Sanford Speaks Out is the latest blog sensation written, edited and produced by Sanford D. Horn, a writer and educator. Sanford will write about issues of the day covering a myriad subjects: politics, education, culture, sports, religion and even food.
More anger than incredulity simply because little emerging
from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals should surprise anyone
with a pulse who has been paying attention to the machinations of that body.
Yet, a disturbing ruling made by the 9th
Circuit Court sounds the alarm bells of the loudest wakeup call imaginable – a cacophony
of fear, sadness, and surrender – shaking this nation to its very core. Threats
of racial violence have vanquished the First Amendment to the United States
In a much ballyhooed case dating back to May 5, 2010, five
Live Oak Hill High School students arrived at school clad in t-shirts sporting
the American flag. They were given the option of turning the shirts inside out
or returning home with an excused absence because of numerous threats of racial
violence. The 9th Circuit Court determined that the concerns
regarding the threats of violence overshadowed the students’ First Amendment
right of free expression.
In reaching its decision, the 9th Circuit
Court relied upon the 1969 Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. In Tinker several junior high and high
school students protested the war in Vietnam by donning black armbands in
school. School officials banned the armbands just two days prior to the
students appearing in the schools wearing them.
The students were subsequently sent home and suspended
until such time as they returned to school sans armbands. The students’ claimed
their First Amendment rights of free speech and expression were violated by Des
Moines – after all, the First Amendment does not cease to exist upon entering
The Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, supported the
school officials’ authority to set rules and policies provided they are “consistent
with the First Amendment rights of students and teachers.”*
Continuing with Tinker,
“wearing an armband as a silent form of expressing an opinion was, according to
the Court, ‘akin to pure speech’ and involved ‘primary First Amendment rights.’”*
Tinker, for it
to be valid, relies upon the key word – consistent. “The Court stressed the
fact that school officials had permitted other political symbols to be worn.
For example, some students wore political campaign buttons, and others wore the
Iron Cross, a symbol of Nazism.”* Only the anti-Vietnam Conflict armbands were
singled out for exclusion, restriction, and eventually punishment – not even a
symbol of Nazism was deemed inappropriate – which even in 1969 Iowa is both disturbing
and lacking consistency.
If anything, Tinker
should support the First Amendment right of the California students to wear their
American flag t-shirts on Cinco de Mayo, or any other day, for that matter. Are
flags in classrooms being taken down on Cinco de Mayo? How about the flags
flying outside the school, yet still on the campus property? Are they raised on
The Live Oak High case, where the 9th Circuit
Court upheld a school’s decision denying students the right of expression in
the wearing of t-shirts depicting the American flag lacks the consistency rooted
in Tinker. Are other t-shirts with
designs barred from this school? Are other dates subject to wardrobe review and
Cinco de Mayo celebrates victory by the Mexican army over
the then far superior French army in the May 5, 1862 Battle of Puebla, yet is
widely observed in the United States by those of Mexican heritage. While this “holiday”
is typically enjoyed by many of non-Mexican heritage with the enjoyment of
Mexican beer and food, there is no reason why Americans should be barred from
wearing t-shirts emblazoned with American flags. Why not ban the wearing of
t-shirts with French flags?
Should other battles be observed in this same manner –
with threats of racial or ethnic violence to prevent people from donning
American flag t-shirts? How about on April 25 for the celebration of the Dutch
victory over Spain in the 1607 Battle of Gibraltar? How about September 12 for
the celebration of Poland’s victory over the Ottomans in the 1683 Battle of
Vienna? How about January 14 for the celebration of the French victory under
Napoleon over the Austrians in the 1797 Battle of Rivoli? How about September 1
for the celebration of the British victory over the Afghans in the 1880 Battle
of Kandahar? How about December 12 for the celebration of Finland’s victory
over the Soviet Union in the 1939 Battle of Tolvajarvi?
Or, if battles are not the focal point of celebration and
ethnic pride is, should American flag t-shirts be banned on St. Patrick’s Day
if Irish-Americans threaten ethnic violence? How about Columbus Day? How about Israel
Moreover, when did American society reach the deleterious
point of threats of violence ruling the day? Students opposed to the wearing of
American flag t-shirts threatened racial unrest and outright violence – and their
threats were used to deny First Amendment rights of speech and expression by
American students with American flags in American schools.
