Get the Helen Out of the White House

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

June 10, 2010

Before the Helen Thomas apologists jump on my mere mention of the name Hitler, I am not comparing the retired anti-Semitic journalist to the Nazi dictator. However, when Michael Freedman, former managing editor for United Press International titles his op-ed “Remember all the good that Helen Thomas did,” (The Washington Post, June 9, 2010) I am reminded that Hitler liked and was nice to dogs.

Freedman referenced Thomas as “the Patron Saint of White House Correspondents – the person most feared by many a president on the eve of a news conference – has uttered hurtful comments about Israel.”

While Freedman is genuflecting before the altar he has constructed for Thomas, and having forgotten his history, I will parse his prior thought. Thomas, far from saintly, simply managed to outlast H.L. Mencken and other anti-Semites in her chosen profession and gained “first chair” in the White House press room. Well, like an aging violinist, her time had long since come and she has not been making beautiful music, if she ever did.

Thomas’ comments about Israel were not “uttered,” as in demurely stated in quiet tones. Instead Thomas shouted from the rooftops her long-held beliefs about Israel and the Jewish people, and in the case of her May 27 loathsome screed, it was in direct answer to a question put forth by Rabbi David Nesenoff, who with his 17-year old son and a friend were clad in their yarmulkes, according to Howard Kurtz of The Washington Post.

I will agree with Freedman that Thomas was “feared by many a president.” Typically, those were the Republican presidents with whom Thomas disagreed and only took to task the Democrats when they did not sway far enough to the left for her comfort. However, once the octogenarian became an editorialist for Hearst, she ceased possessing relevance in the press corps and should have been retired or at least become a back bencher.

For Thomas, her hateful comments that Israeli Jews should “get the hell out of Palestine” and go home to Germany and Poland, which she then repeated adding the United States to locales where the rightful citizens of Israel should reside, were at least consistent with the beliefs of the Lebanese-American. Germany and Poland – ah, yes, the good ole days of concentration camps and genocide brought on by Hitler’s Holocaust of European Jewry.

Thomas wouldn’t even utter the correct geo-political name “Israel” as the land she wishes would empty of its Jewish population. Apparently Thomas would prefer the Jewish people wander the Diaspora for eternity. For all the platitudes showered upon Thomas by her apologists, knowledge of history certainly was not among them.

Freedman also incorrectly suggested that Thomas regretted her anti-Semitic vitriol. “Thomas offered a sincere and meaningful apology,” wrote Freedman, who could not be further from the truth. Thomas did not apologize for what she said. She offered a disingenuous statement that she regretted her comments. Her legacy demonstrates otherwise.

“They do not reflect my heart-felt belief that peace will come to the Middle East only when all parties recognize the need for mutual respect and tolerance. May that day come soon.” Those words are neither sincere nor meaningful when the person spouting them desires a single-peopled nation in the Middle East and in Israel specifically.

Thomas should take her own advice, as she demonstrated no respect for Israel nor Israeli citizens – after all, she called for all Israelis to leave the Jewish state, not just all Jews. Clearly her desire to rid Israel of Israelis is not demonstrative of tolerance either.

Freedman then made an outlandish comparison between Thomas’ hate-filled remarks and Major League Baseball umpire Jim Joyce’s missed call, for which he issued a mea culpa admitting he cost Detroit Tigers pitcher Armando Galarraga a rare baseball occurrence – a perfect game. Joyce is a 21-year MLB veteran umpire highly regarded throughout the league who made a rare, yet significant error. Thomas has a career-long record of lambasting Israel, supporters of Israel and editorializing for Palestinians even while a supposed objective reporter.

“We didn’t kill the umpire then. Let’s not destroy Ms. Thomas now,” wrote Freedman. Helen Thomas destroyed herself, Mr. Freedman.

Thomas did the right thing by retiring – only about two decades too late. Her contributions as a female journalist have been tarnished and by no means should this woman of hate be placed upon a pedestal. While the First Amendment gives Thomas the right to say and write hateful words, so long as they do not incite to riotous violence, so too does the same amendment grant those who disagree the right to applaud her long overdue exit from the public stage. As John McLaughlin would say, “bye-bye.”

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

28 Outs to Perfection

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

June 3, 2010

I am a baseball purist. I don’t like artificial turf, lights at Wrigley Field, day-night “doubleheaders,” baseball played in Florida after April 1, three divisions per league, or the wild card – even when my Mets have benefited by it. Most of all I despise the designated hitter and inter-league play.

However, when the gift of technology can improve the national pastime, it should be embraced – at least on a limited basis. This baseball purist supports a limited use of instant replay with regard to maintaining the game’s accuracy. Last night’s Detroit Tigers-Cleveland Indians game at Comerica Park absolutely qualifies.

By now anyone with a pulse – baseball fans and non-baseball fans (if there could be such a person) alike, have seen and heard how 21-year veteran Major League Baseball umpire Jim Joyce made the most egregious and disastrous call in his career, costing Tigers pitcher Armando Galarraga a perfect game.

Leading off the top of the ninth inning in Detroit, Cleveland’s Mark Grudzielanek almost made the Joyce call meaningless having smashed a deep fly ball that center fielder Austin Jackson hauled in a la Willie Mays. That should have been the perfect game saving play the broadcasters and fans should be talking about today. Indians catcher Mike Redmond made the second out on a routine ground out.

That lead to the drama of one out to reach perfection – a feat accomplished a mere 20 times in the history of Major League Baseball – although fans have been spoiled with two perfectos since May 9. Dallas Braden of the Oakland Athletics and Roy Halladay of the Philadelphia Phillies spun their gems on May 9 and May 29 respectively. Oh, and, by the way, Ubaldo Jimenez of the Colorado Rockies tossed a no-hitter on April 17, which in the world of the perfect games, has been lost in the shuffle.

With just Jason Donald standing between Galarraga and history, he hit a ground ball headed between the first and second basemen. First baseman Miguel Cabrera, moving to his right, fielded the ball and threw to the pitcher, Galarraga, properly covering first base. The ball hit the glove and Galarraga’s foot hit the bag easily beating Donald by a step, yet Joyce emphatically spread his arms to signify a safe call, ending the bid for perfection.

While Galarraga had a smile on his face, Cabrera and just about all the Tiger players swarmed around the umpire who clearly made a faulty call. Tigers manager Jim Leyland darted from the dugout and also vehemently questioned the Joyce call. With calm temporarily restored, Galarraga settled back into his groove and finished off the Indians by retiring center fielder Trevor Crowe.

At that point, 17,738 fans offered Galarraga a standing ovation for pitching the game of his life and simultaneously poured boos upon Joyce, who stood on the field taking the verbal harangue offered by Leyland and the majority of the Tiger team, who also congratulated their pitcher for what should have been Major League Baseball’s 21^st perfect game.

Having watched the ninth inning on ESPN and seen the play costing Galarraga the perfect game live, plus the numerous replays from the various angles, it is clear that the umpire made the wrong call. So clear, Jim Joyce himself admitted as much, saying he made the wrong call and, “I just cost that kid a perfect game.”

