Thursday, September 7, 2017

NFL's Priorities Stand for Hypocrisy

NFL’s Priorities Stand for Hypocrisy
Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
September 7, 2017

While the Cleveland Browns are the most recent National Football League franchise to make a mockery of the Star Spangled Banner, they are actually doing so with the blessing of the league itself. Another NFL season kicks off this weekend, as flags will be raised and unfurled throughout 16 stadiums, yet there will be a lack of uniformity as the league remains silent on those players demonstrating disdain and disrespect toward the American flag and all it represents.

The NFL, in its current spate of political correctness, is quick to fine players for excessive celebration for anything from a sack to a dance in the endzone following a touchdown. And although it seems perfectly acceptable to blaspheme the National Anthem under the guise of free expression, different socks and/or messages on their shoes are flagged for punishment.

The NFL is demonstrating sheer hypocrisy by not demanding all players stand for the National Anthem. After all, fans in the stands are required to do so, hearing this or a similar announcement: “Ladies and gentlemen, please rise, and gentlemen please remove your caps as so-and-so performs/sings our National Anthem.” If it is mandatory for paying customers to stand, why are the players treated any differently? Who are they to receive a special dispensation from standing for the National Anthem.

About a dozen Cleveland Browns players took a knee during their home preseason game on Monday,  August 21 versus the New York Giants. Additionally, Seattle Seahawks defensive lineman Michael Bennett sat during the National Anthem on Sunday, August 13. And while head coach Pete Carroll said “we should all stand for the anthem,” there were no repercussions against Bennett.

It was just as wrong for former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick to take a knee last season, as Hall of Famer Jim Brown said he thought it disrespectful and that players like Kaepernick are desecrating the flag. Now, as opening day approaches, and Kaepernick is still unemployed, there are players and a so-called sports writer Skip Bayless who are attempting to bully the league into hiring Kaepernick on racial discrimination grounds. That suggestion is a load of crap. Regardless of his race, Kaepernick has been a distraction and for those in the overwhelming majority, fans simply don’t wish to support a team with a malcontent on its roster.

Taken one step farther, the unions representing the Cleveland police officers and paramedics have announced they will defer from holding a large, roughly field-sized American flag during the pregame ceremonies prior to the Browns season-opener against the Pittsburgh Steelers on Sunday, September 10.

“I am not going to participate, or work with management, that allows their players to disrespect the flag and the National Anthem,” said Steve Loomis, president of the Cleveland Police Patrolman’s Association, and a veteran of the United States Navy. Loomis expressed shock upon learning that Browns management knew there would be players refusing to stand for the anthem, but did nothing to prevent their actions.

The Browns issued a contradictory statement at halftime of the their game versus the Giants. The Browns organization has a “profound respect for the National Anthem, the U.S. flag and those who serve in the military. We feel it’s important for our team to join in this great tradition and special moment of recognition, at the same time we also respect the great liberties afforded by our country, including the freedom of personal expression.” Pure hypocrisy.

So the NFL endorses personal expression when it pertains to something as important as respecting the American flag and the National Anthem, yet rigidly enforces uniform rules regarding socks and shoes. The entire issue is a uniform issue, as in uni = one, one form, as in everyone wearing or doing the same thing - standing for the anthem. Once again, pure hypocrisy.

The NFL and its 32 franchises can enforce a rule requiring its employees, the players, to stand during the National Anthem. If a player wishes to offer personal expression, he should feel welcome to do so on his personal time. Once that player punches the clock, similar to an employee of any other business, they are required to follow the rules as established by their employer, provided they do not require lawbreaking or putting themselves in harm's way. A restaurant employee should not offer personal opinions on issues of the day while serving food to patrons, but once the shift has ended, he or she should be able to express his or her opinion at will. To do so on the clock could prove deleterious to the employer - losing patrons and ultimately income because of a wrong place, wrong time situation. Teams could suffer similar losses when jersey and other merchandise sales slump due to fans speaking with their wallets - refusing to purchase such items representing teams with players disrespecting the flag and ultimately the nation.

Players disobeying the rules should be fined up to the amount of one game’s salary. If players do not like the rules, they are free to find employment elsewhere. The NFL would no doubt disapprove of such enforcement for fear of being called racist when this is not a race issue, but instead, an issue of respect and uniformity. As a business, the NFL is gutless - lacking the intestinal fortitude to do what is right in the eyes of the millions of patriotic Americans, those who wore and continue to wear the uniform, as well as those men and women in blue on the front lines in the cities, towns, villages, and hamlets across this great nation.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and educator living in Westfield, IN. He is a longtime fan of the New York Giants and New York Jets.

Friday, August 18, 2017

Following Robert E. Lee's Prophecy

Following Robert E. Lee’s Prophecy
Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
August 18, 2017


Virginia Nazis. I hate Virginia Nazis!


