Life as an English-Speaking American

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

July 22, 2008

Sometime in the not so distant future: A man enters a non-descript building, opens a door to what appears to be a classroom or a conference room and takes a seat.

Man: “Hi, I’m Sanford, I’m an English-speaking American.”

Chorus from the room: “Hi, Sanford.”

Sanford: “This is my first meeting of English-Speaking Americans Anonymous.”

Leader: “Welcome, Sanford. Tell us what brings you here tonight."

Sanford: “My day started at 6:45 a.m. as I carried my wife’s suitcase to the cab and bade her goodbye as she departed for a business trip on the Left Coast.” (As Schwarzenegger: “You know, Cal-i-for-nia!”)

Chuckle from the crowd.

Sanford: “I very politely told the driver to drive carefully because he was carrying precious ‘cargo.’ He looked at me like I was from Pluto speaking Flemish because he could barely put two words in English together. And he has the responsibility of navigating a taxi, reading street signs and knowing the traffic laws. Fortunately, my wife reached her destination and called me from California.

Getting on with my day in several telephone calls I made where I needed information or connections to a particular extension, to a call, I was instructed to press one for English, etc., etc., etc. Now there’s another annoyance that chaps my hide. I say, for English, press ‘kiss my hinny.’

This is the United States of America. We speak English here. When I travel to Mexico, I try to use my Spanish as best as possible. Before I visited Hungary, I spent weeks trying to learn some Magyar, which is one of the most challenging languages to attempt, but I am not the ‘Ugly American.’

Quite frankly, I don’t care what language a person speaks in the privacy of their own home, house of worship or even in public, so long as on the job, they speak English. While the United States does not have an official language, unlike most civilized nations in the world, most individual states do, in fact, have an official language – surprise, surprise, it’s English.

This was not an issue when folks from my grandparents’ generation emigrated from their native countries to their new home in the United States. Millions of people came from Italy, Poland, Greece, Russia and myriad other countries in Europe. We didn’t live in a touchy-feely era of political correctness where anything goes and new immigrants became indignant when the English-speaker did not speak the other person’s native tongue. They rolled up their sleeves, found jobs and took pride in learning English. Sure, they spoke Italian, Greek, Yiddish, Russian, etc. around their homes, in their neighborhoods and read newspapers printed in their home languages, but they instilled a pride in their children that English was then, as it still is today, they key to success.

Two to three generations later during the Asian influx, the same sense of pride took over and they, too learned English – even while maintaining their native languages at home or when dealing with former compatriots.

Much to my chagrin when I ran errands later the same day, I reached the pinnacle of frustration as I felt like the foreigner in a foreign land, yet, I simply attempted to locate Tide laundry detergent at my local Target in Alexandria, VA. I encountered six, no exaggeration, six Target employees who could not tell me where the merchandise I sought could be found simply because they did not speak English.

When I complained to an alleged member of the store’s management team, at least she identified herself as such, I was flummoxed to be informed that sometimes employees pretend not to speak English. Pretending not to speak English or not speaking English, either way, six employees did not provide me customer service. Eventually, another employee for whom English was not her native language, could only guide me in the general direction of my desired products, thus sending me on a seemingly unending scavenger hunt. (The only English-speaking employee I encountered, aside form the aforementioned member of the management team, was putting returned merchandise back on shelves, all the while talking on her cell phone – and the conversation was loud enough to discern that it was not work related.) This was not a pleasant experience.

And the barely-out-of-her-teens “manager” looked positively lost by my complaint, as if what I experienced was both normal and acceptable. To be fair, she did listen to my complaint, delivered in a calm and reserved manner. After all, no reason to raise my voice and make a scene – just for the record. Ultimately she said there was nothing that could be done, but she did ask if I had any suggestions regarding the situation.

As one who has worked in the retail world, I gladly offered up the notion that just as any new hire is given proper training in sales procedures, customer service, operating the computer or register, speaking English on the job should be mandatory. Some companies provide their employees with English lessons, at the expense of the employee, and that is a good idea. Everyone wins. The employee learns English and becomes increasingly marketable as a bilingual speaker. The company wins as they have employees who can serve non-English speaking customers as well as English-speaking customers. Most importantly, the customer is served appropriately, thus the potential for repeat business.

My tour de UN continued as I needed to make a visit to the store next door to the Target. I entered Staples and inquired at one of the registers where I might find the items I sought. As Yogi Berra said, “it’s déjà vu all over again,” except this time Spanish was not the native language I encountered, but instead an Asian language. Two additional people later, I finally located what I needed.

I experienced much the same several minutes later in the same Alexandria shopping plaza when I visited the Shoppers supermarket for a couple of items. The fellow at the register spoke little English, did not greet me nor tell me the total owed upon completing his task of ringing up my items. He simply looked at me and waited for me to pay without saying a word, including ‘thank you.’ He spoke Spanish with other customers and other employees. (Obviously with gas prices nearing such that a second mortgage is required with every fill-up, any trip must be calculated, thus the multi-store schlep.)

I implore all who read this to complain when experiencing the same circumstances – whether in a department store, restaurant, supermarket or any other venue where you have the power to purchase your goods and services where you choose.

Domestic Oil Everywhere, but Not a Drop to Drill

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

June 25, 2008

Raise your hands if you know Yemen sold 13,000 barrels of crude oil and products each and every day during 2007 to the United States. OK, just raise your hands if you heard of Yemen in the first place. Yemen? Yes, Yemen. “Oh, good one! And ‘Yemen,’ that actually sounds like a real country!,” said the ubiquitously clueless Joey Tribiani from the NBC comedy Friends.