Since the end of the game, which the Tigers defeated the Indians 3-0, the parties involved have acted with class, grace and dignity. There has not been name calling, threats, bad behavior or hand wringing as both teams take the field for a matinee with the same umpiring crew, and Joyce being rotated to calling balls and strikes. In fact, Leyland handed the lineup card to Galarraga to deliver to Joyce at home plate prior to this afternoon’s game and Joyce clearly was emotional and he, his fellow umpires and the Indians manager all shook Galarraga’s hand.

The ball is literally now in MLB Commissioner Bud Selig’s hands. He needs to act on this and do so quickly – this call needs to be overturned and a perfect game awarded to Galarraga. To do so will not change the outcome of the game. Replay is currently employed in the case of verifying whether or not a questionable hit ball is a home run or not, so there is a precedent for using replay, although Selig has gone on record opposing it.

For those concerned about setting a new precedent, there should be a new precedent set – one that will allow for a replay to occur to guarantee the accuracy of the game at a time when it will not alter the outcome. Selig needs to reverse the call of that which the umpire who made it already admitted to committing an error. Such a reversal will protect the integrity of the game instead of damaging it.

Unfortunately, Selig, in a most politician-like manner, after applauding all who were involved in the situation last night for handling it with class, said this afternoon, that while the “human element” is part of the game, it does require some examination, without making a decision on the Galarraga near-perfect game. Selig said he needs to talk to the various unions and other such committees before making what should be a common sense decision and grant Galarraga his perfect game.

And as if the real politicians do not have enough work to do on behalf of their constituents, several have stepped up to the plate to opine on the Galarraga-Joyce saga. Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm said she would issue a proclamation declaring that Galarraga pitched a perfect game. Both Michigan Senator Debbie Stabenow and Congressman John Dingle said they would introduce resolutions in their respective houses calling for Major League Baseball to overturn the call of umpire Jim Joyce and grant Galarraga his perfect game.

While I agree with the sentiments of the politicians, shouldn’t they be figuring out how to reduce Michigan’s unemployment figures from 18 percent and bringing more jobs to the Wolverine State? Should they be trying to figure out how to reduce the crime rates so people don’t continue fleeing the state en masse abandoning buildings and making places like Detroit look like Berlin in 1945?

The politicians need to get back to their jobs and Selig needs to do his job and reverse the Joyce call granting Galarraga the perfect game he earned.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and political consultant living in Alexandria, VA as well as a lifelong New York Mets fan – a team in existence since 1962 which has never thrown so much as a single no-hitter, let alone a perfect game.

Obama in Chicago on Memorial Day? Really?

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

May 26, 2010

Does Barack Obama have no sense of history? Does he have no sense of respect for the fallen who gave their all? Does he have no sense of decorum? Does he have no sense of right and wrong? Does he have no sense?

Just when I thought I could not be embarrassed by this so-called leader any further, he makes the woe begotten decision to spend Memorial Day weekend in Chicago, instead of where he belongs – doing his duty as Commander in Chief – speaking and laying a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier at Arlington National Cemetery.

According to The Washington Post, clearly a left of center newspaper, Obama believes it is more important to shun the memories of the fallen who fought to make the world a freer, better and safer place by returning home to Chicago simply because he pledged to do so every six weeks or so. He referred to the trip to the Windy City “as addressing one of the great broken promises of his administration.” (I’ll save the dissection of that comment for another column.)

Obama will also not be attending the breakfast at the White House for “Gold Star” families. These folks are the survivors of those who died in the service to their country. Instead, Vice President Biden and his wife Jill will host the breakfast and participate in the wreath-laying ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery.

Making remarks at the Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery, which is what is on Obama’s agenda for next Monday,  is not an appropriate substitute. Obama can do that next February – it will be more meaningful then. After all, if he plans to be in Chicago, “every six weeks or so,” he can certainly arrange his schedule to coincide with Honest Abe’s birthday.

It’s bad enough most people have forgotten the true meaning of Memorial Day – not just a chance to have a weenie roast and chug some cheap beer, although I have no doubt most of the fallen would enjoy doing just that – but the opportunity to recall with pride and introspection those men and women who made the greatest sacrifice one can make for his or her country.

Is this the legacy Obama wishes to leave for his young daughters? It is shameful enough that most schools don’t even bother to teach their charges about the observance formerly known as Decoration Day.

Memorial Day was proclaimed by General John Logan, national commander of the Grand Army of the Republic, in 1868 and observed by the placement of flowers at the graves of both Union and Confederate soldiers at Arlington National Cemetery.

After her 1915 poem referenced poppies and their redness, Moina Michael began the time-honored tradition of wearing red poppies in remembrance of the fallen soldiers. Later, poppies were sold to help raise money for the widows and orphans of the servicemen who did not return home. By the early 1920s the VFW (Veterans of Foreign Wars) was enlisted to make and sell the poppies.

The American flag is to be flown at half-mast until noon on Memorial Day. In December 2000 the National Moment of Remembrance was passed by Congress calling on all Americans to pause from their activities at 3 p.m. and offer a moment of observation, respect and silence. Taps should also be played.

Quite frankly, more than a “moment” should be “sacrificed” in remembrance of those brave men and women who died in the service to our country – the volunteers and the draftees. We take for granted the freedom we enjoy in these United States and Obama is setting a poor example by shirking his responsibilities.

The job of President is a full-time, 24-7 task requiring the attention of the leader at all times. He can take a weekend in Chicago at another time. Memorial Day is a work day for the Commander in Chief and he ought to show his children and our country how it’s done – properly. But only after someone shows him first.

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

People Who Live in Glass Countries…

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

May 20, 2010

First Amendment to the United States Constitution notwithstanding, who the hell does Mexican President Felipe Calderon think he is coming into our House and badmouthing this country and its right to police itself as we see fit?

Freedom of speech, yes, but with decorum and diplomacy. One does not denigrate one’s host country when invited to speak within the House Chamber on Capitol Hill. And shame on those members of the House and Senate who stood and applauded Calderon instead of standing to walk out while he took to task a foreign government for passing laws to protects its borders while his own country continues to turn a blind eye to that very issue. All those standing, fawning, sycophantic disgraces to their Congressional offices should be targeted for defeat this November.

Calderon disingenuously said there is a “need for a more orderly border.” In fact, it’s to Calderon’s and Mexico’s benefit that little be done to discourage Mexicans from sneaking across its northern border and invade the United States. Once these deadbeat  Mexicans leave their home country, they cease to be Calderon’s financial, legal, educational or medical problems, and they become problems of the United States.

Calderon called Arizona’s SB 1070 “discriminatory toward Mexicans,” for allowing police to question people’s immigration status. The law allows police to question all people’s immigration status should it be warranted, and not just willy-nilly. The law does not discriminate against any ethnic group, but instead those people who have broken Federal or Arizona state laws by committing the crime of entering and remaining in the United States illegally – regardless of their country of origin.

