The Roadmap to Hell

The Roadmap to Hell

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

June 5, 2003

The somewhat historic handshake between Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas signaled a positive step toward peace in the Middle East. After all Sharon and PLO dictator Yassir Arafat never shook hands, and rightfully so, for to do so would be equating the two as peers on the global stage.

However, that handshake should not be overblown beyond what it was – a handshake. There is still a long road ahead and the alleged roadmap for peace is truly a roadmap to hell for Israel and the survival of the Jewish State.

Once again, as has historically been the case, land for peace is the issue – and once again, there is no guarantee that peace will be achieved even after land is surrendered. Israel should cede no land. Not now, not ever. Not one square inch. The White House has correctly called for the Palestinian Authority to declare a war on terrorism, not just the temporary cease fire the PA had proposed. Temporary – not permanent. Once land is gone, it is gone, to paraphrase the late great Rabbi Meir Kahane, assassinated by Arab terrorists.

“Our goal is clear, and we will implement it firmly and without compromise: a complete end to violence and terrorism,” said Palestinian Prime Minister Abbas said on June 4.

Those are bold words coming from a man who has as much control over such terrorist groups as Hamas, as Washington-area residents have over whether or not the Montreal Expos will ever play baseball in DC. Hamas is virulently against the proposed roadmap having vowed to continue its homicidal attacks until it controls and possesses all of Israel.

Israeli Prime Minister Sharon already made the mistake of releasing nearly 100 Palestinian prisoners. Granted, he did so as a show of good faith, but what did he get in return? Agreeing to “remove unauthorized outposts,” again is a sign of good faith by Sharon, but what did he get in return? This is a system of blackmail. The Palestinians make demands in exchange for a possibility that they will stop killing innocent Israelis – maybe. Sharon, in making these concessions is behaving somewhat hypocritically when he said on June 4, “there can be no compromise with terror.”

Heinous acts of terror and homicide bombings continue to be a means to an end – proving that violence accomplishes a goal. That goal is the creation of a Palestinian state. And that is the Palestinian roadmap – keep killing Israelis until there is no more Israel.

Both Sharon and Abbas called for a peaceful coexistence between the Israelis and the Palestinians. It should happen.

“It is in Israel’s interest not to govern the Palestinians, but for the Palestinians to govern themselves in their own state. A democratic Palestinian state fully at peace with Israel will promote the long-term security and well-being of Israel as a Jewish state,” said Sharon on June 4.

“Our goal is two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side, in peace and security,” said Abbas on June 4, however, also calling for “end[ing] the occupation that began in 1967,”

That should not happen. Israel was attacked, defended itself and won a war. Again to paraphrase Rabbi Meir Kahane, “when you win, you win. You don’t give back land.”

There should be a Palestinian state – which by right should be in what is present day Jordan. (It seems ironic that Jordan should play host to this Middle East peace summit.) Israel, as a Jewish State, and a Palestinian state should exist – seperately, with the Palestinians living freely outside of Israel – freely, but without a military, just a police force for its internal governance. Both nations should have secure borders – unlike the sieve existing on the US-Mexico border. Strict and rigid border patrols should exist for the protection of both peoples.

In time, the two nations might engage in trade, educational exchanges and perhaps even sporting events. Soccer, baseball or basketball contests certainly sound better than war. So, batter up for peace – the right way.

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

The Lone Party State

The Lone Party State

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

May 15, 2003

Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) summed it up both plainly and succinctly on the Fox News Channel when he said of the wayward Democrats in the Lone Star State legislature, “it’s like a child with a temper tantrum. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose – that’s democracy.”

Perry made his comments on Wednesday, May 14 on the heels of the 59 Democrats in the state house having fled north of the border to Ardmore, OK in Carter County. (Actually, some were said to have fled to New Mexico or even Mexico.) Republicans hold an 88 to 62 majority in the state’s lower house – the first time the GOP has enjoyed a majority in both houses in 130 years. The Democrats, not used to their new role as the minority party, are behaving like sore losers. And to the victors, go the spoils.

However, it is the contention of the Democrats in the Texas State House that they have turned tail because of a redistricting plan to which they object. Granted, some districts have been so severely gerrymandered that Eldridge Gerry is no doubt spinning in his grave.