The threat of violence from the Mexican and
Mexican-American students at Live Oak High should have been thwarted and
punished based upon the 1919 United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States.
Charles Schenck, during World War I, was accused, along
with other Socialist party members, of violating the 1917 Espionage Act –
prohibiting “destruction of military recruiting.”**
Schenck protested United States involvement in the Great
War via anti-war pamphlets. He argued that the Espionage Act “prevented full
public discussion on the war issue,”** and thus violated his First Amendment
rights as found in the Constitution. Schenck lost his Supreme Court appeal on
the grounds of what Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes defined as a “clear and
“Holmes’s analysis considered the context of the speech
as well as the intent of the persons who sent the leaflets.”** INTENT. What is
the intent of the Live Oak High School students threatening violence should other
students don the American flag t-shirts in an American school? Clearly,
violence; disruption of school activities, while wearers of the t-shirts
intended to simply go through their school day wearing t-shirts adorned with
the American flag.
“Holmes distinguished wartime and peacetime contexts and
concluded that Schenck’s words constituted such an evil since the statutes
applied to conspiracies as well as actual obstruction of the military. Under
the statute the action did not have to be successful in order to violate the
The threats – whether carried out or not, present a clear
and present danger and violate the law as outlined in Schenck. Those Live Oak High students issuing the threats of racial
violence and disruption of daily school activities are the ones who should have
been punished. After all, with the virtual zero tolerance policies regarding
bullying, why were the threatening students not suspended? Instead their
miscreant behavior was rewarded by the 9th Circuit Court out of
fear. This case should absolutely be appealed to the United States Supreme
Students wearing t-shirts with American flags, Mexican
flags, another country’s flag, or no flag at all should be both permitted and
welcomed on campus in an effort to demonstrate First Amendment freedoms of
speech and expression. In fact, such an allowance would be analogous to what
Schenck himself wanted – “full public discussion of the war issue,” sans an
actual war – or not.
As for the distinguishment made by Justice Holmes in 1919
between wartime and peacetime contexts, there are many who would aver that we
the people are locked in a culture war for the soul of America. The definition
of a culture war may be nebulous, but the results could prove catastrophic to
the future of this country and its way of life. The United States will either
go the way of the Roman Empire after its roughly 300 years and disappear as it
was known, or the people will return to the words of the Founding Fathers.
The case of the Live Oak High School is bigger than
simply denying students the right to freely express themselves while allowing
bullies to threaten force and succeed. Upon the founding of the United States
of America following victory in the Revolutionary War over King George III and
Great Britain, Benjamin Franklin was queried as to the style of government to
which the new nation would adhere – a republic or a monarchy. “A Republic, if
you can keep it,” responded Franklin. It is up to we the people to keep and
maintain the Republic. The maintenance therein is the genuine challenge,
especially considering the growing number who have either not learned about the
history of this Republic or simply do not care.
The violent and those who threaten violence should not be
rewarded, nor should the wordless wearers of t-shirts be thwarted in the
pursuit of their First Amendment rights of speech and expression – lest the
future of the Republic suffer gravely.
While Franklin was ebulliently prophetic about the
precarious nature of the Republic from its inception, former President Ronald
Reagan 200 years later saw the workings of the people both in and out of
government and offered these equally vital words:
“Freedom is never more than one generation from
extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be
fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will
spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it
was once like in the United States where men were free.”
Sanford D. Horn is
a writer and educator living in Westfield, IN.
Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States, P. 875
** The Oxford
Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States, P. 758
plenty of horror stories being told. All of them are untrue, but they're
being told all over America. But in those tales – turned out to be just that –
tales – stories made up from whole cloth, lies, distorted by the Republicans to
grab headlines or make political advertisements.” – Senate Majority Leader
Harry Reid (D-NV), Wednesday, February 26, 2014, on the Senate floor
the 6.2 million Americans who have been unceremoniously dropped from their
personal health care insurance coverage because of the government imposition
and intrusion of the so-called Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare, you have
been called liars by the Senate Majority Leader – Nevada Democrat Harry Reid.
the many more millions of Americans who have struggled with the Obamacare
website, but to no avail, you too have been called liars by the Senate Majority
Leader – Nevada Democrat Harry Reid.
just where did Reid make these outlandish pronouncements? The hallowed halls of
the Senate chamber.
intelligence of the average American has been insulted time and time again by Barack
Obama, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen
Sebelius in their feeble and feckless attempts to ensure the nation that
Obamacare is good for them, that it is better than the coverage they already
have or have been separated from through no choice of their own. Yet the raw
numbers have proven otherwise – that we the people are not falling for the
chicanery coming from the Obama administration and his minions.