Can United States citizens illegally enter Mexico without repercussions? Can United States citizens demand, upon entering Mexico illegally, that they be provided with free education, health care coverage, food stamps, documents/signs be printed in English and a pathway to citizenship? Absolutely not. In fact, Mexico has immigration laws infinitely more Draconian that those which are on the books in the United States giving his people and those from myriad other countries free passes to the tune of billions of dollars out of the pockets of taxpaying American citizens and legal residents.

Here’s a message to el presidente Calderon: go home to Mexico and fix your own house. If your country were not in the shambles in which it currently finds itself – deleterious economy, a murder rate out of control, rampant drug import/export, pollution on par with China, your citizens would not spend their time sneaking out of Mexico and into the United States – my country.

Calderon is but the tip of the iceberg, as he is on the outside looking in. Barack Obama must shoulder the brunt of the blame, first for continuing the presidential trend of not enforcing the federal laws that forced Arizona to pass SB 1070 in the first place.

Additionally, Obama, a.k.a. the fear-mongerer in chief caused quite a stir by suggesting families with small children on an ice cream outing would be plucked from the streets and summarily deported because he expected the police to violate SB 1070. Obama has problems giving police respect as he condemned the Cambridge, MA police deriding them for “acting stupidly,” when he knew nothing of the facts of the case in question. He just assumed – and we all know what happens when one assumes.

The question of illegal immigration will only continue to worsen before it ever improves and having the likes of a foreign ruler chide this country when he has no control over the affairs of his own state do nothing but exacerbate the already tenuous situation.

Whether it is the continuing invasion on the southern border of the United States, or the gang problem in places like Los Angeles, or day laborer problem in places like Northern Virginia, until incentives to invade our borders are removed, the problem will only remain an unsolvable invitation to foreign miscreants.

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

For Specter, Payback is a Bi… Bear

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

May 19, 2010

Mighty Barack Obama has once again struck out – and it couldn’t happen with a better surrogate at the plate – Arlen Specter (D-PA).

In the case of the Democrat-turned-Republican-turned-Democrat for his final coda in politics, it seems that turnabout is fair play and that karma really is a bi… um, bear. When the going got tough, Obama threw Specter under the bus after using him for all he could in the Senate having gotten the octogenarian to vote for TARP, health care and just about any other soon to fail socialist scheme on the Obama agenda.

Specter, who proved his disloyalty to his former patrons, the Republican Party, long before making his re-conversion official, earned his just desserts and comeuppance by losing in the Democratic primary on Tuesday, May 18 to the more liberal Congressman Joe Sestak (D-7^th) by a 54 percent to 46 percent count. This after citing one of the main reasons for defecting back to the Democrats because Specter believed he could not defeat the eventual GOP nominee Pat Toomey in that party’s primary.

Sestak, although handily denying Specter a sixth term in the U.S. Senate, enters the general election campaign as an underdog to Toomey, who lost to Specter in the 2004 GOP primary.

Specter, long before returning to his Democratic roots, had been saddled with the label of RINO as a liberal Republican. He had been welcomed home to the Democrats by Barack Obama who declared his love and pledged support for the incumbent. However, when the race between the two Democrats tightened, Obama and Vice President Joe Biden could hardly be found on the campaign trail, proving they are with their candidate though thick and thicker; win or tie.

However, the taint of Obama already stuck to Specter, who suffered the wrath of voters for his disloyalty to the Republican Party, for not having been with the Democrats long enough to be trusted, for being an incumbent whose time had long since come and gone and because of his insufferable behavior during the town hall meetings last summer. Apparently enough voters do have long memories.

But for those who don’t have long memories, the names of Martha Coakley (D-MA), Jon Corzine (D-NJ) and Creigh Deeds (D-VA) should be the reminder that Obama surrogates, and by extension, Obama himself is now 0-4. I wish he played for the Yankees – and I’ve seen him throw a baseball. Full disclosure, I’m a lifelong Mets fan.

And to the Democrats who are all giddy over Mark Critz’s victory over Tim Burns in the special election in Pennsylvania’s 12^th Congressional District due to the death of John Murtha, relax. Critz was Murtha’s longtime aide in a district that is 2-1 Democratic in its voter registration.

The more important issue is the defeat of an arrogant incumbent who jumped ship to fend off the very vanquishing that has effectively ended his four-decade career. Like other incumbents already taken to the electoral woodshed, Senator Robert Bennett (R-UT) and Congressman Alan Mollohan (D-WV), are examples of what is to come this November. The voters are tired of being ignored and taken for granted. Their voices are being heard on both sides of the aisle and order will soon be restored.

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

Thank You, Now Get Out, Dck

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

May 19, 2010

A fib is a lie; a lie is a lie; yet in the world of politics a lie is but a misstatement.

Using the very veterans he claims to embrace and support as both pawns and a shield, Richard “Dck” Blumenthal (D-CT) refused to admit he simply lied about serving in Vietnam during the war that continues to launch thousands of scars and nightmares amongst those who actually did serve over there as well as the survivors of the more than 58,000 who give their lives over there.

“I regret that I misspoke and take full responsibility for my words,” said the current state’s attorney general and candidate for the US Senate. Blumenthal, who did serve in the US Marines Corps Reserves, also said he refuses to allow a “few misplaced words to impugn my service to my country,” to the applause and “hoo-aahs” of the veterans before which he spoke on Tuesday, May 18 at, ironically a VFW lodge. Ironic, because the candidate-liar is ineligible for membership in the Veterans of Foreign Wars, having not served in one.

It takes a certain brand of chutzpah to lie about serving in a war and an even bigger set of cajones to dupe the very veterans supporting that person running for public office. Blumenthal offered no apology and instead of dropping his bid to succeed the ethically-challenged Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT), hid behind the veterans – bona fide heroes who did serve in Vietnam.

Adding insult to injury, it has also been discovered that Blumenthal also lied about having been the captain of his college swim team, when in reality he never even belonged to the team. Now, he is all wet.

Having violated the public trust, Blumenthal, proving to have a history of lying – yes, lying, not making misstatements, should do the honorable thing and not only drop his bid for the U.S. Senate, but resign as Attorney General of Connecticut. It’s called honor and contrition – words Blumenthal will no doubt need to consult Webster’s to comprehend.

Thank you for your service to both country and Connecticut, now go away, Mr. Blumenthal.

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

Toles Needs History Refresher

Letter to the Editor by Sanford D. Horn

May 19, 2010

To the Editor:

Washington Post editorial cartoonist Tom Toles is clearly in need of American History textbook. This became evident having read Toles’ Monday, May 17 offering featuring a conversation between Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu and an unidentified American.

“We’ll never let Jerusalem be divided. You wouldn’t let your capital be divided,” said Prime Minister Netanyahu, in the first frame.

“Actually, a third of what was once D.C. is now part of Virginia,” said the American in the third and final frame. And herein lies the mistake. Toles obviously forgot that land started with the Old Dominion.