With appreciation to Dan Ackroyd and the late John Belushi, the reprehensible activities of Saturday August 12 at Emancipation Park were vividly reminiscent of the scene in The Blues Brothers where the pair drove their car through a crowd of marching neo-Nazis sending them flying into a creek to the cheers of the protesting crowd.


With apologies to the memory of Heather Heyer, 32, of Virginia, there was nothing remotely amusing about the horrific events of Saturday August 12 in Charlottesville, VA leading to the death of this innocent American woman. Heyer worked as a paralegal for the Miller Law Group in Charlottesville. May her memory be for a Blessing.


The events of August 12, indelibly seared into the consciousness of the nation, have spawned thoughts heading in different, if not divergent, directions. What led to the breakdown of civilized behavior in Charlottesville? How did President Trump respond? How the media unnecessarily turned Trump’s words into the story. The follow up behavior in Durham, NC and Washington, DC that have opened up centuries old wounds that demand addressing. That the United States is still a nation of law and order.


Amazingly, and according to FOX News, the latest cover photo on Heyer’s Facebook page read, “If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”


Victim and perpetrator could not be more different according to those who knew and know them. Often brought to tears over the suffering of others - including strangers, according to those who worked with Heyer, she would take to social media to express her outrage. Learning about the protest organized  by white supremacists regarding the removal of the Robert E. Lee statue, Heyer, a longtime Charlottesville resident, joined the counter-protest.


On the other hand, there is James Alex Fields, Jr, 20, accused of intentionally slamming his car through the throng, killing Heyer and injuring nearly an additional two dozen counter-protesters. According to former high school teachers, Fields was obsessed with Hitler and the Nazis. “Once you talked to James for a while, you would start to see that sympathy toward Nazism, that idolization of Hitler, that belief in white supremacy,” said Derek Weimer, Fields’ high school history teacher, according to the Associated Press. Two years ago, Fields flunked out of basic training in the United States Army and has even been accused of beating his own mother on more than one occasion.


Held sans bail, Fields faces one count of second degree murder and numerous counts of malicious wounding on what should have been a day of peaceful assemblage and non-violent protesting.


The day’s activity, a “Unite the Right” rally centered around the planned removal of a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee (January 19, 1807 - October 12, 1870), a lifelong Virginian, who graduated second in his class in 1829 from the United States Military Academy at West Point. It was during the Mexican-American War (April 1846 - February 1848) that Lee met and worked with Ulysses S. Grant, the future Commanding General of the Union forces. For three years, 1852-1854, Lee served as Superintendent of West Point. On the eve of the War Between the States, although offered a high ranking commission with the Union Army, Lee remained loyal to his home Commonwealth of Virginia and joined the Confederacy.


The removal of the statue (still standing as of August 18) of Lee brought out roughly 1,000 protesters, with permits to march and assemble, encompassing white supremacists, KKK members, neo-Nazis, and a plethora of garden variety racists. If only they knew their American history. While these imbeciles had every right to march and protest the removal of the Lee statue, they lacked the knowledge of how Lee himself felt about such ostentatious showings.


In fact, based upon his own writings, Lee “was not a fan of statues honoring Civil War generals, fearing they might ‘keep open the sores of war,’” according to CNN.


“It’s often forgotten that Lee himself, after the Civil War, opposed monuments, specifically Confederate war monuments,” said a Lee biographer Jonathan Horn (no relation, as far as I know).


While Fields is currently the only suspect in custody, a wide net is being cast in determining who else participated in the violence that left one dead and nearly two dozen injured.


Outnumbering the white supremacists, et al, was a group of counter-protesters, lacking a permit to march, but doing so peacefully - for the most part. On the other hand, a third group calling themselves the Antifa - a far left, so-called anti-fascist organization using radical, violent, and militant tactics, engaged with the neo-Nazis, et al, leading to the outbreak of a scene befitting downtown Beirut or a European house of parliament.


“The Department of Justice has opened a civil rights investigation into the deadly car attack that killed one innocent American. Anyone who acted criminally in this weekend’s racist violence, you will be held fully accountable,” said President Donald Trump. The investigation includes potential charges of domestic terrorism - which should be a no-brainer.


“What we saw when that young man drove the car in a crowd of people - that was domestic terrorism. That was grotesque. I’m glad the Department of Justice answered my call and the calls of many others to investigate that, and I believe to prosecute it as domestic terrorism because nobody has a right to inflict their hateful views through violence and murder on us,” said Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX).


“This was an act of evil that will not be tolerated in the United States,” said Attorney General Jeff Sessions.


“What happened in Charlottesville was a tragedy. It did not represent that community, and it didn’t represent the United States. Dangerous fringe groups have no place in America, and we condemn them,” said Vice President Mike Pence. “We will not tolerate hatred and violence of groups like white supremacists, the KKK, and neo-Nazis. These extremist groups have no place in the American debate,” Pence added.


Practically overshadowing the heinous actions in Charlottesville has been the focus on the words of President Trump. Not always the most crafty of wordsmiths, Trump’s words were all over the political landscape, although this most certainly is not a political issue, but in fact, a human issue. After all, politics and humanity don’t often mesh.