Now, Yemen is not exactly one of our BFFs, as the teens say, yet we are helping to support their economy. And Yemen is just the tip of the oil-berg. Of the top 20 nations from which the United States imports oil, nine are part of the 13-member OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries). And the total amount of oil the U.S. purchases from OPEC nations as a whole equals 5,983,000 barrels per day, every day, just in 2007 alone, according to the Energy Information Administration, the organization that provides official energy statistics from the United States government. That figure equals 44.5 percent of the total U.S. crude oil imports of 13,439,000 barrels each and every day during 2007.

So, while we are not drilling here in the United States, nor opening new refineries, something that hasn’t been done in more than 30 years, we continue to grow the economies of countries that wish us harm, failure and ultimate destruction. This is not just deleterious to the economy of the United States, but its national security as well. From Saudi Arabia alone the U.S. procured 1,489,000 barrels per day last year – that country ranks number four on the list. At number five is Venezuela, led by the despotic Hugo Chavez. That country sold the U.S. 1,362,000 barrels per day last year. Again, the question must be asked – why do we continue to do business with countries diametrically opposed to the goals and mission of the United States?

Angola, one of the few remaining communist countries in the world, ranks number seven, selling us more than a half million barrels per day last year. Iraq ranks number eight, selling us just under a half million barrels per day in 2007 and Libya, under its dictator Moammar al-Qadaffi, ranks 19^th and sold the U.S. 116,000 barrels per day last year.

First, the United States, in an effort to begin weaning itself off of foreign oil , should cease conducting business with countries seeking to do us harm. After all, the figures quoted above are far from diaphanous. As long as we need to procure foreign crude oil and products, the United States ought to do business with more friendly nations such as Canada, our number one business partner in oil, selling us 2,426,000 barrels per day last year. Let’s do more business with the British – they sold us 278,000 barrels per day last year, ranking number 11. How about the tiny U.S. Virgin Islands, who rank number 10, selling us 346,000 barrels per day in 2007? Just over 24 percent of United States’ oil imports come from Russia, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.

The United States should be helping the economies of seemingly friendly nations, and by purchasing oil, these are not hand-outs, but sound business deals.

Perhaps one of the most sound business proposals the United States could make is with its number two oil trading partner – Mexico. This is a genuine opportunity. A deal should be struck to increase the number of barrels the United States purchases from Mexico in exchange for the Mexican government working more stringently to keep its nationals on their side of the border. The U.S. bought 1,533,000 barrels of oil per day last year from Mexico – second only to Canada. (Mexico should treat its northern border as it does its southern, but that is a column for another day.) However, by increasing our purchases from Mexico, that nation, may, in turn, need to increase its labor force in the oil industry, all of which help produce a boon for the Mexican economy and keep more people south of the U.S. border, helping both countries.

The United States should simultaneously be working to drill more domestically, as well as develop additional sources of energy. While there are those who say the U.S. cannot drill itself out of the current energy crunch, we must do so while we are developing new sources of energy. While there are those who say drilling domestically will not prove productive for five or 10 years down the road, if we had drilled five, 10, or 20 years ago, we would not be in the deleterious circumstances we are mired in today. Yet there are experts in the employ of the drilling companies, not the oil companies, who believe with increasing certainty that drilling with positive, effective results could be realized one to six years from its commencement.

For the allegedly most powerful nation in the world, the United States looks pathetic going “hat-in-hand” begging the Saudis to increase their oil production. There are billions of gallons of crude oil offshore of this country that should be extracted. Florida Governor Charlie Crist, a one time opponent of offshore drilling, has come to realize the benefits of doing just that. There is an economic windfall to be had by domestic drilling – and not just for the oil companies, who by the way, provide thousands of jobs and have a legal right to turn a profit. Gov. Crist realizes if gas prices continue chugging ahead, people will not be able to afford to either fly or drive to Florida to visit Epcot Center, Cape Canaveral, the beaches, spring training baseball or Mickey Mouse.

Senator John McCain (R-AZ) the GOP nominee for president has also amended his belief system regarding offshore drilling. Call it a flip-flop, call it an epiphany, call it doing one’s homework, but the Senator has also come to realize the necessity of domestic offshore drilling. Now, if he could only see the light regarding ANWR (Arctic National Wildlife Refuge), we’d be in business.

Neither McCain nor his presumptive Democratic opponent Senator Barrack Obama (IL) support drilling in ANWR. This piece of frozen tundra, to borrow a phrase from ESPN’s Chris Berman, clocks in at about 70 degrees below zero and home to some caribou. Caribou. We’re paying more than $4 a gallon at the pump because of caribou. OK, it’s not just the caribou, but ANWR is roughly the size of South Carolina, and the desired area for drilling in ANWR is roughly the size of Dulles Airport, or as I’ve heard, it would be like drilling on something the size of a postage stamp on a football field.

I’ve got nothing against the caribou, but they can be relocated. We continue to build houses and the indigenous animals find other places to roam. Bottom line is while we are developing alternative fuel sources, which I absolutely support, we must drill domestically. I’m talking about ANWR, not the Grand Canyon or the Florida Everglades for goodness sakes.

Both major party candidates for the White House must realize the importance of drilling in ANWR. And in the case of Sen. Obama, to him, offshore means off limits. He doesn’t support offshore drilling and has taken the same tack as those opposing domestic drilling because it will not solve anything today. This is terribly short-sighted on Obama’s part. Nothing will solve the energy crisis today – period. This is the same short-sightedness demonstrated by former President Clinton when he vetoed legislation passed by Congress to drill in ANWR.