The land creating the District of Columbia was initially carved out of Maryland and Virginia in July 1790. In 1847, the land on the southern side of the Potomac reverted back to Virginia.

One State Down, 49 To Go

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

May 10, 2010

I shall go to Arizona!

…With apologies to the late great General Dwight D. Eisenhower who on October 25, 1952, famously declared, “I shall go to Korea,” just 10 days before being elected President of the United States.

And if these state legislatures have their way, I shall go to Michigan, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina as well. They are in the process of doing for themselves what Arizona has successfully done simply because the federal government refuses to do its job.

On the heels of the murder of Tucson-area rancher Rob Krentz by an illegal alien, along with countless other heinous crimes committed by myriad of the more than 450,000 illegals camped out in Arizona, the Grand Canyon State found itself with its back to the wall and passed SB 1070.

Signed into law by the courageous Governor Jan Brewer (R), SB 1070 uses much of the language of the federal law in an effort to tamp down on illegal immigration. The legislation requires local law enforcement to question people about their immigration status – including asking for identification – if people are suspected of being in the United States illegally. This legislation is much akin to the language in the 1984 US Court of Appeals – 10^th Circuit case United States v. Calderon, which allows law enforcement to question the immigration status of people detained on a routine police stop.

There is nothing racist about being asked for identification. One must present it when voting, buying alcohol, or boarding an airplane – and in some cases, like writing a check, two forms of ID are required. Are those all circumstances of racism? Am I being profiled when I go to vote or have a gin and tonic at happy hour? Not at all.

Before launching into the litany of reasons why Arizona has done the absolutely right thing, the mandatory rhetorical question must be posed. To all those folks berating Arizona, calling for boycotts of the state, calling Governor Brewer “Hitler’s daughter,” as has been seen on protest signs: What part of “illegal” do you people not understand?

It has been suggested that there needs to be empathy for the poor and downtrodden who sneak into the United States simply to improve their family’s lot in life. Fine – those of you who feel those people who have broken the law and snuck across the border deserve empathy or amnesty or a path to citizenship, adopt a family of illegals, pay the freight for their support, health care, and education out of your own pocket.

Those of you supporting the so-called “rights” of the illegals to be in this country, do not complain when they break into your house and steal your belongings. After all, that is what they are doing when they break into our country and demand free health care, free education, food stamps, and other support they do not pay for themselves, yet mysteriously is paid for because it comes out of the pockets of honest citizens who pay taxes for such social and welfare programs.

Note to the federal government: stop incentivizing illegals with the aforementioned health care, education, food stamps and citizenship via the 14^th Amendment’s “anchor baby” disgrace that should be amended. After all, the purpose of the 14^th Amendment to the Constitution, ratified July 9, 1868, was to ensure the citizenship of the children of America’s newest citizens – freed slaves – people who had not been citizens prior to the passage of that Amendment. (For the uninitiated, anchor babies refers to non-citizens purposefully giving birth on American soil, thus making their offspring automatic American citizens, and tethering themselves to the United States via their child.)

Amend the 14^th Amendment and cut off all subsidies to illegals, and that will keep many of them in their country of origin. Should they decide to pursue American citizenship in the correct, proper and legal manner, they will no doubt be welcomed with open arms by the millions of Americans whose families also emigrated legally in past generations.

Arizona SB 1070 is not political hyperbole. And all the while Mexican President Felipe Calderon talks a good game about wishing to end the drug trafficking and rampant homicides on both sides of Mexico’s northern border, he is completely disingenuous. Try crossing north into Mexico from Guatemala or Belize. The laws in Mexico are infinitely more Draconian than here in the United States.

Barack Obama, who called the Arizona measure “misguided,” and “a poorly conceived law,” apparently has not read the federal law, and again spoke without enough information as he did when incorrectly saying police in Cambridge, MA “acted stupidly.” It is Obama who is infinitely misguided and completely out of touch with the desires of the rank and file citizens of the United States. A recent Rasmussen poll indicated 61-30 percent in favor of the Arizona law on the whole of the United States, and 70 percent support of the legislation within Arizona itself. Additionally, 75 percent of those surveyed said they believe the southern borders are not protected.

“We had no other choice – we will protect ourselves,” said Governor Brewer, whose approval rating rose from below 50 percent to 56 percent overnight. Brewer smartly does not support amnesty. After all, amnesty failed in 1986 when there were roughly three million illegal aliens in the country. Today, estimates of illegals range from 12 to 15 million on the conservative side to as high as 20 million by some estimates.

After another round of amnesty, just consider how many people will feel emboldened to invade our porous borders – and that is exactly what is happening: we are being invaded, and no longer little by little. Amnesty is wrong and condones illegal behavior by rewarding it with forgiveness and potential citizenship. And make no mistake, this is not a single-party issue – both major political parties are to blame for this immigration debacle.

Democrats do not want to stop the plague of illegal immigration because they see millions of potential citizens and, to them, more importantly, votes. Republicans, who can’t afford to alienate any ethnic group for fear of being called racist, when there is nothing racist about wanting people to follow the rule of law, have their problem with the business community. If businesses that hire illegals are fined or shut down, the businesses suffer. If the illegals are out of the jobs and legal hires are employed, it will cost businesses more in terms of wages and insurance.

Tough. Illegal is illegal regardless which political party one supports. If I had my druthers every illegal alien would be deported without the chance of legal return. Granted, that is a hard-right tack to take, and before people start calling me a Nazi, I would remind them that there is a tremendous difference between illegals being deported from the United States and the rounding up of Jewish citizens. The people who have snuck across the border either from Canada or Mexico and are in the United States illegally, have broken the law and should be punished according to the law of the land. Jewish citizens of Germany were accosted, rounded up and deported simply for being Jewish.

As an observant Jew, I deeply resent Cardinal Roger Mahony comparing Arizona’s SB 1070 to Nazism. His is an incendiary remark designed to further stir up emotions of people who may or may not have knowledge of the history of the Nazi tyranny and systematic slaughter of European Jewry. Cardinal Mahony should know better.

Tucson Sheriff Clarence Dupnik said he will not enforce SB 1070. For the blatant dereliction of his duties, he should be fired immediately. It’s one thing to voice opposition to the law, but to refuse to enforce it is another issue. Anarchy should not be tolerated.

For those who have called for the boycott of the state of Arizona and its businesses, they are only hurting law abiding citizens who have the right to conduct business. It is especially onerous that such a boycott should be called for by Arizona Congressman Raul Grijalva (D). This type of disloyalty to the people he was elected to serve should be rewarded with unemployment this November and his defeat at the ballot box.

Sportswriters calling for the 2011 Major League Baseball All-Star game to be revoked from Arizona would be a mistake. Millions of dollars are spent during All-Star “weekend,” and again, the victims of such a boycott would be honest, law-abiding citizens operating legal businesses. The Arizona Diamondbacks baseball organization is not, nor should it be treated as a villain – the team hires hundreds of people.