Misguided as they might have been on the surface, Trump preferred to be the anti-Obama regarding making snap statements, parts or all of which would later need be detracted. And Trump even had one of those such comments when he said, “there were people who were very fine on both sides.” Clearly there was no such animal on the side of the white supremacists, neo-Nazis, and KKK, and Trump erred vociferously in saying as much. Especially when such thugs were seen carrying tiki torches. What - no pitchforks?


However, while there is no moral equivalence, Trump was correct when he said “I think there’s blame on both sides.” People showing up to a supposedly peaceful march, protest, or rally clad in armor or military regalia are clearly not there to abide by the First Amendment, but instead looking for a physical confrontation. Both the white supremacists and their ilk as well as the Antifa prepared for battle - and that is simply unacceptable. Unfortunately, caught in the middle were those counter-protesters whose purpose was peaceful objection to the march of the white supremacists, and the even more unfortunate Heather Heyer.


“I wanted to make sure that what I said was correct,” said Trump regarding his initial remarks. “Racism is evil and those who cause violence in its name are animals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans. Those who spread violence in the name of bigotry strike at the very core of America. In times such as these America has always shown its true character responding to hate with love, division with unity, and violence with an unwavering resolve for justice,” said Trump in a strong, presidential speech on Monday, August 14.


Not to be forgotten, are the two Virginia police officers whose chopper crashed near the Charlottesville rally site as they were monitoring the violent demonstration from above. Killed were Lt. H. Jay Cullen, Jr., 48, leaving a wife and two sons; and Trooper-Pilot Berke M.M. Bates, one day shy of his 41st birthday, leaving a wife and one daughter.


“Deepest condolences to the families and fellow officers of the Virginia State Police who died today. You’re all among the best this nation produces,” tweeted Trump.


However, Trump then swung the verbal pendulum from the presidential to the hyperbolic, when addressing the removal of the statue of General Lee. “This week it’s Robert E. Lee. I noticed that Stonewall Jackson is coming down. I wonder, is it George Washington next week? And is it Thomas Jefferson the week after? You really do have to ask yourself, where does it stop?” Trump asked hyperbolically, surely knowing the difference between the Founding Fathers who lived within the context of their time versus the Confederate generals and soldiers fighting for a cause that divided a nation.


Regardless of Trump’s words, they would either not be strong enough, or they would be too strong, for those who oppose him - he has, as has been the case since his inauguration, been in a no-win situation with both his opposition as well as the media, who, once again, attempted to inject themselves in the story.


As has oft been the case in increasing fashion since Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein uncovered the Watergate scandal in the 1970s, the so-called mainstream media, in its zeal to become the next Woodward or Bernstein ingratiates itself into a supposed hard news story offering personal commentary where it is professionally unwelcome. If a news reporter wishes to opine, become an editorial writer. This attitude displayed itself following the destruction of a confederate soldier statue in Durham, NC.


Takiya Thompson, 22, a student at North Carolina Central University, scaled a statue of a Confederate soldier via a ladder, wrapped a strap around and felled the monument to the delight and cheers of an approving crowd, ultimately finding herself arrested - and rightfully so.


That members of the media applauded the lawbreaking, vandalism, and desecration demonstrates their inability to objectively perform their duties or reporting the news in as unbiased a fashion as possible. The same is true when covering President Trump - it is not their place to either criticize or capitulate with Trump, or any political figure they may be covering for their news outlet.


But insofar as Thompson goes, her arrest is exactly what needed to happen. The destruction of property, public or private is unacceptable in a society of law and order. There is an appropriate manner in which to express displeasure and disgust with a statue or monument one finds offensive. Petition the state government, get press coverage, and force the issue in the public forum.


“That statue glorifies the conditions that oppressed people live in, and it had to go,” said Thompson of her vigilante actions. From a legal standpoint, Thompson, and any others who are identified by the ample video footage, should be charged, convicted, and made to serve jail time and make financial restitution for their actions - the law is still the law, in spite of a comment made by a member of Durham’s law enforcement community.


“Ground rules need to be set,” said Durham County Sheriff Mike Andrews following the destruction of the Durham statue. Ground rules? Hey, sheriff, how about obeying the law! How about informing the miscreants who destroy public property that there are other ways to accomplish the goal of statue removal. Remember, this is not a race issue, this is a law and order issue.


While I absolutely disagree with Thompson’s methods (criminal) and message (the statue cannot oppress anyone), the use of the word glorify is poignant. Since when does the United States glorify the losing side of a war, i.e. the Confederacy? While the Confederate troops were repatriated and granted veteran status, there are many who view them as traitors against the Stars and Stripes and should not be honored. Forgotten? No; but not honored. See below on education.


