, yet real sacrifice.

9:05 AM: President George W. Bush is alerted to what is now believed to be terrorist attacks. “Terrorism against our nation will not stand,” said Bush.

9:37 AM: American Airlines flight #77 is flown into the Pentagon in Arlington, VA by five Muslim extremist hijackers murdering the six crew, 53 passengers, as well as 125 military and civilian personnel on the ground. This is an example of unintended, yet real sacrifice.

9:59 AM: The South Tower collapses in 10 seconds after burning 56 minutes. More than 800 civilians and first responders are murdered. This is an example of unintended, yet real sacrifice.

10:03 AM: United Airlines flight #93 crashes into a field in Shanksville, PA when passengers and crew storm the cockpit. There are no survivors of the seven crew and 33 passengers due to the murderous plot by the four Muslim extremist hijackers. Flight #93 was 20 minutes from Washington, DC where the White House and/or the Capitol Building were the presumed targets. This is an example of intended sacrifice - heroism, in fact, knowingly sacrificing their lives in an effort to prevent thousands more from perishing should that plane had reached its intended target.

10:15 AM: The damaged section of the Pentagon E-Ring collapses.

10:28 AM: The North Tower collapses after burning 102 minutes. More than 1,600 civilians and first responders are murdered. This is an example of unintended, yet real sacrifice.

5:20 PM: World Trade Center #7 collapses. The 47 story building had already been evacuated and no fatalities are reported.

8:30 PM: President George W. Bush addresses the nation.

The sacrifices made by the nearly 3,000 victims, intended or unintended, are supreme - they are lost to us forever except in our memories and the memorials in New York City, Arlington, VA, and Shanksville, PA. Having grown up in the shadows of the original World Trade Center, it had been more than a decade since visiting, until this summer when my wife, daughter, and I finally made it to One World Trade Center to see the new tower and the memorials where we could pay respects to those who made the ultimate sacrifice - family friends like Lee Adler.

While thousands of people were naturally fleeing the scenes of the terrorist attacks in efforts to save themselves, there were hundreds of first responders moving just as deftly toward the falling towers, toward the burning Pentagon attempting to rescue total strangers from all walks of life without asking about their backgrounds, religious beliefs, ethnic origins, or sexual orientation. These men and women also made the supreme sacrifice - many of whom never made it home to their families.

Additionally, there are multitudes of first responders who, 17 years later, are suffering from myriad cancers related to toxic dust from the terror sites in New York City and Arlington. For those still in these dire circumstances, they should visit the Victims Compensation Fund website: www.vcf.gov. 

When the stories of the suffering endured by the people who made genuine sacrifice are recalled, I find it more than just insulting that a football player should be made the face of a sneaker company with the tagline: “Believe in something, even if it means sacrificing everything.” 

This ballplayer has sacrificed nothing. He made a decision to grandstand by refusing to stand for the National Anthem of the United States in an effort to bring attention to an issue of concern to him. Most people remember him taking a knee, but not the reason for doing so, thus defeating the purpose. Had this player requested space in any newspaper in the country for the purposes of an editorial, it would have been granted.

I am a fervent supporter of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and that free speech is the bellwether of the success of this country. “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it,” credited to Evelyn Beatrice Hall (1868-1956), speaks volumes and I agree with it strongly. I think players who take a knee are wrong for doing it, and I don’t have to buy the products they endorse, but it is still their right, however misguided, to do so. However, let the consequences fall where they may. 

Opine before the media - give interviews, write editorials - attention will be paid, and agree or disagree, your rights will most certainly be defended. Taking a knee is a publicity stunt that is offensive to those who served and continue to serve - some of whom are unable to stand or take a knee because of the genuine sacrifices they have made.

Now, apparently, this particular player is suing his former league for collusion. Bottom line, if he were a quality player, he would be in uniform today. There are many players, unfortunately, who have committed felonies and are still playing pro ball. No, he has sacrificed nothing, and now he is being rewarded for his petulance.

In addition to remembering the sacrifices made by those who died on September 11, and in the subsequent battles, we must also maintain our faith. I offer a selection from Jewish liturgy as this year, September 11, is also the second day of Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year.

“Save us because of Your mercy. Shield us from enemies and pestilence, from starvation, sword, and sorrow. Remove the evil forces that surround us, shelter us in the shadow of Your wings. You O G-d, guard us and deliver us. You are a gracious and merciful King. Guard our coming and our going, grant us life and peace, now and always.”

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and educator living in Westfield, IN. He grew up in northern New Jersey in the shadow of the Twin Towers. On September 11, 2001, he was writing for a newspaper in northern Virginia, 10 minutes from the Pentagon.