And another “by the way:” Arizona Iced Tea is a product of Brooklyn, NY, for those who rush to judgment without conducting their due diligence.

As a reasonable person, I realize the deportation of 12 to 15 million illegals is damn near impossible. That does not mean the attempt should not be made. However, and again, being reasonable, there are other possible solutions to the pandemic this nation faces as long as it turns a blind eye and continues offering up economic services that will ultimately lead to the bankruptcy of this country.

First things first: secure the borders by any means necessary – electric fence, military on the border, reserves on the border – whatever it takes. This will also put people to work. Until that time, turn the spigot off. Once the borders are secure, then legal immigration can once again be considered.

Residents of countries deemed unfriendly to the United States should not be given permission to enter. People from acceptable countries with PhDs, MDs and other marketable skills that would prevent them from becoming a drain upon the public coffers should be moved to the front of the line.

While I still support the deportation of illegal aliens, and recognize the severe challenge to such a plan, if amnesty becomes a horrifying reality, it must come with strings and price tags for the recipients. If they are allowed to work legally in this country, they must pay a penalty for having been in the country illegally in the first place. The same should be imposed upon the employers who hire illegal aliens.

The next stick that should be coupled with the carrot of living freely in the United States, is that no current illegal alien should be allowed a path to citizenship or the right to vote, thus taking away the incentive of politicians to kowtow to lobbyists, immigrant groups and succumb to any other pressure they currently face. Before the protesters start calling me a racist and hunting me down with torches, in this country, we call those folks legal residents. They work, they pay taxes, they are not citizens and they do not vote. If they break the law they can be deported.

American citizens of all colors and ethnic backgrounds are flummoxed by how the federal government can give illegal aliens benefits that we as citizens cannot enjoy. Such profligacy will only prove deleterious to the whole of the American economy and before anyone is aware, the United States will become Greece.

The crisis of illegal immigration is one with which the federal government is unwilling to deal. The politicians simply are not honest brokers and the voters will not be assuaged any longer by lip service.

This is why states like Michigan are seeking to pass legislation a la Arizona. In an interview on Fox News on May 10, Michigan State Representative Kim Meltzer (R) said there “most definitely” is a need for a broader federal law. “It’s common sense,” she said, adding people should either “leave or abide by our laws.” The federal government is not enforcing the laws, said Meltzer, and that the move by the Michigan state legislature is to “pre-empt what is happening in Arizona from happening in Michigan.”

With Arizona taking the lead and states like Michigan, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina hoping to pass similar legislation, perhaps the federal government will wake up, take notice and actually do its job. Don’t hold your breath, though.

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

Of Money and Mediocrity

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

April 28, 2010

Virginia Tech men’s basketball coach Seth Greenberg gave a gracious interview upon learning his Hokies would be on the outside looking in at last months college basketball holy grail – March Madness and the NCAA Tournament.

Greenberg praised his team’s 22-9 regular season mark coupled with a strong showing in the ACC and a third place finish of 10-6 – certainly more than competitive stats to find a home amidst the field of 65, but it was not to be. Greenberg did not sound bitter in looking ahead to the NIT bid he was certain to receive hours after being shunned by the Big Dance.

However, the fatal mistake Greenberg made was in comparing his Hokies to those schools who clearly were “last in” picks by the selection committee. Is that really what one aspires to – being as good as the 64^th best team? Is it enough just to be invited to the Big Dance, or is it far more important to compete and advance to fight for the shot at playing in the Final Four and compete for a national championship? When did striving for mediocrity become acceptable?

To be fair, this is not an attack on Coach Greenberg, whom I like and admire. He has risen through the coaching ranks honing his craft at places like Long Beach State all the while fighting anti-Semitism in locker rooms at places like New Mexico State in Las Cruces. But as an ACC fan and alumnus of the University of Maryland, (losing on a buzzer-beater to eventual Final Four participant Michigan State) I see and read more about those teams and coaches. Clearly what was said about Greenberg and his reaction to his team missing out on the Big Dance could easily have been said of myriad coaches around the nation.

However, and this speaks to the big picture of the NCAA Tournament expanding from 65 teams to 68 staring with the 2011 tournament, and the even bigger picture of the greater acceptance of a society becoming more and more mired in a culture of mediocrity.

Make no mistake, expanding the tournament to 68 teams is merely a slippery slope to what some in the sport and more in the media want – a 96-team behemoth which would also sound the death knell for the NIT (National Invitation Tournament) the original college basketball post-season tournament that currently features 32 teams and culminates with its final four at Madison Square Garden.

While a 96-team tournament simply adds but one game to the current set up for all but the top 32 teams, as they would be given a first round bye, (to which most teams would object) there’s something more sinister at play here other than scheduling logistics. First and foremost, is the money. While I believe greed is good as long as there is a demand for what is being supplied, if one overworks the golden goose, eventually all that comes out of her is crap – and that is what a 96-team NCAA Tournament will provide.

More and more money is pumped into a tournament that is already an adman’s dream with longer halftimes, more timeouts and more commercial breaks, and, oh, there is even some basketball being played. Then there’s the merchandising, which of course, I play my own part as I don the sweatshirt of my alma maters and other favorite schools throughout the three week extravaganza.

And let’s not forget the office pools generating more “unofficial” money than one wants to imagine or even admit. More people who couldn’t tell the difference between an Ohio Bobcat and a Cincinnati Bearcat or a Central Michigan Chippewa from an Eastern Michigan Eagle are willing to plunk down five, 10, 20 or more dollars to fill out a bracket. And of course the man hours lost to productive work not taking place during the first four days of the tournament as 48 of the 63 tournament games are played.

While I vociferously object to a 96-team tournament, I neither endorse the 68-team, or even the current 65-team format due to the aforementioned slippery slope. For the sake of the uninitiated, the NCAA Tournament has grown from a mere eight teams in its inception in 1939 to 64 teams in 1985 and then to 65 in 2001. The 64-team format is both manageable and the most credible by rewarding a mandatory spot to each conference tournament champion and filling out the remaining at-large positions with the most “worthy” teams.

I do take issue with the notion of conference tournament champions being rewarded an automatic bid, however, when a sub-.500 team manages to get hot and win three or four games in a row over a weekend following a less than stellar regular season lasting from mid-November through early March. The conference tournaments are also mostly about money, but for the smaller conferences, yes, they are a showcase for the nation to see their better teams and players for three or four days. I would still grant the automatic bid to the teams who perform well all season long and win their conference regular season title.

In spite of my taking issue with the distribution of the automatic bids, the 64-team format works best. Consider, for example in 1974 the last year only one team per conference received an invitation to the Big Dance, the ACC Tournament final featured Maryland and North Carolina State – two of the top four teams in the country – not just the conference. My Terrapins lost a heartbreaking 103-100 game in overtime, that has been labeled by many one of the greatest games played in college basketball. Yet, with that loss, the Terps ended a season with a record of 23-5 that did not include any post-season tournament as they turned down an opportunity to play in the NIT.