Reid feels compelled to pile on by calling millions of Americans liars – no sugar
coating, no euphemisms or spin – rare for anything said in Washington – further
subjugating them from their dignity. Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Senator
Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), and US Representative Gary Peters (D-MI-14) have
also taken to calling these same Americans liars.
true life horror stories have come from rabbis, priests, stay at home moms with
sick children, truck drivers, sales clerks, and even doctors and nurses. Folks from
all walks of life, dropped from their chosen coverage or unable to procure
coverage on the government website have reached a new low – called liars by the
people supposedly sent to Washington to represent their best interests, when
the only interests they are representing are self-interests, their own job
salvation, and their attempts to get reelected.
any of those people who have been dropped by their insurance company, send a copy
of that cancellation notice directly to the office of Harry Reid. Let millions
of copies of these letters no one asked to receive flood Reid’s office. Make him
rue the day he called hardworking Americans liars when it is he who is the
the copy of the cancellation notice to Reid’s office: 522 Hart Senate Office
Building, Washington, DC 20510
the copy of the cancellation notice to Reid’s office: 202-224-7327
his office to politely lodge your disgust with Reid – yes, politely – don’t
sink to his level: 202-224-3542
Senator Harry Reid’s office. Bury them in a sea of paper to make them
understand that the poor choices made by government have consequences – often dire.
Yet to people like Reid, the suffering of average, faceless, nameless Americans
is merely collateral damage. Make Reid understand that couldn’t be farther from
Sanford D. Horn is a writer and
educator living in Westfield, IN.
A recent column in The
Indianapolis Star written by Sandy Sasso, rabbi emerita of Congregation Beth-El
Zedeck in Indianapolis, calls to “Fight poverty, promote sex ed to reduce
Nowhere in her liberal diatribe calling for less
government intrusion in people’s bedrooms, but then hypocritically demanding
government funding for abortion and birth control, did the good rabbi ever
mention the word ADOPTION. Nowhere – not once in her entire screed.
The one aspect of Sasso’s column with which I agree is
her pronouncement that “we all want to reduce the number of abortions.” How we
get there is a different story.
Yet, another one of her assertions, that “The most
important fact is that no one is ‘pro-abortion,’” is both naïve and
disingenuous. Sasso’s statement is not a “fact” as she avers; it’s barely
wishful thinking. Planned Parenthood, an abortion mill advocating for abortion,
makes its money performing abortions. They would not remain in business were it
not for the thousands upon thousands of abortions it commits year in and year
out, raking in millions and millions of dollars on the deaths of the unborn for
whom there is no one to speak up when the woman or worse yet, girl, in the
examination room is told that it is alright to slaughter her own flesh and
Fighting poverty is a great idea suggested by Sasso, but
poverty is not the reason young women having abortions are pregnant in the
first place. The reason is a poor education starting at home – a home that
ideally should have a mother and a father.
The generations of teen and out of wedlock pregnancies
are more often the result of a lack of education, but this is a generational,
systemic crisis that sex education in the schools has not cured. Nor has the inculcation
of condoms in the schools diminished the pregnancy/abortion crisis.
Sex education must start with the simple fact that
condoms, the pill, a diaphragm, or any other forms of birth control are not 100
percent effective. The only foolproof manner of avoiding pregnancy is the abstinence
of the behavior that would result in pregnancy – sexual intercourse. Offering
condoms in schools send the absolute wrong message – that such an offer is a
tacit approval of the behavior requiring the condom in the first place.
Then there is the issue of who is paying for those
condoms in the schools. If condoms are in public schools, they are being
financed by the people – the taxpayers, as tax dollars are used to fund that
This is yet another area where Sasso is wrong. She writes
“The opponents of reproductive rights have found a new argument to promote
their cause: fiscal conservatism.” Sasso is wrong on two counts. Conservatives do
not oppose reproductive rights. Conservatives oppose reproductive wrongs. It is
wrong to slaughter an innocent baby in the womb – as Jewish and Catholic
beliefs support life beginning at conception. It is wrong for that conceived
baby not to have a voice while a Planned Parenthood agent is encouraging such a
slaughter. It is wrong for abortion to be used as a form of birth control.