For a candidate whose slogan is “Yes we can,” he says “no we can’t” at every turn where the energy crisis is concerned such as offshore drilling and nuclear energy, for examples.

Knowing what Obama is against is one thing, but what is he for, aside from mandatory conservation? “We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times,” said Obama last month in Oregon. Isn’t that what freedom is about? If someone wants to buy an SUV and can afford to pay for it, the gas, and the upkeep, that’s his or her business. If someone wishes to heat his or her home at 72 degrees or cool that home at 66 degrees and can afford to do so, again, that is his or her business. I am all for conservation – I too like to keep costs down, whether the price of a barrel of crude is $135 or $35 (wishful thinking). I do not need a repeat of Jimmy Carter sitting in the Oval Office in his Fred Rogers cardigan micromanaging my thermostat.

One thing Obama does seem to advocate is a windfall profits tax against the oil companies. Who should determine how much of a profit is too much? How much of a tax? Where should the federal government draw the line? Should such a tax be imposed, the oil companies will simply recoup their tax loses by raising prices, cutting production and cutting jobs. Thus the potential failure of the windfall profits tax, the downward spiraling of the U.S. economy and an “F” in Econ 101.

Liberals famously cart out the slippery slope whenever it suits their needs. Here is a prime example of where the slippery slope will run this nation into depression on the way to socialism. Liberals are of the mindset that government control is the proper path to traverse. However, that path will be riddled with tolls and taxes. Should the federal government take over the cola industry because the Coca Cola Company made more of a profit than the oil companies? Certainly not, nor should they do it with the oil industry.

Some of Obama’s Democratic colleagues in the Senate as recently as last week called for the nationalization of the oil companies. Now we are taking a page out of the playbook of Venezuelan anti-American dictator Hugo Chavez. The last thing people want is for the government to get its grubby hands on the oil supply or control its production. If that happens, count on $6 a gallon before too long, or higher. Instead, the federal government needs to overturn its 1982 moratorium and ban on drilling in the outer-continental shelf.

“America remains the only nation in the world that has curtailed access to it own energy supplies,” said former Delaware Governor Pete du Pont.

Yet, the Congress, as usual, is playing politics. In an interview given to the Fox News Channel on Wednesday, May 21 Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) admitted “Congress isn’t doing anything. We have no energy policy in this country.” Hatch called for the extraction of oil shale, which he estimates there are “between 800 billion and 1.9 trillion barrels of oil in Wyoming, Colorado and Utah in oil shale that could be recovered at about 30 to 40 bucks a barrel.”

Meanwhile, we continue to blindly pay more than $135 (a figure that will no doubt be obsolete by the time this column is printed) per barrel of imported crude like the lemmings we have become. Hatch’s plan is good for the economy as it will produce jobs, lower the price at the pump – eventually, reduce our dependence on foreign oil and help further secure our nation.

Drilling domestically, both on shore and offshore is much safer than it used to be. There hasn’t been a significant oil spill since 1969. Thousands of rigs in the Gulf of Mexico sustained no damage during Hurricane Katrina.

The United States, in addition to researching alternative sources of energy, must explore domestically for oil. Refineries must be built – the likes of which have not been realized on our shores since the Gerald Ford administration. Of course, there’s the question of where to put said refineries, but that is the purpose of exploration – to explore, to research, to discover – just like the concept of researching alternative fuel sources – to explore, to discover. Installing refineries prior to knowing where to erect them is much like putting the cart before the horse. Seems appropriate, though, with gas prices screaming past $4 a gallon on the way to $5, we may need to revert to that form of transportation.

Here again the economy and more importantly the American people are the beneficiaries. More jobs are created, gas prices will be reduced, ultimately reducing food prices as well, giving the average consumer more disposable income with which to dine out, take the children to a ballgame, buy new clothes for back to school time in the fall, save for retirement – all of which help grow the economy. Whereas, just the opposite is sure to befall the U.S. as gas prices rise, forcing food prices to continue rising causing the American consumer to pare back on non-essential purchases leading to a surplus on the shelves, which will force employers to scale back their labor force. What a grim picture this paints, except no one can afford to drive to the store to buy the paint.

In addition to the “drill here, drill now, pay less” concept as advocated by former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (see his non-partisan website www.americansolutions.com) and the more than one million signatories who support his effort, the federal government must stop giving subsidies to the oil industry. Pursuit of nuclear energy is vital – something McCain supports but Obama opposes. I support nuclear energy, even though this is something the French do – and successfully, as do the Swedes. France and Sweden bury their nuclear waste underground and have yet to report any problems.

I am not the only person to support solar and wind as sources of energy. Senator John Kyl (R-AZ) is a strong supporter of solar energy and Congressman John Peterson (R-PA) fervently supports wind energy. Peterson pointed out in an interview on June 25^th that even doubling the output of those sources would only bring them to one percent of our energy production.

The United States must pursue coal, hydrogen, nuclear, solar and wind not just as alternative fuel sources, but eventual mainstream and conventional sources. The hot air from all of Congress’s bloviating could provide this country enough energy for decades.

Also on the table should be sugar-based ethanol – this is what is successful in Brazil with their flex-fuel automobiles. (In an effort to keep food prices from rising uncontrollably due to this fuel source, the government must stop subsidizing those in the agricultural field for a paucity in production.)