But Greg Davidson, Executive Clerk for Gov. Perry, is not buying the Democrats’ claim. “This is a push by trial attorneys using this to discredit the leadership of the house and win back a majority in the 2004 elections,” said Davidson in a telephone interview from Austin.

According to the proposed redistricting plan, one particular downtown street in the state’s capital of Austin, a traditionally liberal bastion, would be hacked up and placed into four congressional districts. Adding to the mix, one of those four pieces would end up in a congressional district connected to the Mexican border roughly 300 miles away, noted The Washington Post of May 13. So, to be fair to the Democrats, some of the redrawn districts are loopy and make no sense, but there has to be a better way than running away.

The Texas state legislature meets for a 140 day session every two years. This years’ session is due to expire on Tuesday, June 3. One of the executive powers held by the governor is to call the legislature into a special session. Perry said the regular session could end without a state budget and with other key legislation, such as the lowering of homeowners’ insurance, laying dormant without passage.

Other executive powers the governor possesses are the ability to submit emergency matters, tagged as priority, to the legislature during the session; the ability to call a special election in order to fill a vacancy; the ability to appoint heads of agencies; and the ability to review all bills and resolutions to either sign, veto or file with no signature. Unlike a federal pocket veto, when a Texas governor commits a file with no signature, in essence, it is approved.

“I will call them back for a special session – you bet I will,” said Perry to Tony Snow on Fox News.

What the Democrats are doing is gumming up the works, by not showing up to work – work the voters elected them to perform. The voters have a greater recourse than Gov. Perry himself, said Davidson. “The governor has no power over another branch,” said Davidson.

There will be “no repercussions,” said Perry. “Come on back and do the work and pass legislation. The voters will decide on repercussions,” he added. “They’ve had their fun. They have to come home and explain to their constituents why they can’t do their jobs.”

Because Gov. Perry does not have the authority to fire the runaway Democrats the way President Ronald Reagan fired the air traffic controllers in the interest of national security, it is up to the voters to fire their legislators. The voters need to deliver a message that they sent those legislators to Austin to do a job and if those elected officials don’t do that job, by being voted out, they will be fired.

As for extradition, Oklahoma Governor Brad Henry, a Democrat, refused. Some have suggested that there is no cause to extradite these Democrats on the lam. The Democrats are on the lam because the Texas Rangers received orders to track down, arrest and bring back to Austin the lawmakers to finish their work. And, in order to elude capture, the Democrats needed to cross state lines, rendering Texas authorities impotent by virtue of being outside their jurisdiction. That extradition is used to return a lawbreaker to the jurisdiction where the law was broken is the excuse used by those supporting the Democrats, claiming no broken laws, no extradition.

Under the Rules of the House – 78^th Legislature, Rule 5 – Floor Procedure; Section 8: “…All absentees for whom no sufficient excuse is made may, by order of a majority of those present, be sent for and arrested, wherever they may be found, by the sergeant-of-arms or an officer appointed by the sergeant-of-arms for that purpose, and their attendance shall be secured and retained.”

It appears evident that the words “wherever they may be found,” should give the Texas Rangers or other state authorities carte blanche to arrest the miscreant Democrats even in Oklahoma or New Mexico. Mexico may be another kettle of fish, however.

The Texas state constitution also supports the forceful retrieving of the missing Democrats. Article 3 – Legislative Department; Section 10 – Quorum; adjournments from day to day; compelling attendance says, “Two-thirds of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner and under such penalties as each House may provide.”

Could the Democrats be guilty of breach of contract? After all, they were elected to serve throughout a 140 day session and are not living up to their end of the bargain. Could the Democrats be guilty of reckless endangerment? By abandoning their jobs, they have left hundreds of bills unattended – bills designed to improve the quality of life and protect all Texans – Democrats, Republicans, Independents and those not affiliated or even old enough to vote.

While many  people both inside Texas and on the outside looking in are getting a good chuckle from the runaway Democrats, this is no laughing matter. The Democrats are behaving like spoiled brats who have fled because they are not going to get their way as they have for the past 130 years. Their actions are unprecedented and should not go unpunished. The truant Democrats have no right to play fast and easy with state resources, nor do they have the right to hold the state of Texas hostage while they take their equipment and scurry from the field like little leaguers spurned by the rest of the team.