Between 1974 and 1985 the NCAA Tournament grew to the 64-team March Madness many have come to love and revere. Expanding to 96 teams does speak volumes about the level of competition being watered down and the acceptance of mediocre programs being rewarded with post-season play.

The epidemic of mediocrity is already poisoning the well starting with children in elementary school as they are given trophies not for winning, but merely for showing up and participating. Schools are banning more forms of competitive activities in favor of ones where no winners or losers are declared. Or worse, when competitive games are played sans scorekeeping. Not to mention grading on curves and the dumbing down of far too much curriculum.

This is deleterious on so many levels. Children must learn about the importance of competition. This is a competitive world and the sooner children learn that, the less they will be disappointed later in life when they are not handed jobs, contracts or other gains or promotions due to a lack of merit and not just for showing up.

Playing by the rules and a moral sense of fair play are not at stake regarding the notion of competition; they are not mutually exclusive. They are all important lessons for children to learn, as sadly, far too many adults have forgotten them.

It is some of these same adults who, in endorsing a 96-team tournament, have likened it to the college football bowl season that rewards 6-6 teams with post-season play, because, once again, we all know there are 34 bowl games due to the almighty dollar, or more accurately, the almighty millions.

Not only is it an obscenity to reward a mediocre .500 team with a bowl game, but there is little demand. Just watch some of those games where thousands of empty seats masquerade as fans. Who really gives a crap about Temple against UCLA in the EagleBank Bowl on a frigid December afternoon in the windy and filthy RFK Stadium in Washington, DC?

Let’s not see March Madness become March Sadness with the inclusion of the Prairie View’s of the world. If teams are worried about not earning their way into the Big Dance, they should work harder – and that especially includes working to make more than 60 percent of their free throws, but that’s a column for another day. For now, 86 the 68-team tournament as it is much ado about money and mediocrity.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and political consultant living in Alexandria, VA. He is also a member of the University of Maryland Terrapin Club and a football season ticket holder.

Voting Wrongs, Gun Rights

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

April 24, 2010

The Washington Post, the alleged newspaper of record for the nation’s capitol and its metropolitan area, over the past seven days ending with Saturday, April 24, 2010 ran six articles, editorials or columns each decrying the lack of voting rights yet to bestowed upon the residents of the District of Columbia.

All but one missed the point entirely and the one author who did get the point and mentioned the eight hundred pound elephant in the room that alluded all the others, while correct in his method of solution, is wrong in his thinking. Make no mistake, the Post is not the only newspaper guilty of being disingenuous, they simply provided so many examples of their nascent ignorance.

The issue in question, is, and has been for decades, the potential of granting the citizens of the District of Columbia with a voting member to the House of Representatives with the same powers and authority of the current 435 members. This session of Congress seemed the closest to making those voting rights a reality for the folks in DC, yet too many believed they were hamstrung by a rider to the legislation that would handcuff the DC government regarding gun control in the District itself.

Truth be told, the question of gun rights had been resolved via the Supreme Court’s hearing of District of Columbia v. Heller and by correctly ruling in favor of Heller granting the appropriate Second Amendment rights to the citizens of the District – a long overdue decision.

There was also a compromise proposal coming in part from the pseudo-RINO, former Congressman Tom Davis (VA-11^th) that would be, to borrow a phrase, fair and balanced by giving a House seat to DC and a temporary seat to Utah, which would no doubt be a GOP seat. However, as noted, it would only be temporary and the next census, this one, would redistribute the Utah seat to the state statistically due the next seat.

All of the negotiating, hand-wringing over depriving citizens their voting rights, and the notion of taxation without representation as appears on many DC license plates, is avuncular to a parlor game or sleight of hand.

The reality is the one issue not addressed by Post writers Tim Craig and Ann E. Marimow in “Gun law proposal complicates Hill vote,” or by Marimow and Ben Pershing in “District voting rights scuttled,” or in Robert McCartney’s editorial “Plenty of blame to go around on lack of D.C. vote,” or a Post editorial “D.C. voting rights? Not this deal,” or local opinions offered by DC Shadow Senator Michael Brown, the aforementioned Davis and DC City Councilman Mary Cheh (D-Ward 3).

Only in the April 24 column “What will it take to get a vote for the District,” did Colbert I. King deal with the issue head on – the Constitutionality of whether or not District citizens should have voting representation in the House. While I often enjoy King’s columns and sometimes agree with him, this is not one of those times.

King, does, aver correctly, that the power to grant DC congressional representation does fall into the hands of the Congress itself. However, what Congress can giveth, Congress may also taketh away. So, King once again, takes the correct tack by suggesting an official constitutional amendment – this I agree with in practice, but not in theory.

If, and this is a big if, the District of Columbia is to ever attain congressional representation, it should be garnered via a constitutional amendment. This would require a two-thirds vote from both houses of Congress to propose such an amendment and then three quarters of the several states would need to sign off on the amendment making it so.

How easy is that? Since the Bill of Rights, the first 10 Amendments, were ratified on December 15, 1791, the Constitution has been amended a mere 17 times. That’s one amendment every 12.88 years, and really, since one amendment repealed another, that’s 15 constitutional changes in 219 years, or once every 14.6 years, for the stats junkies.

This is a serious enough issue to demand a constitutional amendment. That’s the practice side of the issue. The theory side of the issue is where I part company from Colbert. In no way do I support the granting of congressional representation to the District of Columbia.

The founding fathers did not intend for the seat of the government of the United States of America to be treated like a state. Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution states, “The Congress shall have Power… To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be for the Errection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings; – …”

It is a district – the seat of the government, not a permanent residence. When the Capitol was erected upon the swamp on which it currently rests, members of the citizen legislature were expected to ride into town on their horses or carriages, serve their term or two, then return to their farms, businesses, law practices, etc. and resume life as private citizens. Their staffs, small as they were, were expected to do likewise.

It was neither expected nor predicted that the District of Columbia would grow to become a burgeoning metropolis of greater than 600,000 in the city and more than two million residents in the surrounding cities and counties in Maryland and Virginia.

However, that being said, no one forced the residents of DC to become such, thus making their demands of representation disingenuous. Again, according to the Constitution, only states are entitled to representation in the House and Senate.

Article I, Section 2 states that “The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States…”

And just for good measure, Article I, Section 3 states that “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State…”

Although the issue of Senate representation has not garnered as much attention or press as that of House representation, the statehood supporters would certainly have an interest in the addition of members in both houses. Shadow Senator Brown called for as much in his April 20 Local Opinion item:

“We want our full rights and we want them now…. It’s time to make us equal. It’s time to make us a state.” But Mr. Brown is misguided. His conclusion is demonstrative of a common ailment suffered by most members of the House and Senate – Constitutional forgetfulness.

This is not the partisan Republican talking here, knowing that DC would undoubtedly elect two Democrats to the Senate and one more to the House, but one who believes the seat of the government should not be made a state as it is distinct in its existence and use by the Federal government.