Each of these sources should be vigorously pursued. The power must be taken out of the hands of the foreign nations that wish us ill, such as the OPEC mafia, and the power must never be put in the hands of the federal government.

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

Statistics via WABE (Washington Area Boards of Education) as well as school superintendent offices.

The Language of Oversensitivity

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

May 16, 2008

Enough already!

Every word, every thought, every nuanced phrase uttered has been placed under a microscope to the point that if a candidate doesn’t answer quickly enough he or she isn’t smart enough, but if the same candidate answers too quickly, he or she is too glib and thoughtless.

When confronted with words quoted directly out of someone’s mouth, there’s the accusation that the words have been taken out of context. When a candidate comments on what he or she thought someone else meant is that candidate a mind reader?

“Sensitivity!,” shouts Joan Rivers in some television commercial, where she parodies herself and her alleged frequent face lifts. In the case of politics, it’s oversensitivity to the nth degree.

Let’s start with the stupid, move to the sublime then tackle the serious. The stupid would have to be the abundance of criticism laden upon Sen. Barrack Obama (D-IL) for the use of the word “sweetie” to a reporter on Wednesday, May 14. The claim of sexism couldn’t be uttered fast enough by critics – the same news media who have given Obama free pass after free pass on dealing with the “tough” issues. Quick as a bunny – oops – I am not suggesting that Obama is or should be compared to a bunny – but quick as a bunny nonetheless, Obama left a phone message for the reporter to apologize for the use of the word sweetie as well as for not answering her question.

Not answering her question seemed to be completely overlooked, yet was the more egregious of the two “shortcomings.” Sweetie-gate, as every possible misstep by any politician gets the over abused label of “gate” thanks to the true scandal of Watergate, is really much ado about nothing. Who’s kidding who here? Was the reporter damaged beyond the point of being able to work? Should she receive workman’s compensation for mental anguish? At best, this is diaphanous.

The sublime is a bit more serious simply due to the content of the speech given by President George W. Bush before the Knesset in Israel on Thursday, May 15 in observance of the 60^th anniversary of the Jewish state.

Almost immediately, while the words were still floating in space, the outcry from Obama supporters was cacophonous. Bush accused Obama of being an appeaser, Bush attacked Obama were the claims. This is where that mind reading thing comes into play. Nowhere in Bush’s speech did he mention Obama, or any American at all for that matter. Clearly there is a cross between paranoia and complete and utter guilt on the part of the Obama camp and his supporters.

Quite frankly, Obama should have guilt feelings. Guilt over admitting and apparently taking pride in his willingness to sit down with the leaders of such rogue nations as Iran, North Korea, Syria and Venezuela. Iran – whose leader called Israel a "stinking corpse," and wants to wipe the Jewish off the face of the earth. These are state sponsors of terror, sans Venezuela, for now. Even Sen. Clinton referred to Obama's willingness to meet with such despots as "naive." I think Obama is such an appeaser is the classic style of former British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and a man Obama is resembling, politically, more and more – Jimmy Carter, who President Bush may actually have referred to, but I'm not Kreskin.

This sparked a firestorm that, once again, poor Obama is the victim of a right wing cabal – boo hoo. Obama is smart – he never claims to be a victim, but clearly his handlers and supporters have no problem playing the victim card. And this is where the trouble really begins – speaking the truth without the fear of being called a racist, sexist, homophobe or any other –ist or –phobe.

And again, this is attributed to the oversensitivity that plagues our culture today, and seemingly forever more. It seemed all fine and dandy for Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) to be a one-time member of the KKK, but when Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS) offered remarks of praise for the then centenarian Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-SC), Lott was castigated and forced from his committee chairmanships simply because 50 years prior, Thurmond deigned to run for president as a States’ Rights candidate. This was not, to borrow a phrase, fair and balanced.

Next up, there was nothing racist about remarks made by former congressman and vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro (D-NY) this past March. I have found myself defending the likes of both Ferraro and, gulp-shudder, Hillary Clinton over the past several month for the attacks launched against them. This must tell us something as I have been an active Republican since before I could vote. There was a picture in the local newspaper of me wearing a conventioneer’s hat at age 10 while in the fourth grade casting my ballot for President Gerald Ford in a mock election where Ford emerged victorious.

In the case of Ferraro, she said of Obama’s campaign success, “if Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position.” Ferraro went on to say that if her name had been Jerry, not Geraldine, she would not have been on the ticket in 1984 with former vice president Walter “Fritz” Mondale.

Ferraro was also correct in her claim about her position on the Mondale ticket. Clearly Mondale had little to lose by making the then bold choice of a woman for a running mate in 1984 a year when Ronald Reagan’s popularity was second to none. When a Republican candidate for president wins Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York and Rhode Island in the same election, that speaks to the candidate’s popularity.

A virtually ignored comment made by Ferraro in 1988 noted that “if Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn’t be in the race.” Then, but more so now, this was a grand opportunity for a black candidate on the national stage to achieve success. Yet, 20 years removed from the ’88 campaign, the “black candidate” is achieving success across the boards, which was not the case in ’88. But race is still an issue, so much so that Obama, the “black candidate” who has said he is a “candidate who happens to be black,” is garnering the black vote to the tune of 90-plus percent on a primary by primary basis.

So, although race is still a legitimate issue in a campaign, and Ferraro was correct in her assertions about herself and Jackson 20 years ago, and Obama today, the language police have taken to the airwaves playing their game of “gotcha” even when there is no cause. To suggest Ferraro is a racist is absurd, but it makes for good ratings and creates sympathy for the media’s chosen candidate in this era of oversensitivity.