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

Black and Blue in Black and White

Black and Blue in Black and White

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

May 12, 2003

While the once vaunted New York Times licks its wounds and attempts to restore both its dignity and its reputation as the leader in American journalism due to the Jayson Blair scandal, it must attempt to restore the faith of its readers as well as answer some difficult and embarrassing questions.

The oft-asked question over these past days is how this could have happened in the first place. The this is that a relatively unknown freelance reporter and University of Maryland dropout rose to prominence at The New York Times despite a less than stellar performance level. In just three and one half years Blair’s work received roughly 50 red flags citing inaccuracies or inadequacies – more than one a month.

It has since come to light that Blair’s indiscretions were far worse, damaging the trustworthiness of the trade with his outright lies and plagiarism – stealing from his colleagues. Little sympathy should be given to Blair – his shortcuts and sloppiness led to his ultimate downfall. It will be hard for him to repair his own damaged reputation. Even less sympathy should be given to Blair’s former employer. The answer to the question of how this could have happened is that The New York Times allowed this to happen. They are as much to blame as Blair.

Did Blair’s resume say that he attended or graduated from the University of Maryland? That question alone should have prevented the Blair situation from occurring in the first place. If the resume contained the word attended, Blair should not have been hired in the first place. Why he didn’t graduate, is a question that should also be asked. If his resume indicated that he graduated, clearly a harbinger in and of itself, it would naturally be incumbent upon The New York Times do something that is common in the newspaper business – check the facts. That could have been the first and only interaction between The New York Times and Blair. The Washington Post [May 11] is quoted as saying that  when Blair joined The Times in 1999 “everyone assumed he had graduated from the University of Maryland – he had not…” And people know what happens when one assumes.

Instead, in the interest of furthering diversity at The New York Times, openly admitted by metropolitan editor Jonathan Landman, Blair rode the fast track that enabled him to cover such recent stories as the Washington, DC metropolitan area sniper attacks and domestic aspects of the war against Iraq. Blair’s inadequacies and ineptitudes were regularly overlooked. Internal memos about Blair by his superiors regarding said shortcomings went unheeded.

Liberalism and The Times’ own desire to perpetuate an obsolete affirmative action can be cited as major causes for the sticky wicket in which The Times finds itself. (Although, to be fair to The Times, it is airing its own dirty laundry publicly within its own pages.) Chances are, had the reporter in question been Caucasian, this situation would not have occurred. The Times felt a desire to carry Blair in order to fulfill its own prophecy. Had The Times not been on such a politically correct crusade, this situation could have been avoided. Unfortunately, there is an absolute double standard and a fear involved. Fear that to be critical is an act of racism. Fear that to dismiss someone, even for cause, could bring a lawsuit.

What suffers, aside from Blair’s reputation, which at best is on life support, is the faith placed by the public on not just The New York Times, but the medium in general. There is, after all, no governing body to police the journalistic community. People will think twice about whether or not to believe what they read. Readers will question the truthfulness of the words written by the reporters, and not just for the long-time bias newspapers have exhibited over the years. Some may even question whether or not certain reporters are affirmative action scribes – and that is unfortunate. There are plenty of eminently qualified and award-winning minority journalists who come by their skills through hard work and perform their hard work honestly. The late Sam Lacy of Baltimore’s Afro-American is a sterling example.

Jayson Blair should not be held up as the rule, but rather the exception where minority journalists are concerned. Nor should Jayson Blair be viewed as the example of what the University of Maryland School of Journalism is all about. Granted, there is some bias by this writer, a Maryland alum – but not from the School of Journalism. Those entrusted with the faith of the public ought to be held to higher standard. These standards and ethics should be taught in schools of journalism nationwide. There is a moral responsibility that journalists at all levels – from The Diamondback at the University of Maryland to The New York Times must maintain. If not, then stop the presses.

Sanford D. Horn is a freelance writer and political consultant living in Alexandria, VA and is a graduate of the University of Maryland.

Open Mouth, Insert Shoe Store

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

April 10, 2003

He’s done it again, but this time US Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA-8^th) has company from across the aisle in the form of US Rep. Barbara Cubin (R-WY-At Large) in an unrelated issue.