As of Wednesday, August 16, three additional people, as well as Thompson, face charges “of two felonies relating to inciting and participating in a riot that damaged property,” according to FOX News. The three are Peter Gilbert, 39, Dante Strobino, 35, and Ngoc Loan Tran, 24. All four should receive as stringent a penalty as possible. A message must be sent that wanton and malicious destruction of property is still illegal - whether a Confederate statue, the Lincoln Memorial, or any monument not belonging to the criminal destroying it.


Graffiti, in the form of the words “f*ck law” in red paint were emblazoned onto the Lincoln Memorial on Tuesday. These actions are simply unacceptable in decent, civilized society, unless ours going the way of the Nazis, Taliban, and ISIS - first the statues, then the burning of books, then the destruction of schools and houses of worship, finalized by the slaughter of those with whom we disagree. They can tear down statues, but they can not erase or whitewash the history - a history that must be taught in order to learn from the egregious mistakes of the past, and celebrate the victories that make the United States the greatest country on G-d’s earth - in spite of her occasional failings.


On the other hand, from an emotional standpoint, I understand the salt in the wounds created by such a statue. I would no more want to see an SS/Nazi soldier glorified in stone or bronze in a public square or courthouse grounds than those emotionally affected by the Confederate statue.


There is a right way and a wrong way in handling these matters. Clearly the wrong way has been evidenced for far too long. If only the perpetrators of such acts knew their United States Constitution. Hate speech is protected by the First Amendment, violence and the incitement thereof is not protected. This is true for those who brought down the Confederate soldier in Durham, as well as the white supremacists, neo-Nazis, and Antifa in Charlottesville.


Charlottesville may take down the statue of Robert E. Lee. Since the uprising in the home of Jefferson’s University of Virginia, Gainesville and Jacksonville, FL, Lexington and Louisville, KY, Nashville, TN, and Baltimore, MD are also taking similar steps to remove Confederate statues. In fact, as per a city council edict, a city council that is 100 percent Democrat, and has been since 1939, Baltimore removed four statues in the dead of night earlier in the week, supported by Republican Governor Larry Hogan. (Baltimore is a master of overnight removals - just ask Colts football fans.) This is not a political issue.


Gather the statues, the monuments, the memorials and relocate them to museums throughout the South. This includes removing the statues of Robert E. Lee, Confederate President Jefferson Davis (June 3, 1808 - December 6, 1889) and the 10 other Confederates from the National Statuary Hall Collection in the Capitol Building. Each state of the former Confederacy should enlist its Sons and Daughters of the Confederacy to raise the funds for such museums, thus no government money would be expended and only those wishing to contribute would do so. Far left censorship is not the answer. Violence from anyone is also not the answer.


History is just that - the story of man, and it must be told. Never eviscerate history from the records - the good, the bad, and the ugly must never be swept into the dustbin of anonymity. To suggest otherwise would dub me a hypocrite as a longtime teacher of American history and government.


Ironically, Robert E. Lee even supported the removal of the Confederate flag in the post-war era - even from flying over Washington College in Lexington, VA where he was president from 1865 until his death in 1870. Shortly after his death, the trustees added Lee’s name to the school, which today is Washington and Lee University. Lee did not want divisive symbols following him to the grave, nor was he buried in his uniform. Lee was worried that “keeping those symbols alive, would keep the divisions alive,” wrote Horn in his Lee biography.


Today, 152 years following the Civil War’s bloody conclusion, sadly, Lee’s prophecy continues to ring true. Time to heed and honor the vanquished general’s wishes.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and educator living in Westfield, IN. He lived in Virginia for a dozen years.

Thursday, August 10, 2017

Illegals Continue Reign of Terror

Illegals Continue Reign of Terror
Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
August 10, 2017

As far as legal residents and citizens are concerned, sanctuary cities are absolutely no safe haven. Protection for illegal aliens - and that is what those people who enter the United States without permission are - continues to take precedence over the safety and security of those taxpayers for whom law enforcement is expected to protect and defend.

Shocking proof of the egregious and callous manner in which legal residents and citizens are being treated by those whom were elected to serve those taxpayers is on full display in, but not limited to, Chicago, San Francisco, Multnomah County, OR, and Burien, WA.

In the Windy City, appropriately nicknamed for the blustery bloviations spewing out of the gaping hole in Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s mouth, while black on black gun homicides continue to escalate to epic proportions rendering an entire city unsafe, Emanuel promises safety for the illegals amongst them.

Calling for the local police force to turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to federal laws, thus ensuring a safe haven for illegals in Chicago, Emanuel is risking the forfeiture of federal grant funding. President Donald Trump has made it part of his administration’s goals, in attempting to curb illegal immigration, to remind localities that federal law supersedes that of state and local law. Failure to abide by such should cost those towns and cities their federal dollars.

If this is the battle Emanuel wants to ride up the mountain to fight, the voters should, and must, hold him responsible, which will never happen in such a Democratic stronghold. He knows his job is reasonably secure, and is putting principle above protecting those who deserve if first and foremost - the legal residents and citizens of Second City. But Emanuel stubbornly avers that his city won’t be blackmailed.