As for Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), her turn at the “gotcha” game came recently prior to the West Virginia primary when she repeated an AP report saying that Clinton was enjoying greater success with constituencies that are hard working, white, blue-collar workers. Naturally the media and Obama surrogates clamored that Clinton is a racist for suggesting that if white, blue-collar workers are hard working then conversely, black, blue-collar workers couldn’t possibly be hard working. That is one hell of an interpretation, coming from the mind readers who have been diagnosed with another case of oversensitivity.

The media is the most responsible for the firestorm of “gotcha” journalism – and not just because of the internet or 24-hour cable news networks. The media’s responsibility in the advent of the “gotcha” game dates back to Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, the Washington Post reporters who broke the infamous Watergate scandal leading to the resignation of former president Richard M. Nixon.

Make no mistake, Woodward and Bernstein are not to blame for Watergate – clearly that falls on the narrow shoulders of Dick Nixon himself, whose paranoia led to his own downfall. The Post reporters were simply doing their jobs, following up on what initially had been the report of a “third rate burglary” at the Democratic National Committee Headquarters. Quite frankly, this third rate burglary, as it has been labeled throughout its storied history could have instead been a footnote to history had Nixon not been the paranoid he was.

The June 1972 break in at the DNC could have gone away had Nixon admitted that the five “plumbers,” as they were known, who broke into the headquarters were not acting on the orders of the administration, but because of their association with the administration, they would be fired and brought up on charges of burglary. Nixon would have gone on to win the 1972 election in a landslide anyway, and then pardoned the miscreants at Christmas time. End of story.

The point? Since the cover up, the investigation, the reporting that led to Nixon’s resignation in disgrace, virtually every reporter wants to be Woodward or Bernstein – cracking that big exposé and making “their bones” regardless of cost and harm to anyone else. That is not responsible journalism, That is hit and run yellow journalism.

Technology is also partly to blame, but it stems from the aforementioned “gotcha” mentality. Today anyone with a cell phone camera, digital camera, blog, website or any other form of technology I omitted because I am a confirmed “technotard,” a term I coined some years ago while teaching eighth grade social studies to students better versed on the computer than I, can be a news breaker.

The problem with the term news breaker is that those who break the news also want to make the news, and that is not honest journalism. Instead that is self-absorbed narcissism.

Herndon Voters Validate 2006 Vote

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

May 7, 2008

Throughout the Democratic primary the mantra of its leading candidates has been to seek change. Voters in the Town of Herndon yesterday took to the polls and in their non-partisan Mayoral and Town Council elections decided to keep the change – keeping those members they voted into office two years ago during the highly publicized 2006 races.

For those folks who have been out to sea for the past two years, the Town of Herndon, about a four square mile town in Western Fairfax County, VA, received national attention simply because it had a group of candidates who believed then, as they believe now in some basic core values. Such values include law and order, controlling spending, an expectation of safety for all its legal residents as well as a hope that those legal residents – both native and those who have chosen this great nation as their own, will succeed in garnering their American dream.

However, what the average viewer of “mainstream” television news or reader of “mainstream” newspapers received to their eyes and ears made this particular group of political candidates appear as if they had just stepped out of D.W. Griffith’s film Birth of a Nation. These candidates were portrayed as racist, ignorant, back-water dolts simply because they did not want the taxpayers’ hard-earned dollars to pay for a day laborer center that would be used by illegal aliens to the tune of about 90 percent of its users – a Fairfax County statistic. (I use the term illegal aliens because they are not legal immigrants and I do not wish to insult the hard-working immigrants who entered this country legally. Ironically, a liberal friend of mine inspired me to use the term illegal alien.)

Complicit in this crime to provide sanctuary or a safe haven to those who have no legal rights to either work or live in the United States in the first place, Fairfax County, in cahoots with Reston Interfaith and a majority of the Herndon Town Council from the 2004-06 term gave its blessings, and the people’s money, to the creation of this center.

Herndon’s police force, at the time, again thanks in part to the 2004-06 council, did not have the authority to enforce federal immigration laws, thus leaving illegal aliens free to harass people attempting to access certain businesses around town as well as appear in public intoxicated and even relieve themselves at times on private property not belonging to them. Overcrowding in private homes became a serious concern in terms of safety, sanitation and potentially decreasing home values.

The time had come for Herndon citizens to take back their town. And take it back they did. In an overwhelming response, Herndon voters in 2006 rebuffed those who supported the day labor center with one exception and installed a new group of council members and a mayor who lived up to their words about cleaning up the Town of Herndon.

Rookie mayor Steve DeBenedittis had a mostly veteran council in spite of three newly-elected members with which to work.

It pleases me to say that the three newcomers to the council are friends of mine – Dave Kirby, Charlie Waddell and Bill Tirrell and each opposed the day laborer center. It is interesting to note that neither Kirby nor Waddell served on either the town’s Architectural Review Board or the Planning Commission, typically stepping stones for council candidates. The voters, hell-bent on real change, decided to give some new folks a chance. Make no mistake, they have worked hard and served the community well – so well both Kirby and Waddell have been rewarded with a second term yesterday.

Bill Tirrell not only served on both the above mentioned boards, but also five terms on the council prior to make two unsuccessful bids to become mayor. Tirrell is tenacious and a solid Navy man whom the voters returned to the council in 2006 and again yesterday. He is fair and balanced, to borrow a phrase. Actually, he has to be as he has umpired community baseball for many years. Sadly, his true downfall is his animus toward my alma mater – Maryland and the fact that he is a Yankees fan.