In a public meeting before a group of Alexandria Democrats and a Jewish civil rights group, Moran continues to lose points every time he opens his mouth. This time he suggested that AIPAC – the American Israel Public Action Committee would “direct a campaign against me and take over the campaign of a Democratic opponent.”

Moran continues to espouse his anti-Semitism by hiding behind euphemisms. While AIPAC is a lobbying organization (of which this writer has no affiliation) it is not a political action committee, it neither raises money for nor endorses candidates. Moran may be paranoid thinking people are out to get him, but every time he opens his mouth, he gets himself.

Across the aisle, Cubin stereotyped the entire black community on Wednesday, April 9 during the debate of a piece of gun rights legislation. Her comment came on the heels of a failed Democratic amendment attempting to ban gun sales to drug addicts or those undergoing drug treatment.

“One amendment today said we could not sell guns to anybody under drug treatment. So does that mean that if you go into a black community you can’t sell any guns to any black person,” said Cubin.

Cubin too should be chastised more severely for her comments – comments that should remain on the record and a part of The Congressional Record for all to see.

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

Where's Monty Hall?

Where’s Monty Hall?

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

March 7, 2003

In an episode of the 1970s television program “The Odd Couple,” Felix Unger, portrayed by Tony Randall and Oscar Madison, played by Jack Klugman appeared on the then popular game show “Let’s Make A Deal,” in a horse costume.

Attempting to garner the host’s attention, Felix shouts out, “pick me Monty, pick me.”

Well, this is what’s happening on the global stage. Nations that ordinarily wouldn’t get a second look are trying to get the attention of the United States in order to make a deal with the most powerful country in the world. Nations like Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Guinea and Pakistan want to know what they can get from the United States in exchange for support in the potential military conflict against Iraq.

The United States already looked behind Door Number One – Turkey, only to find an empty box when that country’s parliament voted on Saturday, March 1 to deny U.S. permission to use its bases. There was talk that the Turkish parliament might hold another vote and change its mind.

The initial deal offered by the U.S. to Turkey amounted to $26 billion in loans and support. The Monday after the rejection, the Turkish stock exchange took a 13 percent dive. Should Turkey wish to revisit the deal, the United States ought to offer half, if even that much to the majority Muslim nation straddling Europe and Asia.

To the other nations wanting the U.S. to cough up billions for its vote as members of the United Nations Security Council, they should get nothing. That they do not understand the moral imperative at stake here is unfortunate. To suggest that it is wrong for the U.S. to threaten a trade embargo against those nations not supporting the U.S. by calling it extortion, neither shall the United States be extorted in order to get permission from an organization so irrelevant that Saddam Hussein has thumbed his nose at it for a dozen years and counting.

Like a parent threatening to punish a child, “if you do that one more time…,” the United Nations has done likewise to Iraq, repeatedly, with the same result – no consequences for heinous actions.

Making matters worse, is that so-called allies of the United States, Belgium, France and Germany could have put up a unified front to force Hussein to back down. By opposing the U.S., Hussein has been emboldened; and even more so every time an American takes to the streets to protest its own government. Behind Door Number Two Monty reveals disloyalty to the United States.

(Sadly the American protesters are part of a dangerous group of people who blame America, their own country, for the evils in the world. This unfortunately is a growing trend permeated in the public schools of this country. A public school system where time-outs have replaced real punishment. A place where students are given good grades for their effort even when the effort comes up short and even passed on to the next grade so as not to damage the self-esteem. A place where competition is increasingly shunned, again for fear of damaging the all too fragile self-esteem.

Most recently, in the city of Oakland, California and in the state of Maine, anti-war ugliness has gone over the edge. In Oakland, teachers taught anti-war lessons without a voice from the other side. Speakers, paid for with citizens tax dollars were brought into schools to preach anti-war rhetoric. In Maine, teachers upped the ante by maligning students who have parents in the reserves called to active duty, as well as fulltime members of the U.S. armed forces.)

Granted the first amendment to the Constitution gives the protesters the right to do so, but they should listen to former Iraqi citizens now living in the U.S. either as American citizens or legal residents. Many have testified to the brutality under which Iraqis live. They have testified that Iraqi citizens are waiting for Americans and military partners like the British and Spanish to liberate Iraq.