A Black Eye for the Black and Gold

A Black Eye for the Black and Gold
Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
August 21, 2018

For the record, I am no prude, no one will ever accuse me of being politically correct, and my daughter and I each have a very good sense of humor.

That said, Purdue University, where my daughter is a freshman, was terribly irresponsible for hiring the aptly-named alleged comedian Andy Gross to perform at the close of BGR Saturday night, August 18. (BGR is Boiler Gold Rush, a week long orientation program for freshman students at Purdue.)

My daughter attended this event with friends, and subsequently left early with those very friends. She reported that the Gross routine was rife with offensive material including, but not limited to genitalia “jokes,” as well inappropriate remarks toward women.

Part of the gross shtick included having a female student stand back-to-back with Gross, then having her place her hand on his upper thigh. I know I would not want my daughter to be put in that situation, and from all accounts the young lady on stage was visibly uncomfortable (why she didn’t walk off, I can’t say), but remained a good sport.

The kind of bawdy so-called humor exhibited by Gross is akin to what adults experience at comedy clubs for 21 and older crowds who, faced with a two drink minimum will find virtually anything amusing. These are college freshman - some still as young as 17 years old. Make no mistake, I am not so naive as to think most of these freshman have not seen, heard, or even said worse on their own or from social media. 

That does not give Purdue University license to bring such deleterious material onto campus in an event sponsored by the university, and paid for by parents like me. Where was the vetting of this so-called “entertainer?” It took me all of a minute - my daughter would be proud of my on-line prowess - to find half a dozen videos of Gross performing his routine. Whoever hired Gross is out of touch with what is and is not appropriate on a college campus and perhaps should not be employed by a university.

Purdue University, heading into its 150 year anniversary, has a great tradition of excellence. My wife, an alumnus, and I, are proud to send our daughter there, and hope the next four years will see continued excellence. Boiler Up!

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

Keep Families Together

Keep Families Together

Commentary  by Sanford D. Horn

July 13, 2018

The visual remains unpleasant, even disturbing - hundreds, if not thousands of foreigners - the “wretched refuse,” if you will, teeming toward the southern border, clammoring, nay, demanding to be granted entry into the United States of America, knowing they are violating the laws of the very country within which they seek refuge.

The visual instills pangs of sadness, empathy, and even a desperate desire to help, but these are the emotions that should be rerserved for homeless American veterans, mentally adled American citizens wandering the streets of this country aimlessly  because they either can’t get, ot don’t know how to get the help they need.

This is not to dismiss the plight of these foreigners, some may have legitimate reasons for fleeing their home countries, but the United States is a nation of law and order; without which, chaos and anarchy erupts, and from recent appearances, there are those Americans seeking just that - they are the enemy from within.

Admittedly, the United States has a broken immigration system. It takes far too long for otherwise worthy future Americans to be granted legal admission to this country. Yet similtaneously, the United States has much worsening problems - a broken border, a nation too generous for its own good, and a legal system beyond the immagination of the writers of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

None of the potential illegal aliens should have been detained because none of them should have been allowed to cross the border. Thus the wall and strict border security. A nation is not truly a nation without borders and rules for those wishing to cross over those borders. This is not a matter of cruelty, nor is it a matter of nativism or nationalism. This is a matter of common sense. What other country has such porous borders and such a liberal acceptance policy to grant people in this country illegally things that legeal residents and citizens are hard pressed to acquire? What other countries grant free medical care, education, welfare, even drivers licences to people who broke the law to get here and then brazenly make demands of the country to which they pledge no loyalty as they parade around the flags of their countries of orign?

For the same reason we lock our cars or the doors to our homes, our borders - at all directions, not just south, must be secured - secured by personnel and painstaking efforts to vet vigorously all who wish to enter - for any purpose - business, education, vacation or permanant status.

Instead of detention, all those potential illegal aliens should have been denied entry and turned back. By denying them entry one thing is assured - families will remain together. This is what everyone wants - for children to remain with their parents - and what most people want - for them to do so on their side of the border.

If and when those folks decide to apply for legal entry, they must be strictly vetted to ensure first, that they are who they say they are, and that they actually are the parents of the children with whom they travel. The sad fact is, that there are myriad adults masquerading as parents to gain access to the American way of life when in fact they are dangerous criminals, be they drug dealers/smugglers or pimps/human traffickers.

In addition to physical border security, anyone who desires entry into the United States must be fingerprinted and photographed for a national data base. Every guest in this country should be able to be tracked. After all, do we really know the motives of everyone who crosses our borders? Enforce the deadlines on all student visas, business, and vacation travel plans. It is especially important that foreign students return to their homelands, take their new knowledge and help grow their countries educationally and economically; after all, a rising tide lifts all boats and the more international growth, the less people will see the need to sneak into the United States. Create real jobs in those countries and help reduce the drug trade. Strengthen the drug laws in this country, and get people the help they need to become clean and sober.