Dennis Husch, reelected to the council for his seventh term, found himself in the unusual position of being vice mayor – meaning he earned the most votes of any council candidate. This shocked not just Husch, but just about anyone with a pulse in Herndon as he had finished in sixth place in each of his six previous campaigns to reach the dais of the six member council. No longer did anyone have to listen to the oft-told joke by Husch, “what do you call the candidate who finishes sixth? Councilman!”

I give him jazz about those sixth place finishes, as I did again last night as Husch was returned to council for an eighth term in his usual sixth place position. Husch is a good man and good friend who truly looks out for the Town of Herndon – the whole Town.

Also reelected in 2006 were Connie Hutchinson and Harlon Reece, both for a fourth term. Hutchinson is a hard worker who was one of the driving forces that made the Herndon Visitor’s Center a reality.

Reece, a good soldier, literally, well, actually a Marine, was the only holdover of those who supported the day laborer center. Reece is also a good man who believes he is working in the best interest of Herndon, but on the issue of the day laborer center, we had to part ways. I still consider him a friend, but politics is politics, issues are issues, and I could not support Reece in his quest to become the next mayor of Herndon in yesterday’s election.

The huge turnout spoke volumes with the major shakeup of the council in 2006. The turnout yesterday shrunk by a couple of hundred voters, but that is because they did not have the same anger held over from 2006. By and large, voters were satisfied with the work of the 2006-08 council and rewarded all who sought reelection with an additional terms.

Reece, the lone holdover initially supporting the day laborer center lost his bid to replace DeBenedittis. In fact, DeBenedittis faced and withstood two opponents, Reece who is a true Southern gentleman, issues notwithstanding, and Jasbinder Singh, an arrogant individual who had no respect for the rules or the office he sought.

In an encounter with Singh yesterday, he was campaigning too close to the entranceway of the Herndon Community Center where the lone poll was located. Clearly a violation of the rules, I politely told Singh he couldn’t campaign where he stood. He said to me, “I am running for mayor, you must respect me.”

After a split-second recovery from that moronic statement, I said, “if you are running for mayor, you should know the rules, and to not follow them is not the sign of a good leader.”

To which he responded, “I don’t have to listen to you,” followed by his son calling me an “a**hole.” I reported the incident to an election official.

Fortunately, the Town of Herndon has been spared the wrath of an individual who couldn’t be less knowledgeable of the issues facing the community.

On the other end of the spectrum, I was impressed with not just DeBenedittis’ knowledge of the issues, but his recollection of virtually every person he encountered on election day. As people approached him he remembered where he met them, often times what street they live on and even an issue of concern the voter may have discussed with the reelected mayor. That is a real talent. As someone who has run for public office a couple of times, that is one of the most challenging aspects of a campaign, to remember the names of that many people.

Throughout the day, voter after voter approached the incumbents to offer good luck wishes, congratulate them on a solid term, reassure the candidates they earned the votes of the well wisher, as well as discuss issues of importance.

One Asian-American gentleman related how he has been a Herndon resident for more than a decade. He said how deplorable it is when people come to this country illegally, don’t follow the rules, laws and customs of the United States. The voter then thanked the two incumbents with whom he spoke for doing such a good job during the current term and hopes they will continue in the term ahead.

Another voter, a Hispanic gentleman voiced similar thoughts and added how embarrassed he gets when he reads in the paper about Hispanic males arrested for public intoxication or the overcrowding of single-family homes by large groups of Hispanics.

Don’t hold your breath waiting to read such comments in The Washington Post or the Herndon Observer, Herndon Connection or Herndon Times. Full disclosure, a number of years ago, I labored for the Herndon Connection. That said, the Observer is considered the alleged voice of the people of the Town of Herndon with its deeper roots in town and actually located in Herndon. Truth be told, the paper was nothing short of being a shill for the candidates running in opposition to the incumbents that won reelection. Far from fair and balanced, one only needs to turn to their editorial and letters pages.

Obviously, the voters saw past the local media and remembered why they elected the incumbents in the first place.

On the economic front, the council controlled spending, a genuine rarity these days, and they did so by not increasing their operating budget for FY-2009. Just as importantly, the Town Council did not reach into its citizens pockets any deeper as they did not raise the tax rates during this same time period.

While keeping their hands out of citizens’ wallets, the council managed to make the Town a more pleasant place to live as residential overcrowding was decreased from 120 cases to roughly 40 cases. This is important as it keeps property values high and sends the message that there is an appropriate way to live and the Town will not be taken advantage of by people not willing to live by the rules.

Couple this with the closure, finally, of the day laborer hiring site, now no longer a magnet for illegal aliens and no longer giving the impression of Herndon as a sanctuary town. This too, is good for maintaining safe streets and does not rob people of their tax dollars to pay for the day laborer site.

Thanks to the Town Council, the establishment of the 287(g) Memorandum of Agreement with Homeland Security, ICE has empowered the Herndon Police to enforce federal immigration law for those miscreants arrested on felony and DUI charges.

Improvements have been made to Runnymede Park and Alabama Drive Park continuing Herndon's reputation as a green-friendly place to live, work and play.

This is why the voters returned the mayor and five incumbents to continue their work for the people of the Town of Herndon. But don’t expect the local press to share this with anyone. That’s why it can be found on my blog: http://sanfordhorn.blogtownhall.com/.