I should also point out the absurd recommendation made by McCartney in his April 22 column. He suggests dividing California into two states, giving each new state two senators or just amending the Constitution to grant the current Golden State an additional two senators to compensate for its population.

McCartney’s trip to fantasy land suggests that Southern California would presumably elect Republicans and Northern California would supposedly elect Democrats and that the two new Republicans would be a counterweight to the two Democrats the DC voters would send up the street to the Senate. At least McCartney knows this plan is loopy. “Far-fetched? Absolutely,” he asks and answers.

Back in the world of reality, there is a solution that would make the most sense and give DC residents the representation they should have as residents of an actual state – and under my plan, they would attain just that.

The land creating the District of Columbia was initially carved out of Maryland and Virginia in July 1790. In 1847, the land on the southern side of the Potomac reverted back to Virginia, eliminating the Old Dominion from the equation. The residential sections of the District should be apportioned back to the bordering Fourth and Eighth Congressional Districts of Maryland – both of which are majority Democratic districts.

Both Congressmen Donna Edwards (D-4^th) and Chris Van Hollen (D-8^th) are in little jeopardy of failing to win reelection this November. Since Van Hollen defeated moderate Republican Connie Morella in 2002, Democratic candidates are all but assured of victory every other November and this would not disturb the proverbial electoral apple cart or the balance of power.

If anything, eventually such gerrymandering of the District of Columbia would create a need for a ninth district in Maryland and in that part of the state it would more than likely be a Democratically-held seat when reapportionment comes up in a future census. That said, I cannot be accused of partisan politics here.

The District of Columbia would be preserved as the seat of the government of the United States of America, the House of Representatives would remain steadfast with its 435 members and the Senate would also retain its present count of 100 senators. Crisis averted and all remains right in this corner of the world.

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

Voting Rights Restoration a No-Brainer

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

April 20, 2010

In response to the Post editorial last week “Virginia’s disgrace,” and all the sanctimonious hand-wringing, there is a simple solution to the problem regarding the reinstatement of felons’ voting rights.

For all those felons concerned about losing their voting rights: DON’T COMMIT THE CRIMES IN THE FIRST PLACE. No one forced these folks to commit felonies in the first place. This is not rocket surgery and does not facilitate deep contemplation.

For those who know me, this is a shock – not in the opinion, but in that it is the shortest one ever offered by me.

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

To Protect and Defend

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

April 7, 2010

Article II, Section I of the Constitution of the United States of America requires the President swear an oath of office that includes the words to “protect and defend” that very document.

Upon the administration of said oath, that president becomes Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. United States military officers in turn swear an oath that includes the words, “I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

This administration, under the auspices of Barack Obama is about to enter into an unholy alliance with the world, with few exceptions, declaring the United States will not take up and use nuclear weapons against any nation that does not already posses them. Apparently Iran and North Korea are the exceptions to this insidious decision.

How obtuse can this so-called leader be? This is not a game of HORSE Obama is playing on the White House basketball court where he can “spot” his opponent the “H” and “O” simply because he is an inferior player. War is war and is designed to annihilate ones enemies in an effort to permanently end their enmity or prevent them from being able to destroy our way of life.

Obama’s pronouncement is disgraceful and there is no doubt that former President Harry Truman is spinning in his grave like a dreidel at Chanukah. G-d bless the memory of Harry Truman, a Democrat, who had to make two of the most difficult decisions in American History by dropping not one, but two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end World War II in victory against Japan. Japan initially attacked the United States with the bombing of Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, officially drawing this nation into the war.

Conventional and historical wisdom denotes that had the United States not used the most stringent of its armaments – the atomic bomb – in order to vanquish our enemy, the potential loss of American life could have reached a devastating and unthinkable one million combat personnel. Should atomic weaponry not have been employed simply because Japan had not yet procured the equalizing technology? Should LeBron James sit out against the hapless Washington Wizards in an effort for the Cleveland Cavaliers to level the playing field?

That extremely faulty logic is not just insipid, but dangerous, and this kind of handcuffing of the United States military could be deemed an act of treason perpetrated by the Commander in Chief for not being prepared to advance the course of a conflict with the maximum capabilities available. Should the most damaging and deleterious of our military capabilities not be used should the United States come under an attack by a non-nuclear nation who instead opts for chemical or biological weapons?

Obama has demonstrated his inability to lead having given free passes to both North Korea and Iran by his lack of sanctions against those rogue nations. Concurrently, Obama has taken to berating and chastising Israel, our closest ally in the Middle East, simply for building houses for their own citizenry.

As Commander in Chief, Obama has the obligation to enter into a potential war with as much fervent zealousness as can be delivered. To do otherwise or consider doing otherwise would put the national security of the United States in a vulnerable position, weaken our defenses, and could be characterized as treason, or at the very least, impeachable.

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

Celebrating Passover – Freedom From Obama

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

March 29, 2010

Spring has sprung, and so too will Pesach, beginning Monday night – celebrating freedom for the Jewish people the world over.

The irony that should slap the Jewish community in the face with force of a Barack Obama snub of Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, is that Obama does not respect Israel enough to approve of her enjoying the freedoms we here in the United States enjoy, or those for which he is pushing on totalitarian regimes.

United States-Israel relations seem to be at an all time low – a chill not this icy since the last time John and Elizabeth Edwards were in a room together.

Pesach celebrates freedom, renewal, renaissance and independence – commemorating the hundreds of years the Jewish people wore the chains of slavery in Egypt. It is an independent Israel doing what it has every right to do – build homes for its citizens on its own land. Bibi Netanyahu was 100 percent correct when he said, “Jerusalem is not a settlement – it’s our capital.”

Who does Obama think he is telling Israel not to build there, or anywhere else for that matter. Has anyone heard Netanyahu suggest that no new homes be built in Northeast DC? “They’re building bedrooms in Jerusalem and bombs in Iran,” said former Arkansas Governor and current Fox News commentator Mike Huckabee in condemning Obama’s treatment of Netanyahu and applauding the Israeli Prime Minister for building in East Jerusalem. And who does Obama think he is making demands of Netanyahu on the Sabbath – and the Sabbath prior to Pesach no less. Could Obama be more disrespectful?

Obama’s animus toward Israel is beyond disappointing – it’s a shonda – but it’s not the least bit surprising knowing who he has associated with for more than 20 years – Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, Michael Pfleger, Bill Ayers and a cast of numerous other admitted socialists and anti-Semites.

In Obama we have a so-called leader bowing to the King of Saudi Arabia, shaking hands and slapping backs with Venezuela’s dictator Hugo Chavez, yet nary a photo-op with Netanyahu during his visit last week. This is not in keeping with The Godfather philosophy of “keep your friends close and your enemies closer,” when he is pushing away the closest, most reliable friend this nation has in one of the most volatile regions of the world.