Even Senator Edward “Ted” Kennedy (D-MA), so vehemently opposed to the war, does not recognize that there are about 30 nations that will join American troops should war become necessary. On the Senate floor on Friday, March 07 he referred to potential military action by the United States as “unilateral.” Kennedy was more concerned about what the rest of the world would think about the U.S. than the importance of the mission, much akin to being worried about being popular than being right.

It’s better to be right than popular. World opinion does not begin and end with the French, Germans, Chinese and Russians. Twenty-three million Iraqis are counting upon the U.S. military and its partners to do what’s right.

When the war is over, American troops/advisors along with its military partners’ troops/advisors should keep enough people in Iraq to oversee the restructuring of its government as well as to ensure democratic elections take place. This is something of which even Jimmy Carter should approve. For their efforts, those nations should receive discounts on oil, beneficial to all involved, while those countries standing idly by, get nothing, are rebuked and condemned by the United Nations and play no role in the reorganization of the nation of Iraq. Hopefully when Door Number Three is opened Monty will find a free Iraq.

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

With Friends Like These...

With Friends Like These…

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

March 3, 2003

Show of hands – who believes Saddam Hussein is actually disarming? (What arms is he destroying? The ones he said he doesn’t have?) Keep those hands up for believing that Hans Blix and his band of merry inspectors is the reason high-level al Qaeda dominos are falling one by one.

Okay, Mike Farrell, Susan Sarandon and Martin Sheen can put their hands down now. They must believe in the tooth fairy as well. Sheen is so sanctimonious he probably believes he IS president.

In reality, George W. Bush is the president of the United States and he said that al Qaeda and the supporting terrorist network would be toppled one by one if need be. That they would be ferreted out of the various caves and hiding places cowards like they cower in is actually happening. Who said politicians don’t keep their word?

But to be fair, Farrell, Sarandon and Sheen are entitled to their opinions. This is, after all, the United States of America. And bear in mind, nobody wants war. Not the supporters of the president, not the president himself, not Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, not the generals and certainly not the military.

However, this nation is under threat and that is what a military is for – defense. Defending the nation, its people and its borders – borders that were attacked on 09-11-01.  Borders that have been infiltrated by the likes of Sami Al-Arian, the now unemployed University of South Florida professor arrested for his support of Sept. 11 terrorists. (The teachers’ union in the state of Florida had defended him for better than a year while he was under scrutiny.) Support that came in the form of economics and via his writings. After all, it’s called the Defense Department, not the offense department.

Mother May I

Iraq has had 17 opportunities to follow United Nations’ edicts to disarm, destroy its weapons of mass destruction and maintain peace. To say the United States is seeking to start a war with Iraq is disingenuous.

What is truly disturbing, is that the United States feels it can not act without the permission of the alleged leaders of Europe – specifically France and Germany. Again, the war protesters are disingenuous in their behavior, calling for a United Nations team effort before making any military moves.

Reviewing recent history, these same war protesters did not take to the streets and the computers when former President Clinton unilaterally bombed Belgrade in an effort to topple the Milosovic regime. He did not seek UN permission, nor was the US under any threat.

As a reminder for those war protesters afraid to blow their noses without permission from France, Germany and the military powerhouse that is Belgium, this is not, repeat, not, a unilateral effort. The United States is joined by Great Britain, Italy, Spain, Australia, Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland and most of the former Soviet Union. All told, there are over 30 nations on board with the US.

To give Hussein an 18^th chance to make the UN look foolish by ignoring its mandates only lessens that body’s relevance. Additionally, how relevant can the United Nations be when Qadafi’s Libya can chair the Human Rights committee and when Hussein’s Iraq can chair the Disarmament committee?

The United States should not be seeking another resolution to take action against Iraq and the Hussein regime that has killed thousands of its own citizens. Nor should the United States be offering billions of dollars to other nations for their support – militarily or via UN votes. Hit these countries where it hurts most – the wallet.

Turkey’s Economy – A Sitting Duck

The United States offered Turkey $26 billion in aid/loans for the use of bases. The Turkish parliament voted it down. Not only is that nation not getting the infusion of economic aid it needs, but its stock market, such that it is, suffered a 13 percent drop within hours of its opening Monday morning. Imagine if the New York Stock Exchange dropped 1,000 points, plus or minus, within an hour or two of the opening bell. That would be catastrophic.