“We will never relinquish our status as a welcoming city,” Emanuel said, clearly meaning sanctuary city.

In fact, Emanuel won’t even require Chicago law enforcement to notify ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) 48 hours prior to releasing an illegal alien from custody, telling them it is not their job to do the bidding of that federal agency.

Perhaps Emanuel might change his tune if instead of the federal grant money Chicago would normally receive, federal uniformed and armed agents march through Chicago doing their job, sans Chicago cooperation - rounding up illegal aliens and those suspected as illegal aliens. In the meantime, Chicago law enforcement can continue to do an oh, so excellent job of curtailing the epidemic homicide rates.

While Emanuel continues his Don Quixote impersonation, the City of San Francisco is in the process of stealing taxpayer dollars to give to an undeserving miscreant for violating its own policy toward illegal aliens. Hoisted by its own petard, San Francisco fell prey to a lawsuit from Pedro Figueroa-Zarceno, 33, an illegal alien from El Salvador, who was turned over to ICE agents by San Francisco police in violation of city policy. In an unconscionable decision, a settlement agreement reached by the City Attorney’s Office, forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for approval with a blessing and dollar amount from the Government Audit and Oversight Committee, agreed to dole out $190,000 to Figueroa-Zarceno.

Taxpayers ought to be outraged. This after all, is the same city where Kate Steinle was murdered in 2015 by a repeat offender illegal alien at Pier 14, and the city continues its heinous policy of protecting illegal aliens at the risk of the safety of legal residents and citizens. “This is a shameful waste of taxpayer dollars,” said Jason Clark, Chairman of the San Francisco GOP.

Further up the coast in Multnomah County, OR, Sergio Jose Martinez, 31, an illegal alien from Mexico, has been harbored in Portland. The habitual recidivist, who belongs in a Mexican prison, has been deported and has returned 20 times, most recently last November, only to return again to continue his reign of terror. In addition to his crimes of illegally entering the United States 20 times, his lengthy criminal record includes, but is not limited to, sexual assault at knifepoint, robbery, burglary, kidnapping, and sodomy. Martinez also admitted to drug use - specifically heroin and meth.

Local authorities released Martinez from their custody sans ICE notification offering up the following weak explanation. “Oregon law prohibits public agencies from spending money, using equipment, or enlisting personnel to enforce federal immigration law,” thus making Oregon a de facto sanctuary state.

Contradicting that statement, Lt. Chad Gaidos of the Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office wrote, “MCSO is committed to ensuring we comply with all federal and state laws that govern local public safety agencies with regard to enforcement of immigration policies.” Seems the county can’t get their act together, much to the detriment of the citizens of Multnomah County and probably beyond.

Martinez appeared in court again, on July 26, where he pleaded not guilty to assaulting two more women. These women would not have been prey for Martinez had local law enforcement cooperated with federal agents. But Multnomah County Sheriff Mike Reese said, we are “not responsible for enforcing federal immigration. The Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office does not hold persons in jail based upon their immigration status.”

This brand of impudence should cost Portland and Multnomah County federal grant money for their lack of cooperation with the federal agencies attempting to keep illegal aliens from their continued invasion of the United States.

Perhaps there might be a ray of sunshine in Burien, WA, a suburban community in King County south of Seattle. However, this ray of sunshine has come too late for the victim of Salvador Diaz-Garcia, a 23-year-old illegal alien, in the United States since 2013 as a “dreamer,” under DACA (Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals). An 18-year-old should not be considered a “child” under DACA. On the other hand, DACA should not even exist in the first place. This so-called “dreamer” has caused nothing but nightmares for his victims, their families, and their communities.

Surveillance tape and witnesses caught Diaz-Garcia spying on his future victim, on June 25, through a window in the workout facility of her residential community. Shortly thereafter he followed the 19-year-old home, attacking her, leaving her with a bloody head, missing teeth, a torn and dangling ear, numerous cuts to the head, a cut upper lip, broken orbital bone, broken jaw, broken nose, and rendering her unable to speak. A rape kit discovered male DNA.

Although a sanctuary city law passed muster via the city council in January, a growing citizens group has garnered enough signatures for a ballot referendum in November against the sanctuary city status. Such a referendum would be the first of its kind in the United States. Sadly it took a brutal, life-altering rape and attack to open the eyes of people who thought it acceptable to continue harboring illegal aliens. And to those who would defend illegals as a group by suggesting not all illegals are criminals, think again. The very act of entering the United States without proper authority is in itself a crime. Impeding all illegal aliens from entering this country, or at the very least, remanding those who do cross the border to their country of origin would prevent their crimes from having been committed from the outset.

Yet, in spite of the heinousness of the attack this victim endured, at least three members of the seven member Burien City Council desire the ordinance to remain in effect. One such councilor, Austin Bell, demonstrated how obtuse he is by suggesting illegal aliens are akin to citizens. It is “important for every citizen to be able to come forward and feel safe here; that is in all of our interests and is the morally right thing to do,” said Bell.