Obama’s dismissive and disrespectful behavior toward Netanyahu and Israel is deplorable and should send a strong wake-up call to the American people as a whole and the Jewish liberals so hell-bent on supporting this so-called leader that he is no friend of the Jewish people. Sure, Obama surrounds himself with Jews – especially the likes of Senior Advisor David Axelrod, Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and Rahm’s doctor brother Ezekiel Emanuel. One can only imagine the “pride” the Emanuel’s father who served in the Israeli military must feel.

American Jews had better heed the message and take action. Sadly, the majority of Jewish liberals are secularists and statists at best, and so deeply mired in the agenda of reshaping this country in the socialist images of the ‘60s radicals they worship more than G-d Himself, that they are simply too far gone. (Not even Richard M. Nixon with his virulent anti-Semitism had this horrendous a relationship with Israel. Even Nixon understood the importance of the friendly relations shared with Golda Meir and Israel.

This is not the Democratic Party of our parents or grandparents – although FDR was no help to the Jewish community during the Holocaust. Gone are the Harry Trumans, the JFKs, the Henry “Scoop” Jacksons and the Daniel Patrick Moynihans of the Democratic Party. It has been co-opted by radical leftists who admit to idolizing the likes of Che,  Mao, Chavez and their ilk.

This is not a game being played here, and Israel’s survival is at stake. While Israel and Netanyahu are being chided by Obama and Hillary Clinton for domestic activities, Obama has yet to approve sanctions upon Iran, thus making it more and more likely that Israel in 2010 will need to behave toward Iran as it did toward Iraq in 1981.

As for conditions for Israel and the “Palestinians” to break bread (or matzoh for the next eight days), any deal involving the surrender of even one inch of land is no deal at all. The “Palestinians” should never be rewarded for their evil, murderous ways. They won’t even agree to say the words that Israel has a right to exist. They have not put the place name Israel on their maps and continue teaching vile hatred of Jews and Israel in schools perpetuating their legacy of death, destruction and mayhem.

The notion of returning to the pre-1967 War borders is patently absurd. Should the United States return to its pre-Mexican-American War borders of 1845? Does the notion of Manifest Destiny only apply to the United States As the late great Rabbi Meir Kahane said about winning and losing in war – when you win, you win – you don’t give back land; when you lose, you lose.

Israel is the only true safe haven for the Jewish people. All other lands, including the United States are but a part of the Diaspora. This administration has been deafening in its words against Israel, and while I love my country – the United States of America, I despise this administration, what it represents, its goals, and its vision for America’s and even the world’s future.

May we all have a happy and meaningful Pesach.

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

Hypocrite in Chief

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

March 22, 2010

During his self-congratulatory speech following passage of the government conquest of one-sixth of the American economy via a deplorable health-care bill, Barack Obama contradicted himself saying, “change came not from the top down, but from the bottom up.”

Obama then went on to note how many telephone calls he personally made to cajole members of his own Democratic Party to drag them aboard the USS Healthcare or Titanic II. Even Fox News commentator Geraldo Rivera, certainly no conservative, said this bill passed due to “arm twisting by the President.”

Obama also admitted that this was “not an easy vote” to cast, and that such a yea vote “took courage.” If the legislation is so great why did its supporters need courage to support it? If the bill is so strong why were bribes necessary to enlist support of members who initially were against it? If this brand of health-care reform has been touted so highly, why were the American people kept in the dark regarding its contents and why did Obama fail to keep his promise that the process would be transparently shown on C-SPAN for all to see and hear?

The next day, during a “victory lap” at George Mason University in Fairfax, VA Obama said “this is the patient’s bill of rights on steroids.” Hmm. Now steroids are not typically a good thing; so is this an admission in reality? Later, adding insult to injury upon hearing the opponents announced their determination to repeal this deplorable legislation, Obama arrogantly said “go for it.”

Mr. Obama, that is exactly what we the people intend to do come January 2011, upon a GOP electoral takeover of the House and possible the Senate.

As a related aside, those protesters over the weekend who may have shouted racial and anti-gay epithets as certain members left the Capitol Building did nothing to help their cause. They should be ashamed of themselves. I’m not happy with the outcome either, but I will express my animus here and on Election Day, November 2^nd.

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

Post Game Behavior No Laugh Riot

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

March 7, 2010

As a member of the Alumni Association and Terrapin Club I enjoyed watching the men’s basketball team knock off Duke last Wednesday night as much as anyone else. I cheered when the lead grew in the first half and moaned when it waned prior to halftime.

I did my best Gary Williams impersonation when Duke took the lead and my stomach did its best impression of a roller coaster as the lead vacillated until the good guys finally vanquished their opponent. Then, I cheered again. I even enjoyed an adult beverage during the game as well.

But what I didn’t do, because I’m a clear thinking adult, is take to the streets like a submoronic cretin and behave like a hooligan, setting fire to trees and trash cans, attempting to flip over motor vehicles and get into fisticuffs with law enforcement. The basketball team won a hard-fought ballgame. They were not sent to war. Keep the revelry off Route 1. There are plenty of places on the beautiful, spacious College Park campus where celebrants can congregate.

Let me put this as gently as I know how, for the benefit of the hundreds of University of Maryland students who deserve more than my castigation for their disgraceful behavior. What the hell were you thinking? What’s wrong with you people? You not only embarrassed yourselves and the university, but your parents who will, no doubt, have to shell out hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars for property damage or bail.

There is no excuse for this juvenile behavior. You are supposed to be adults demanding all kinds of freedoms and rights. Grow up and earn them. Nobody is telling you not to have fun and enjoy yourselves before, during and even after the ballgame. There’s a fine line between good, clean fun and felonious behavior, and many of you pole vaulted over it Wednesday night.

This is the same kind of nonsense that occurred during the 2001 and 2002 basketball seasons when Maryland made its first Final Four and won its first national championship, respectively. It was stupid, irresponsible behavior then, as it remains today.

The guilty should be booked and charged via the criminal justice system and expelled from the university. A message must be sent that this behavior will not be tolerated.

The least you, as a student body, can do is act like you know what it means to be winners. In a couple of e-mail exchanges with my friend Aziz Abdur-Ra’oof, who graduated the year before I did, we commiserated how embarrassing it is to see Maryland on the national news for something this asinine. We also discussed how we as a student body didn’t behave like this in the ‘80s when we were on campus, and we won some big games.

Ziz was one of the Terrapin football greats in the ‘80s and part of the team that trailed at Miami 31-0 at halftime, only to stage the greatest comeback in D-1 college football, winning 42-40. Yet, calm was the order of the day.

It was nearly as embarrassing to see University of Virginia students referring to the riot in mocking signs they brought to the game against the Terps Saturday in Charlottesville.

The University of Maryland should make national news for winning championships, for having incoming freshman classes with higher and higher SAT scores, for having top schools of business and journalism and for graduating more and more of its students in four years. So, grow up and cut the crap.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and political consultant living in Alexandria, VA. A graduate of the University of Maryland in 1988, he is a member of the Alumni Association and the Terrapin Club.