We are a generous nation - to a fault - and it is our fault that we have allowed millions of illegals to take advantage of our generosity to the tune of billions and billions of dollars for decades. Free medical care, free public school education, granting in-state tuition for illegals, food stamps - which deserves a separate column of its own, welfare, drivers licenses which becomes costly as many illegals fail to procure auto insurance. The United States must turn off the spigot and force illegals to self-deport - which many will do, if they have the above reason to return home.

The current crisis is yielding some interesting, yet damning, statistics. Under the Obama administration families released after the maximum 20 day holding period were issued a court date to return for their asylum hearing. The Department of Homeland Security indicated that 97 percent of those people - all in the United States illegally - failed to return for their mandatory hearings. Catch and releasae must be abolished.

On the other hand, the visual of housing many of these illegals on military bases until their hearings, is being identified as akin to the internment camps during World War II when more than 110,000 Japanese-Americans were held under the Franklin Roosevelt administration. The huge difference was that FDR was wrong to incarcerate Americans. Under President Donald Trump these people, are here in the United States illegally. Let’s not sugarcoat it with euphemisms. They chose to come to the United States and illegally enter this country without permission; they have broken the law. Emotion versus fact.

The outcry regarding the separation of children from their mothers is disingenuous. If an American mother robs a bank, is captured, tried, found guilty, and sentenced to prison, naturally this American mother will be separated form her children. There is no outpouring of sympathy here to keep children with their mothers; but for the illegals, a demand for speacial treatment. Emotion versus the rule of law.

We are a nation of law and order; we abide by the rule of law or there are consequences - certainly for the Americans, but why not for the illegals? They must pay the price for their truculent, criminal behavior. Entering the United States was their choice. No one coerced them to commit breaking and entering against the American people.

While the United States is a nation of laws, and admittedly some tinkering of the law to streamline the process of admission would be beneficial to those who are applying legally, one drastic change need be made to the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. We need to end the birthright mishegas - and immediately. When righting the serious wrong following the War Between the States of granting citizenship to freed slaves, the authors unlikely considered illegal aliens as a group who should benefit from the amendment, yet, via the “anchor baby” system of birthright, illegals are gaming the system like no other. Why is the United States rewarding illegal aliens for giving birth on US soil after sneaking into this country? But that is exactly what is happening; and that reward is American citizenship and permanant status in the US for the illegal. Shame on us.

I have long said, like the concept of fruit from the poisonous tree in a courtroom when a judge denies the use of evidence obtained from a bad search, the child born to an illegal alien should not be considered an American citizen. Amend the 14th Amendment. Amend it now.

Our elected officials are too busy running for reelection and trying to be all things to all constituents, which is not possible, especially when they should be doing their jobs. The members very quickly forget they work for us, not the other way around, and what the people want and need are secure borders and immigration reform that actually favors the United States for a refreshing change. Make it happen Congress, or the next change will be you.

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

Defending the Unpopular

“Love is the only force capable of transforming an enemy into a friend.” - Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Defending the Unpopular

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

June 26, 2018

Remaining steadfast in my belief that less government is best, I would be hypocritical to not, yet again, defend the unpopular; albeit doing so knowing that through the American system of capitalism and justice, these things work themselves out.

There has been more than just a little consternation over the recent treatment Trump administration Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders received by Stephanie Wilkinson, owner of The Red Hen restaurant in Lexington, VA. About a week ago Sanders and her dinner party were asked to leave The Red Hen restaurant for no other reason than her affiliation and association with the Trump administration.

Here’s where one cannot both have their cake and eat it too.

For years the big government left has demanded government sanction and penalize private businesses to the point of shutting them down for refusing to bake cakes for gay weddings as a matter of religious or conscientious choice. The cadre of -ists and -isms are thrown around as to why private enterprises should be forced to conduct business with people or groups with whom they have chosen not to.

They are hypocrites for their selective tolerance. And while it’s Wilkinson’s right to refuse service to whom she chooses, she should pay more attention to the quote hanging on her own restaurant: “Love is the only force capable of transforming an enemy into a friend.” Those are the immortal words of Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.

The flip side of this entrepreneurial conundrum is the small government right calling for private enterprises be left alone to conduct their business as they see fit - consequences be damned, or not.

They are hypocrites for their selective outrage. They want Sanders et al to be served, but they balk at baking the gay couple’s wedding cake.