Here is where adoption comes into play. Adoption – once again,
a word and concept never presented by Sasso in her editorial. There are
thousands of American married couples desiring children, who, for one reason or
another have not been blessed by G-d with conception. These couples can and
will provide the unwanted child with a home and most importantly, a life – a safe
harbor from the abortionists butcher knife. American babies being adopted by
American couples – that should be the goal.
Sasso is also wrong to say fiscal conservatism is a new
argument against abortion. This has been a long-standing battle between conservatives
and liberals. Sasso plunges way into the deep end when she wrote conservatives “want
to ensure that the federal government pays neither for abortions nor
contraception, regardless of the fact that these are constitutionally protected
rights.” Sasso does not seem to understand the definition of the word fact. She
has twice used it to suggest something she believes is true when in FACT it is
Yes, it is a fact that conservatives, and many
independents and moderates, for that matter, object to any taxpayer dollars
funding abortions and contraceptives. It is not a fact, however, that a federally
funded abortion or contraceptive is a constitutional right. The landmark 1973
Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade
granted rights of privacy, but did not mention either abortion or
contraceptives. And the growing sentiment coming from the vox populi is to call for the overturning of Roe in a march to the Supreme Court each January.
Using Sasso’s faulty logic though, according to the
Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, we the people have the
right to bear arms. Should the federal government then provide the general
public with those guns?
Sasso then suggests that no one is calling for the secession
of federal funding for Viagara. Think again, rabbi. The federal government
should no more be funding Viagara than it should abortions or birth control. It
shouldn’t be in the baby business at all – including adoption – that should be
the work of synagogues, churches, and various other legitimate religious
Abortion can be reduced with honest sex education
extolling the virtues of abstinence as a surefire way to avoid pregnancy.
Abortion can be reduced with honest sex education offered with guest speakers
telling of the true life horrors of what happens to the fetus during the
abortion procedure. Abortion can be reduced with honest sex education offered
by women who underwent the deleterious procedure and how they regretted it.
Abortion can be reduced by encouraging adoption and reminding those considering
abortion that there are loving couples who desire nothing more than to raise,
nurture, and love a child, yet are unable to produce one on their own.
That Rabbi Sasso never once mentioned adoption in her
editorial raises more questions than it answers. Does she support abortion more
than adoption? It creates a cacophony between her profession and the issue at
hand. Sasso never mentioned that abortion has killed more blacks than the Ku
Klux Klan. Sasso, a rabbi, never decried abortion in the Jewish community as a
second Holocaust either.
Abortion is not our portion. Adoption is the option.
Sanford D. Horn is
a writer and educator living is Westfield, IN. He is an active member of
Congregation Shaarey Tefilla in Carmel, IN.
“I’m Michael Sam. I’m an American. I’m a college
graduate. I’m gay.”
That’s what Sam, a University of Missouri defensive end
said on ESPN’s “Outside the Lines” program.
Whoopty-freaken-do. Know what impresses me most? Michael
Sam is a college graduate. Mazal tov for accomplishing what far too many
so-called student athletes do not – earning a degree to make them a marketable
citizen in the world outside the arena of sports. So whether Sam plays in the National
Football League, Canadian Football League, overseas or never again, he should
have no trouble finding gainful employment.
Or will he?
“You’re an inspiration to all of us,” Tweeted Michelle
Obama. An inspiration? Not so fast, Mrs. Obama. If anything, Sam will be a
detriment to both himself and the NFL.
Bring on the media circus. Playing in a team sport, Sam
will garner infinitely more attention than he ought because of his off field
announcement than anyone will earn for their on field accomplishments. Players
– both teammates and opponents will be fielding all sorts of potentially
uncomfortable questions, and regardless of what occurs behind the closed doors
of the locker room, players with an ounce of common sense will say little to
nothing for fear of being labeled homophobic. Most will simply smile and spout
the party line about the importance of putting the best team out of the field
And I agree with that. Sam did himself a disservice. He
should be drafted if his skills warrant. He should attend pre-season practice
and workouts trying his damndest to make the team just as all other invitees
do. If he makes the final roster, good for him. If not, will there be questions
as to bias against the first openly gay player?