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

Singing the Opposite CoStanza

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

April 18, 2008

In a world only appreciated by Seinfeld’s George Costanza, up is down and black is white, there are protests surrounding the visit to the United States by Pope Benedict XVI, while nary a peep is heard regarding the treasonous meeting with the terrorist organization Hamas by former President Jimmy Carter. (Treason, as Carter is giving aid and comfort to the enemy.)

With Easter in the rear view mirror and Passover upon us, this is an interesting juxtaposition of religious activity during this, the spring season of holy observances.

While the First Amendment of the Constitution grants the right to peacefully protest, Pope Benedict XVI, leader of a billion or so Catholics, deserves the respect given a legitimate head of state. (Key word is legitimate.)

Granted, the Catholic Church has its problems, and Benedict addressed one by meeting and praying with a group who have been sexually abused by priests or other church officials. This is a path never traversed by Benedict’s predecessor Pope John Paul II. Clearly this is a step in the right direction attempting to heal deep wounds and fissures imposed upon innocents who should feel nothing but safety and security within their church and their faith.

Pope Benedict XVI also offered Passover wishes to the Jewish community during the mass at Nationals Park.

While it is clear that the pontiff, who celebrated his 81^st birthday at the White House, is doing the work of his Lord, it is also painfully clear whose bidding Carter is doing by meeting with the leader of Hamas, a terrorist organization, and laying a wreath at the grave of supreme terrorist Yassir Arafat.

Save for the Republican Jewish Coalition’s vigorous protests, and other conservatives, there has been little outcry about Carter’s attempt to again elevate himself beyond his long past days of relevance. Instead of the British accent of Neville Chamberlain, there is the Southern drawl of Carter.

What is his goal – legitimize a terror organization or legitimize himself? His failure of a presidency has only been punctuated by his failure as an alleged diplomat and statesman. Who asked Carter to take this trip? Who is he representing? As a super-delegate supporting Senator Barack Obama (D-IL), is Carter attempting to clear a path should Obama be elected president this November?

Why was the former president allowed to take such a trip? The State Department was asleep at the switch here. Trips are not permitted to Cuba, yet, it’s seemingly fine and dandy to hob-knob with terrorists hell-bent on destroying Israel, and ultimately the United States and Western Civilization.

Congressman Sue Myrick (R-NC) has called for the State Department to revoke Carter’s passport. Good idea – perhaps that could be accomplished prior to his return.

As Carter meets with perpetrators of evil, Jewish communities the world over are observing Passover, commemorating the coming out of Egypt, freedom from slavery’s chains and a renaissance of Jewish life. Instead of trying to build a bridge that will lead nowhere, Carter should stick to building houses.

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

Pay Dirt Not Struck on Payday Loan Limit

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

07 March 2008

That a bicameral and bipartisan vote in Richmond would attempt to stem the tide of the increasing epidemic of survival via payday lending, is akin to bandaging a bullet hole with scotch tape.

Make no mistake, the Virginia legislative bodies did not overreach in their 91 to 9 House vote and 37 to 2 Senate vote to reform the payday lending racket. Yes, a racket, because while I am an avowed capitalist and support private enterprise, these institutions are nothing short of usurious, parasitic degenerates preying on some of the most vulnerable members of society who probably never learned to budget or live within their means.

The votes call for a limit of one loan at a time by borrowers, who must produce a paycheck for such loan eligibility. Borrowers will also be limited to the number of loans they may procure throughout any given year and be provided a greater period of payback time.

The annual rate of interest on such loans will be capped, yes, capped at 36 percent with additional fees to boot. Fees, calculated similarly to an interest rate tally up at 391 percent – simply unconscionable.

Actually, the Commonwealth of Virginia did not go far enough, for although it is not the job of government to restrict free enterprise it does have a responsibility to protect its citizens. But, there is a bigger picture on the horizon.

The payday loan industry manifested itself due to a symptom of a grander illness – living within a cycle of perpetual debt. This is a disease perpetuated by the miserable example set by the federal government, who, regardless of the party in power, spends uncontrollably, believes in deficits and also believes the cure is to tax the people more and more in order to pay for some of the most moronic and innocuous programs.

The citizenry, mimicking the government, spends likewise – not budgeting appropriately, not prioritizing expenses and certainly not saving for retirement or a rainy day. Sad to say, for too many people, it’s pouring – now.

Start with the little things. If you smoke, stop. Drink alcohol, cut back or stop. Eat fast food, stop. These are not necessities, will save money and improve health, thus keeping medical costs down. Unable to make the rent payment, don’t go out to dinner and a movie. No, I am not a member of the food, beverage and substance police. Knock yourselves out – but take responsibility when you can’t make ends meet.

Don’t fall prey to the payday loan hustlers. Create a budget, prioritize expenses, cut back on your own and put these bloodsuckers out of business.

Rules Are Rules – Even For the Democrats

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

March 4, 2008

The Democratic Party commandeered the title, albeit inappropriately, the “party of the people.” This is the same Democratic Party that in 1982 created the super delegate – rewarding party elites with an extra vote in their nominating process. This is the same Democratic Party currently disenfranchising more than two million primary voters in Florida and Michigan.

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) established party rules determining that states advancing their primary dates would be penalized by not having those delegates counted or seated at the Denver convention in August. In a letter to the DNC, Senator Hillary Clinton (NY) agreed to abide by party regulations.