Should another United Nations vote be necessary, boycotts of each nation voting not to support the United States’ efforts to disarm Hussein should be in effect. As it is, Americans should be boycotting French, German, Belgian, Turkish and Canadian products – with extreme vigor. Both the French and Germans are disingenuous when they accuse the United States of starting a war over oil. That wasn’t the truth in 1991, nor is it so 12 years later. In fact, what the French and Germans are hiding is that they do billions of dollars (or euros) in business with Iraq and Saddam – particularly for oil. The same is true of Russia and its oil business with Iraq. France, Germany and Russia claim their business with Iraq is under the guise of oil for food in a feeble attempt to help the Iraqi people – the overwhelming majority never see crumb one of that food. Unfortunately both the US and UK, via middleman countries, also still do oil business with Iraq.

Say non to French wine, French cheese, French perfumes, trips to France and investments in companies that do business with France. Say nein to German beer, German automobiles, trips to Germany and investments in companies that do business with Germany. Read labels in supermarkets and shopping malls. Refuse to purchase goods and services emanating from any nation not supporting the United States on this issue.

Mad(e) In the USA

Pennsylvania state representative Stephen Barrar (R) plans to introduce a bill in Harrisburg banning French wine in the Keystone State. Sounds like a plan. Support American vineyards. Plenty of good wine can be found in California, New York and Virginia.

During World War I sauerkraut became known as liberty cabbage. A return to that moniker is not unreasonable. Why not order victory fries to accompany that sandwich and patriot toast is good with syrup and strawberries. After all, the wheat for the bread probably came from the Midwest and the spuds for the fries came either from Idaho or Maine. German Measles can keep its name, because no one wants that anyway.

Support the war, don’t support the war. Support the president, don’t support the president. The first amendment protects that right. But when the bullets start to fly, be sure to get behind every man and woman wearing an American military uniform because they are defending that right with their lives.

May G-d Bless America.

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

Illegally Moving to the Head of the Class

Illegally Moving to the Head of the Class

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

November 22, 2002

While the INS continues to demonstrate its incompetence, it is also being aided and abetted by members of academia. A report last week has provoked added frustration already being felt with regard to the illegal immigration epidemic plaguing this great nation heading down the slippery slope toward third-worldism.

Academia, historically marching in lock step with liberalism, has become a virtual safe haven for illegals to hide behind, as many plot to wreak havoc on the same country protecting their ability to garner an education – and at discounted rates to boot.

But before tackling that issue, let’s not forget the growing numbers of foreigners in the U.S. legally, possessing student visas under the guise of getting an education, only to disappear – never setting foot one on a college campus – in order to commit heinous acts against the country that granted them legal entry in the first place.

The spigot allowing for the free flow of student visa applications to be approved must be turned off. Not permanently, but at least until the authorities have a secure handle on who is coming, from where and a system to ensure that these students are actually attending classes. There should be government representatives who travel from campus to campus to meet with these students on a periodic basis, say, twice a semester. There should also be an absolute moratorium regarding the approval of any student visa application from any nation on the “axis of evil” or potential terrorist list as determined by the federal government. There should also be a moratorium denying admission to student applicants from countries supporting the enemies of the United States. There has to be a price to pay.

Returning to the issue at hand, how academia’s protection of illegal immigrants is harmful to the United States. First and foremost, any person on U.S. soil illegally, has broken the law. Period. It’s as simple as that. That point established, if a college or university is able to determine that certain applicants or students are illegal immigrants, by granting admission to said students or allowing such students to register for classes is an act of aiding and abetting the illegal immigrant. These people need to be returned to their country of origin. If they wish to study in an American college or university, they can apply, through legal channels.

The Washington Post, however, indicated that “there is no specific federal prohibition against colleges and universities enrolling illegal immigrants.” That is mind boggling. As mind boggling as professional sports leagues having drug policies that merely punish its athletes for the possession or use of illegal substances when non athletes are subject to prosecution and potential jail time. (Don’t misunderstand – the sports leagues are wrong and the drug laws in this country are not strict enough.)

Obviously there needs to be a federal prohibition denying entrance to illegal immigrants to the nation’s colleges and universities. And for that matter, to all schools at all levels. After all, these people are here illegally. They do not deserve the rewards of occupying a chair in a classroom that could be used by an American citizen or legal non-citizen. Nor do they deserve the rewards of free or reduced-priced breakfast or lunch provided at taxpayers’ expense – taxes paid by those people in this country legally.