Will the NFL scrutinize every hit Sam endures while on
the field of play as a potential hate crime? Football is a tough game and it
requires its players to be tough – both on the inside and on the outside as the
situation with the Miami Dolphins players Richie Incognito and Jonathan Martin
demonstrated last season.
Make no mistake, I am not suggesting any player be
bullied because he is sensitive, as may have been the case in the Dolphins
locker room, or because he is a religious minority, or because he is gay. But,
there is a culture in locker rooms that transcends sports. Sam may make
straight players uncomfortable – which is their problem, not Sam’s; but Sam
also needs to prepare himself for a cold shoulder from teammates as well – acceptance
of a chosen lifestyle is not a mandate or a law – at least not yet, if the
politically correct bullies have their way.
In fact, it is the politically correct crowd – the
so-called mainstream media, the anti-First Amendment-unless-you-agree-with-them-word-for-word
crowd, and other guilt-ridden liberal-progressives who are attempting to co-opt
American society with a homosexual movement seemingly larger than it is. Gays
consist of roughly 10 percent of the population, yet they have corporate America
on its heels for fear of offending someone and the potential boycott that may
It’s time to say “enough.” Enough kow-towing to a
minority who, while entitled to their choice in sexual orientation, still
behave in a way that the majority find, to say the least, off-putting. Being
gay is a choice and one not entitled to any special treatment or protection by
law in the United States. If gays wish to boycott a business, I know there will
be plenty of people wishing to support that business for defending family
values and moral decency.
I no more care if there is a gay player on my favorite
team any more than I support the evils of affirmative action. I want the best
11 players on the football field; the nine best on the baseball field; the five
best on the basketball court; the ablest attorney, doctor, accountant, plumber,
and electrician period. I want the best – regardless of race, religion, or
sexual orientation. Those three characteristics are irrelevant and they should
be kept to oneself.
That Michael Sam, Jr. chose to announce his sexual
predilections is on him. He must now live with the consequences – positive or
negative. I don’t care if Sam is gay; I just don’t need to see the parade pass
by my window.
Sanford D. Horn is
a writer and educator living in Westfield, IN.
“I can take steps without legislation… that’s what I’m
going to do.” – Barack Obama, State of the Union, January 28, 2014
Obama Plans One Branch Government
Commentary by Sanford D. Horn January 31, 2014
The full content of the above Barack Obama State of the
Union quote is no less revealing or demonstrative of his desire and design to
not only disregard Congress, but subvert the Constitution as the law of the
land. From King George III to Barack Hussein Obama I, the United States of
America is about to come full circle as the rule of law is abandoned.
“America does not stand still, and neither will I. So
wherever and whenever I can take steps without legislation to expand
opportunity for more American families, that’s what I’m going to do,” said
Obama during Tuesday night’s speech before both houses of Congress.
Make no mistake, this isnothing new from Obama. This has long been his modus operandi. The only difference is that he announced it to the
entire world that it is his intention to bypass Congress and sign into law
legislation he crafts if Congress won’t do it for him. To this public
revelation, Obama received a standing ovation from the Democrats in the House Chamber.
The GOP membership was not surprisingly silent.
It matters not how well intentioned Obama is with his
desire to help American families, although such a claim is highly dubious
knowing his track record. Obama can put forth all the legislative proposals he
wishes, but it is still the job, as per the United States Constitution, of the
Congress to pass or reject such legislation. It’s a system of checks and
balances and it has been in place since 1789.
But apparently King Barack I knows better than the
Founding Fathers and has been given a green light by the flaccid Congressional membership
of his own party. The GOP had better wake up make sure they fight every
Executive Order Obama signs. The Republican majority had better not squander
their position or they will lose it come this November. In Obama’s case, the
pen indeed is mightier than the sword.
“A Republic, if you can keep it,” is the second part and
answer of an oft-quoted quip made by Benjamin Franklin at the close of the 1787
Yet, the question, asked by Dr. James McHenry, a Maryland
delegate to the convention, is just as important. “Well, Doctor, what have we
got – a Republic or a Monarchy?” queried McHenry.