With the game heading into the late innings and few players remaining on her bench, Clinton, trailing Senator Barack Obama (IL), is appealing to the umpires for rule changes. Tough cookies, Senator. Rules are rules – even for Democrats. Nobody put a gun to her head and the coronation she expected heading to the convention lay in ruins thanks to a candidate so popular, even his sneezes receive standing ovations.

As for the disenfranchised voters in the Sunshine and Wolverine states, they have their state party leadership to blame for electoral greed and egos. Those states knew the ramifications for amending their primary dates, hoping to impact the course of the nomination process. Now neither state will positively affect the outcome. There is a negative backlash in that two hugely important states will sit on the sidelines while the remaining 48 determine who will be the party nominee. The last time 48 states determined a party nominee, Adlai Stevenson won that Democratic race in 1956.

This should teach the state parties a lesson for the future – follow the lead of the national party.

Currently, the Democrats are trying to determine how to rectify their flawed nomination procedures. Some have suggested seating the delegates from the miscreant states at the national convention anyway. Bad idea. That simply rewards the candidates who had better name recognition as they claimed not to have campaigned in accordance with the rules. It also gives a pass to the states who disobeyed the DNC. Others have suggested seating half the delegates in Denver. Bad idea again, but for half the same reason.

Here’s an interesting idea floated by Florida Governor Charlie Crist – a Republican – have a do-over – and at state expense. A do-over? Um, judge’s ruling – what is this – third grade kickball? At the state of Florida’s expense? The taxpayers must be doing cartwheels over this moronic idea.

Again, bad idea. Beside the two reasons provided, the circumstances will not be the same. Will the names of Senator Joe Biden (DE), Senator Chris Dodd (CT), John Edwards (NC), Mike Gravel (AK), Representative Dennis Kucinich (OH), and Governor Bill Richardson (NM) appear on the ballot? This too is faulty. Fact is, the Democrats made their beds and should lie in them until 2012. Sleep tight.

Pictures Worth A Thousand Votes

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

January 15, 2008

Tell me if you’ve heard this one before. The night before Election Day a Republican and a Democrat walk into a bar – yes, together. The pair sit at the bar and each order an adult beverage to celebrate the end of a long and spirited campaign. Before serving the drinks, the bartender asks the duo for appropriate identification.

The Democrat produces his photo-ID, but alas, the Republican has forgotten hers. The Republican is told she cannot be served, but, although upset, she says she understands. The Democrat finishes his drink and the two leave the bar without any comment regarding the lack of a drink had by the Republican.

The very next morning, Election Day, this bi-partisan pair meets at their local voting establishment – really the fire house – to cast ballots in culmination of the hard work they put in on behalf of their candidates. The two friends stood in their respective alphabetically assigned lines until their turns came. The Republican produced her voter identification card, affirmed her address and proceeded to the booth.

Meanwhile, the Democrat’s turn came and he had no appropriate identification that would allow him to vote. He huffed and puffed like a petulant three-year-old demanding his right to vote. Is the election official, who is far underpaid for the 15-hour task he performs, supposed to just allow someone who is unable to properly identify himself to cast a ballot? How does the election official know the voter is who he claims to be? Perhaps the potential voter has moved and is attempting to vote in more than one precinct.

Issues like these and others involving potential election/voter fraud are the subjects of the consolidated cases Crawford v. Marion County Election Board and Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita being heard by the United States Supreme Court.

The challengers, being lead by the Indiana Democratic Party and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), aver that requiring voters to produce photo identification in order to vote is a hardship and a design by the GOP to disenfranchise poor, elderly, disabled and urban voters who tend to vote Democratic.

While the Democrats claim this is a political issue, and a partisan one at that, the Republicans and the majority of the panel of the US Court of Appeals for the 7^th Circuit do not agree, instead calling this, appropriately, a legal matter. And while this pair of linked cases involved the Hoosier State, make no mistake, the outcome will have lasting effects on state laws throughout the nation.

If a person does not have proper identification and is denied a purchase at a liquor store, why are there not ACLU protesters picketing that establishment? If a person does not have proper identification and is denied the purchase of a firearm, why are there not ACLU protesters picketing that establishment? Because the Democrats, in league with the ACLU are merely concerned with making voting as easy as possible in order to eventually find ways for illegal immigrants to get the vote.

Every voter, Republican, Libertarian, independent and even Democrats should demand the strictest possible voter identification laws possible to maintain the integrity of each citizen’s vote. For every illegal vote cast, the value of legal votes is diminished that much further.

In this day and age, so few people do not have a photo ID that such cases are a virtual waste of time and taxpayers dollars. In the state of Georgia, voters were told that mobile voter registration units would come to the voter wherever they are in that state in order to provide them, free of charge, with appropriate ID. The ACLU still objected. What could be simpler then to have the government agency literally come to your home or place of business and give you for free the tools necessary to prevent disenfranchisement.

There is nothing sinister about expecting people to arrive at their polling places with a photo identification. We need one when we order a drink, which is a de facto government decree by the simple fact that the federal government mandated that each state raise their drinking ages to 21 or lose federal funding for highways and roads. States quickly complied, and why not – there were millions, if not billions of dollars at stake.

If someone is fortunate enough to win a state-run lottery, the winner is required to provide appropriate photo identification. After all, do you want someone else to claim your winnings? Certainly not. We seem to have a warped sense of priority regarding why and when we need to identify ourselves. We take precautions to ensure the integrity of our ballot boxes and voting machines. Shouldn’t we do likewise with the voters who cast the very ballots that determine who will lead our cities, counties, states and nation?