I remain consistent. Government is already too busy sticking its fingers in far too many pies. Leave the business of business to the business men and women, and let the chips fall where they may. Ultimately these issues will resolve themselves. Quite frankly, if a baker refused me service because of my religion I would go elsewhere - I don’t want my wedding cake to “accidentally” contain a cup of salt instead of a cup of sugar - oopsies, as my younger daughter would say. Same if I were asked to leave a restaurant. I don’t want a plate full of G-d knows what being served to me that may have “accidentally” fallen on the floor or ended up with a gob of phlegm as a side dish.

I will spend my money where it is appreciated. We should all do likewise. Speak with our wallets and with our voices. Government need not get involved. If those who are outraged with the bakery not wanting to bake the cake for a gay couple opts to take their business elsewhere, it will affect the bottom line of the bakery in question. That business will suffer for its decision, or perhaps it won’t. Perhaps it will flourish because people will support it for taking a moral stand. Likewise with the restaurant. Perhaps all those who support President Trump will stay away, and as has been the immediate response, take to social media to opine, and cause the restaurant to lose a ton of cabbage. On the other hand, perhaps all the anti-Trumpers will flock to The Red Hen to demonstrate its support for Wilkinson’s decision.

I’m pretty sure I would not patronize the bakery or the restaurant - and that is my choice, just as it is and should remain the choices of the proprietors to discern with whom they choose to conduct business. That is the American way, the people’s choice, not the government’s mandate. G-d help us if the reverse ever becomes reality.

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

What Religion is Your Chicken?

What Religion is Your Chicken?

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

April 16, 2018

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GOP, ADL Don't Challenge Nazi

"Illinois Nazis. I hate Illinois Nazis." - Jake Blues

GOP, ADL Don’t Challenge Nazi Commentary by Sanford D. Horn February 5, 2018 Much to the posturing protestations by the Illinois state Republican Party and the Anti-Defamation League, a self-avowed Holocaust denier is set to become the GOP nominee for the United States Congress in the Third District in the Land of Lincoln. The 70 year old political gadfly, whose name was not to be printed here, for he does not deserve the publicity, is Arthur Jones - people need to know who this ignorant cretin is, in order to vote against him - has been active in both Illinois and Wisconsin since the 1970s, having run for mayor of Milwaukee as well as numerous other offices in Illinois, including Congress. A former leader of the American Nazi Party, Jones often refers to the Holocaust of European Jewry as “an international extortion racket,” and has been on the radar of both the Illinois GOP as well as the ADL for decades. The “Anti-Defamation League has been keeping tabs on him for years,” noted the Chicago Sun-Times. This potential GOP nominee “proudly displays Holocaust denial, xenophobia and racism on his blog and website, has a long history of hateful, extremist and anti-Semitic views,” said Lonnie Nasatir, regional director of the ADL Chicago-Upper Midwest Region. “The Illinois Republican party and our country have no place for Nazis like Jones. We strongly oppose his racist views and his candidacy for any public office, including the Third Congressional District,” said Tim Schneider, Chairman of the Illinois Republican Party. With all the notoriety given this racist, anti-Semitic, white supremacist, it is shocking that the Illinois Republicans could not find a primary challenger to this crackpot. While he has the right to run for public office, the people should also be given choices on their ballots. The claim that this district is so overwhelmingly Democrat in its political makeup as an excuse not to field a candidate is tragic. No candidate should run unopposed for office - any office. Sadly, the complaints lodged by both the GOP and ADL are disingenuous as they are complicit in allowing someone as repugnant and truculent to attain ballot status when they could have worked together to find a challenger. Certainly even a novice should be able to defeat a Nazi. As the GOP nominee, he would face the winner of the Democratic primary race between incumbent Congressman Dan Lipinski, a pro-life Catholic who voted against granting in-state tuition to illegal aliens, both good stances, and Marie Newman. Lipinski is considered a more conservative Democrat, especially for a district that includes parts of the City of Chicago as well several surrounding suburbs. This district’s voters has sent a Democrat to Congress the last 22 consecutive terms. The last Republican elected in IL-3 was Robert Hanrahan in 1972, serving but one term. I understand long odds, having run for a city council seat in Baltimore, MD as a Republican when the registered Republicans totaled eight percent of the voters, but it was important to give the citizenry an alternative. Needless to say, the outcome was less than successful, but not surprising as a Republican has not been elected to the Baltimore City Council since 1939. As a Republican I am incensed that the party went straight to surrender. As a Jew I am disgusted that the Jewish community didn’t rally together to recruit someone to, at the very least, challenge Jones to debate the issues and out him for the danger he clearly is. Perhaps voters ought to mount a write-in campaign for the March 20 primary. Were I a resident in Illinois’ third Congressional district, I would have thrown my yarmulke into the ring as a GOP contender - money or no money. Some things are simply too important. Sanford D. Horn is a writer and educator living in Westfield, IN.