By saying “every citizen,” while defending rights illegal aliens do not, nor should not, have, Bell is equating illegal aliens with legal residents and citizens. And while not all illegal aliens are Hispanic, and not all Hispanics are illegal aliens, the Hispanic population of Burien is 24 percent and growing rapidly. Burien’s population surpassed 50,000 following an annexation occurring after the 2010 census. (http://www.burienwa.gov)

An increasing number of Burien citizens say the sanctuary city policy sends the wrong message making people actually feel less safe, including Debi Wagner, a member of the Burien City Council. “We want everyone here to be happy and safe. How can we guarantee that if we don’t know anything about people living in our midst,” said Wagner.

And in fact, there is more to know about Diaz-Garcia. In January of this year, his dreamer status was renewed. It has since been revoked as he is being held with bail set at $350,000. Additionally, Diaz-Garcia faces child molestation charges for the assault on a 14-year-old girl the same day of his supposed brutal attack on the 19-year-old.

Let these real life stories be the cautionary tales that are necessary to wake people up to the dangers of the illegal alien epidemic that goes largely ignored until it is too late. Enforcing the laws currently in existence, and stronger border security - both north and south, should be a minimum starting point. Denying any benefits to illegal aliens such as medical care, hospitalization, drivers licences, food stamps, jobs - including punishing the employers who hire them, placement in schools - from elementary through college, and welfare should make life more difficult for those who have no legal right to be in the United States and should lead to some measure of self-deportation.

America is for Americans and those seeking to make America a better place. It is a beacon of freedom, strength, refuge, and salvation for those willing to play by the rules, become part of the fabric of what America has meant and stood for lo these past two and a half centuries and hopefully for millennia to come.

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

Monday, July 3, 2017

UK Sentences Baby to Death

UK Sentences Baby to Death
Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
July 3, 2017

Beware living under the auspices of government-controlled healthcare and medical care. Let the following cautionary tale be your guide, and may the United States government never follow in their linguistic ancestors’ footsteps.

The case in question involves 11-month-old infant Charlie Gard, born in August 2016 and saddled with infantile-onset encephalomyopathy mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome - a rare genetic disorder, according to The Wall Street Journal.

While debates over so-called death panels have mostly been hypothetical or theoretical here in the United States as a part of the failed Obamacare, for British subjects they are all too real, as baby Charlie’s parents are experiencing. Connie Yates, 31, and Chris Gard, 32, Charlie’s parents, are fighting the government’s decision to ultimately cease life support.

Although parents are charged with making medical treatment decisions for their children in Great Britain, so long as “choices don’t contravene a child’s best interests,” the British Supreme Court ruled in favor of the doctors seeking permission to terminate treatment. What happened to the Hippocratic Oath? First do no harm?

The British Supreme Court said in their June ruling that “prolonging Charlie’s life would be not in his best interests.” Charlie has brain damage; he is not brain dead. Adding insult to injury, the parents have been denied the right to bring Charlie to the United States for an experimental therapy - a therapy, that heretofore, has been tested on neither people nor animals in Charlie’s circumstance, according to The Journal. If doctors are willing to let Charlie die, attempting this therapy costs the child nothing.

Remember, it is the parents fighting to keep their child alive, not the government. Why should the government have the power of life and death when parents have the right to make such decisions? Additionally, why should the government sign Charlie’s death warrant when his parents have managed to raise $1.7 million as of last Friday, June 30 via social media. Both President Donald Trump and Pope Francis have weighed in supporting Charlie and his parents’ right to keep him alive and receive the potentially life saving treatment in the United States.

“If we can help little #CharlieGard, as per our friends in the U.K. and the Pope, we would be delighted to do so,” tweeted President Trump.

G-d forbid Trump should offer legitimate assistance to a child in need - where he has nothing to gain - but yet is chided by NBC reporter Matt Bradly for attempting to garner political points out of the suffering of that child.

The British government, in its infinite cruelty, even thwarted Connie Yates and Chris Gard’s right to take Charlie home to die with dignity. They asked the European Court of Human Rights to overturn the British Supreme Court’s ruling, but it denied the request, in spite of the “sensitive moral and ethical issues,” this case is raising. The British Supreme Court is no better than the abortionists’ savage butchery of the unborn at Planned Parenthood.

Charlie Gard, and others like him, are precisely the reasons the United States should not move toward government-run healthcare, as Obamacare dictated - dictating that the American people should be forced to purchase a product it may not want; dictating the places where the American people could actually receive medical care, and how its failings are hurting the American people. We the people should not have the government imposing its will on the populous. Medical decisions must be determined between doctor and patient, not some nameless, faceless death panel, as has been feared.