Amazingly, there is a growing number of lawmakers who oppose denying illegal immigrants the benefits of health care and higher education, suggesting that to deny those benefits would threaten the “safety and economic well being of the communities in which they live.” Again, and this can’t be said strenuously enough, these people immigrated to the United States illegally. They have broken the law. Why are they being rewarded?

These people need to be returned to their home countries. In anticipation of the response expected from many liberals and even some conservatives, this is in no way comparable to Nazi Germany’s mass deportations of Jewish citizens. That’s the key – they were citizens. And those Jewish citizens of Germany subsequently faced firing squads and gas chambers at the hands of Germans (Nazis), not the hands of the nationals from the countries the Jews were deported to. Granted, there were myriad conspirators from the receiving countries as well. Clear thinking Americans do not support the vanquishing of illegal immigrants, just that they are returned to their home countries. And there’s the rub – not the anticipation of the expected response from liberals, but that coming from some conservatives.

Such an example comes from Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), typically a good conservative. He is not only not pushing to deny admission and registration to illegal immigrant students, but he is encouraging – via bill introduction – states to make it possible for these illegals to get a tuition discount and pay in-state rates. Within the past two years, California, New York and Texas have made that suggestion a reality; and it is being considered in Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina and Utah. Understandable in such liberal bastions as California, New York, Maryland, Massachusetts and Minnesota, but the more conservative North Carolina and Utah – it makes no sense.

The whole concept in the first place makes no sense. By granting approval to such an outlandish suggestion in-state citizens will lose seats at colleges and universities. After all, state colleges and universities make more money granting admission to out of state students who must pay higher tuition. Parents of students should not vote for legislators who support such ill-conceived legislation. Such legislation only encourages continued illegal immigration – already out of control, with roughly 13 million illegals in the United States.

Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO) suffered sharp criticism at the hands of Republicans and Democrats alike for recently attempting to deport an illegal immigrant family after a college-age son announced that the family is in the United States illegally, but wanted reduced in-state tuition rates. He announced that he and his family are lawbreakers and then wants to be rewarded for the effort. Tancredo did the absolute right thing.

For those disagreeing, where does one draw the line? The whole world can not live in the United States. Some people need to stay in their home countries and attempt to right the wrongs there. This is not the second half of the 19^th Century. Back then, people immigrated, for the most part, legally, with hopes of financial betterment and religious freedom. They learned English and didn’t have social programs to rely upon. They pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps or by the bootstraps of family members who typically helped them first, by providing a place to live and oftentimes help in finding work.

The world has changed dramatically – mostly for the better. The world has also gotten smaller via technology – partly for the better, such as communications; partly for the worse, such as the ability to destroy the world faster. (Again, don’t misunderstand – a strong defense is vital to this nation’s security and prosperity.)

Aside from Tancredo, another voice of sanity is that of Virginia Attorney General Jerry Kilgore. He has called for the colleges and universities within the Commonwealth of Virginia to report to federal authorities illegal immigrants attending those schools. Removal of these illegal students would create spots for U.S. citizens or those non-citizen students here legally.

Apart from Tancredo and Kilgore, it could be that political leaders are too concerned with garnering the votes from ethnic groups. Or perhaps they are out of touch with the desires of the voters. Look at the states considering in-state tuition for illegal immigrants, and look at who the citizens voted for on November 5. Maryland elected Bob Ehrlich governor – the state’s first GOP governor since Spiro Agnew in the ‘60s. Voters in Massachusetts elected Mitt Romney governor, a Republican in a state that has no Republican Congressmen. Minnesota and North Carolina citizens elected Republicans Norm Coleman and Elizabeth Dole respectively to the United States Senate. Perhaps the voters are sending a message that they want more conservative leadership.

Voters around the nation should contact their state legislators and federally elected officials and tell them how they feel about allowing illegal immigrants to sponge off the American taxpayers. Do not reward their lawbreaking with healthcare, free or reduced breakfast and lunch and seats in American classrooms that should be reserved for American citizens and those legal immigrants who stood in line, waited their turn and followed the law.

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