Far be it for the United States, in spite of Trump’s support of Charlie and his parents, to intervene with the sovereignty of another nation, but where is the humanity? There is a complete loss of humanity in this case and no doubt countless others lacking the notoriety of Charlie Gard. This is not North Korea.

This is Great Britain - a presumably civilized nation seeking to euthanize an 11-month-old infant when a potentially life saving treatment could be available. This smacks of Nazism - to simply sentence this child to death unemotionally and seemingly with no care for the parents and their suffering. Remember, Germany in the 1930s also relished its place amongst civilized society, and yet it perpetrated one of the greatest crimes against humanity. This is not, nor should it be made into, a political issue; it is bigger than that, as it is about the life of not just one little boy, but all future patients who may be denied life, liberty, and happiness by the non-medical, political apparatchik. Something to keep in mind as we the American people celebrate the 241st birthday of the United States on our independence from Great Britain.


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

Monday, June 19, 2017

Censorship 101 - Crimson Style

“I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” -- Evelyn Beatrice Hall, British writer (1868-1956)

Censorship 101 - Crimson Style
Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
June 19, 2017

Hate speech, provided it does not incite violence, is still free speech, except at Harvard University. At Harvard, free speech and expression is costly - to the tune of about a dozen rising freshmen being told their First Amendment rights end at the front gates of the ivory towers of the Cambridge, MA campus, as their acceptances were rescinded.

Apparently the First Amendment does not include social media postings that were determined to be offensive by a faceless, nameless committee that Harvard won’t divulge. On what has been called a “private Facebook page,” according to the Wall Street Journal, this particular group of students, posted sexually explicit messages, along with others mocking the Holocaust, joking about pedaphilia, and child abuse.

There is no question that the posts were vile, distasteful, unsavory, and repugnant; yet, no laws were violated. These students, heretofore previously on their way to matriculate at Harvard this fall, find themselves on the outside looking in, whose potential notoriety could prevent them from landing at any campus, should fight the rescinding of their acceptances.

This is a classic example of the slippery slope so bone chilling, it makes George Orwell’s 1984, look like Dr. Seuss. This is precisely why the United States has a First Amendment - protecting the right to speak one’s mind. It’s still not against the law to say/post offensive comments, and while Harvard also has the right to deny admission to any applicant it chooses, to do so because of opinions with which a committee does not agree, is disturbing.

Brilliant jurist Alan Dershowitz, who has a 53 year relationship with Harvard, and said as a private institution, Harvard is not “technically bound by the First Amendment.” He then quickly added that the rescinding of acceptances is “over-punishment and Draconian…. Harvard has committed itself to following the First Amendment and I think this violates the spirit, if not the letter of the First Amendment.”

How many students on campus, be it Harvard or anywhere else, think the same thoughts that were posted on this private Facebook page? (Although how a Facebook page is private in and of itself is flummoxing.) Perhaps the admissions committee did not vet these applicants carefully enough; but that’s on Harvard, not the students.

What will be the next set of opinions to keep people from the hallowed ivy of Harvard? Perhaps the committee will deny admission to those making disparaging remarks about Boston or the Kennedy family. And, this isn’t even about denying admission, it’s about rescinding admission from students already deemed “acceptable” for Harvard.

One cannot shield oneself from hurtful, offensive, or even viscerally disturbing images and words unless shuttered within their homes sans print, audio, visual media and even music lyrics. Nor does one have the right not to be offended.

The school claims it denies admission based upon honesty, maturity, and moral character. Wow - talk about a broad based set of criteria; and criteria decided upon by whom? The students in question were certainly honest in their despicable postings.

As for maturity, who defines maturity? Is maturity based upon whether or not the young students agree with the opinions of the older admissions committee? Does age alone define maturity? Is a 60-year-old automatically more mature than an 18-year-old simply based upon the numbers?

With regard to moral character, who is the arbiter of that definition? What if the admissions committee does not support gay marriage. Should students who do, be denied admission? Or should students who are married to a same-sex partner be denied admission? Is it morally acceptable to be anti-gay, but not anti-Semitic? Is it morally acceptable to oppose pedaphilia but not beastiality? By whose morals is Harvard basing their subjectivity?

In the Supreme Court case Matal v. Tam decided on Monday, June 19, the justices ruled unanimously, 8-0, that trademarks cannot be  banned simply because they are offensive. (Rookie Justice Neil Gorsuch, not on the court when the case was heard, did not participate.)

Banning an offensive trademark “offends a bedrock First Amendment principle: Speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend,” wrote Justice Samuel Alito.

Alito also wrote that restricting “speech expressing ideas that offend… strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express the thought that we hate.”

“A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society,” wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy.

If the likes of Justices Alito, Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg can agree on anything, let alone a pivotal First Amendment case, Harvard University can see its way clear to readmit those students with whom they disagree and open a dialogue where speech is encouraged and treasured, not thwarted and silenced.


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

Saturday, June 17, 2017

Baseball is America; not a Miracle Worker

“The one constant through all the years, Ray, has been baseball. America has rolled by like an army of steamrollers. It has been erased like a blackboard, rebuilt and erased again. But baseball has marked the time. This field, this game: it’s a part of our past, Ray. It reminds of us of all that once was good and it could be again.” - Terence Mann (James Earl Jones) in Field of Dreams (1989)

Baseball is America; not a Miracle Worker
Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
June 17, 2017

Baseball is emblematic of what the United States of America should be. A manager, who earned the right to his position puts the nine best players on the field each day, regardless of background, religion, or ethnicity.

Prior to April 15, 1947 that was certainly not the case, until Jackie Robinson stepped on the field for the Brooklyn Dodgers and broke the color barrier that plagued our national pastime for decades. But baseball righted its own wrong. It was not ordered by the commissioner; nor was it ordered by the federal government.

In fact baseball desegregated itself a year before President Harry Truman ordered the Armed Forces desegregated in 1948.

Baseball is what America should be because it does not acquiesce to a government mandated quota system. Fans don’t care, or at least they shouldn’t care, if a Japanese hurler is pitching to a Dominican catcher, backed up by a Puerto Rican shortstop, a white second baseman, a black first baseman, and throw in a Jewish right fielder for good measure. As long as those are the best players the team has to offer that day. That is what the American workforce should look like - folks legally immigrating to the United States to make it a better country, just as players make a team better and stronger - better able to compete. Competition, after all, is the bellwether of America.

Baseball, however, is not a miracle worker.

Following the tragic shooting during the Republican’s baseball practice on Flag Day, Wednesday, June 14, at Simpson Stadium Park in Alexandria, VA, members of Congress, led by Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-WI) and House  Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), came together for their ubiquitous kumbaya moments.

This was the last practice prior to the annual Congressional Baseball Game, played on Thursday, June 15 at Nationals Park. During the practice, a deranged shooter fired more than 50 shots hitting GOP Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA), Capitol Hill police officers David Bailey and Crystal Griner, as well as Congressional aide Zach Barth, and lobbyist Matt Mika. Fortunately the would-be assassin was killed as police returned fire saving dozens of lives.

The Democrat’s team, practicing at a different field, upon hearing of this vicious attack, were seen huddled in prayer on the steps of one of the dugouts. Hours later, in the House chamber Speaker Ryan said “An attack on one of us, is an attack on all of us,” a sentiment Pelosi echoed in bi-partisan support. Yet, back in Virginia, Governor Terry McAuliffe (D), never missing an opportunity to be an opportunist, bemoaned the need for more strict gun control.

The next night, the pregame and post-game activities took center stage at Nationals Park. Hall of Fame manager Joe Torre, Major League Baseball’s chief baseball officer brought a special guest out to the mound to throw out the ceremonial first pitch. Crutches and all, wounded Capitol Hill police officer David Bailey hobbled to the mound amid a standing ovation from the appreciative crowd. Tossing one crutch aside, Bailey managed to will his pitch reasonably close to home plate where it was received by Roberto Clemente, Jr.

The teams were introduced and lined up across the infield. Also prior to the first pitch the teams met at second base, Scalise’s position, to join in prayer. A video message from President Donald Trump was then played in the stadium. He spoke of the importance of playing the game that night - both in support of our national pastime as well as the charities benefitting from the proceeds of the game. Trump thanked the Capitol police and the Alexandria police for their efforts. “By playing tonight’s game we will not be intimidated by threats or acts of violence and assault… I offer these unifying words - let’s play ball!”

The game itself was anticlimactic as the Democrats took the GOP to the woodshed by a final score of 11-2 in the seven inning affair. Congressman Cedric Richmond (D-LA), an across the aisle friend of fellow Pelican Stater Scalise, tossed a complete game gem - surrendering two runs in the first inning and yielding nothing the rest of the way. In his MVP performance, Richmond also laced three hits, including a triple, and scored three runs.

Following the game, the teams’ two managers met for the presentation of the trophy, where Democrat skipper Mike Doyle (PA) gave it to GOP manager Joe Barton (TX) to be presented to Scalise’s office.

While it would be nice to see the on field gestures carry over to the House and Senate chambers, let’s not hold our breath. Certainly there is room to reduce the rhetoric and attempt to work for the people who sent them there, but then that would put a lot of political consultants and ad copywriters out of work. Hmm - perhaps there is some good that could come out of this horrific event.

While not played every year, the tradition of the Congressional Baseball game dates back to 1909 and the Democrats currently hold a 40-39 lead, with one tie. A record crowd of 24,959 attended the game (outpacing the attendance of half of the 10 MLB games played that same night) where more than $1 million was raised for the following charities: the Boys and Girls Clubs of Greater Washington, the Washington Literacy Center, the Capitol Police Memorial Fund, and the Washington Nationals Dream Foundation.

To contribute to any of the charities visit the following sites:

While the people are generously supporting these charities, let’s hope the elected officials will remember why they were sent to Washington in the first place and work generously to ensure a better America.


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