That question need be asked again, but by the millions of
Americans who wish to retain our Republic. In fact, the question really needn’t
be asked, but it’s the sentiment that must be demanded by the American people
before it is too late.
President Ronald Reagan said “Freedom is never more than
one generation away from extinction. It has to be fought for and defended by
each generation,” on July 6, 1987 at the Annual Convention of Kiwanis
Reagan knew, as millions of freedom loving Americans know,
that freedom, like any good relationship, requires cultivation and deep roots
if it is to survive. We the people must fight to retain our freedom, for if we
lose that fight, the last best hope for peace and freedom around the world –
the United States of America, will succumb as well.
Sanford D. Horn is
a writer and educator living in Westfield, IN.
Just as jokes about the Lincoln and Kennedy
assassinations are still inappropriate, even after 33 years Barack Obama’s nomination
of the lawyer who willingly defended the murderer of a police officer in 1981
is just as inappropriate – if not more so as it reopens barely healed wounds of
the family the officer left behind.
Proving once again to feed his own progressive agenda,
Obama has appointed Debo P. Adegbile to the Justice Department to serve as
Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Rights Division. Adegbile volunteered
to represent Mumia Abu-Jamal in 1981 for the murder of Philadelphia police Sergeant
Daniel Faulkner. Abu-Jamal shot Faulkner four times and was slated for death
when Adegbile, again, volunteered to fight and succeed in getting the death penalty
Abu-Jamal was convicted of murder in 1982, having neither
testified on his own behalf nor denied his guilt throughout the trial. Abu-Jamal’s
own brother William, a witness at the crime scene, also declined to testify
during the trial. Additionally, multiple court rulings upheld the murder
Adegbile, also an NAACP legal defense official, is slated
to replace Tomas Perez, now heading the Labor Department in Obama’s cabinet. “Through
his extensive work at the NAACP and in arguments before the Supreme Court,
Adegbile has made it clear he does not believe civil rights apply to whites,”
wrote Katie Pavlich on Townhall.com, January 8, 2014.
While Obama has the right to nominate who he chooses, and
Adegbile followed his credo by zealously defending his client, Adegbile did not
have to volunteer to take the case, nor did Obama have to nominate such a
candidate. Is this the kind of person who should be heading the Civil Rights Division
at the Justice Department? Does his background scream open-mindedness and
fairness to all? Is this the best nominee Obama could find of all the attorneys
in the United States with experience in civil rights?
This appointment is a clear poke in the eye at the memory
of Sgt. Faulkner, his survivors, and the law enforcement fraternity in general.
Adegbile will face the Senate Judiciary Committee. Should that committee be
obtuse enough to approve this nominee, he will come before the entire Senate
for a vote of confirmation.
Below is a list of the members of the Senate Judiciary
Committee. Contact them and politely express your outrage at the caliber of
this appointment. We the people can, and must, make a difference.
All telephone numbers begin 202-224, with the specific four
final numbers listed below.
Long before the shenanigans of what has unoriginally been
dubbed “bridge-gate,” New Jersey Governor Chris Christie’s bona fides as a RINO
at best, a liberal at worst, should disqualify him from earning the 2016
Republican nomination for president.
Should the allegations regarding Christie’s involvement
in the closure of the George Washington Bridge last September come to fruition
as true, losing the nomination will be the least of his concerns. The bridge,
traversing from Manhattan to Fort Lee, NJ, shuttles roughly 280,000 vehicles
across the east-west span daily, is one of the busiest in the world at 100
million vehicles a year.
Christie is accused of orchestrating the closure, put
into action by his aides, as revenge against Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich (D)
for a lack of an endorsement by the mayor for the governor’s reelection
campaign. While Sokolich has said he takes Christie at his word when denying
any involvement in or knowledge of the traffic snarling bridge closure, an
investigation is being conducted by both the state legislature, currently under
the thumb of a Democratic majority, as well as United States Attorney in New
Jersey, Paul Fishman.
The George Washington Bridge notwithstanding, Christie
has other problems that should prevent him from securing the 2016 nod as GOP
Just two weeks prior to facing the voters of the Garden
State, Christie announced he would not appeal the decision made by the state
Supreme Court approving same-sex marriage. Christie claimed fighting the
court’s ruling would be “a losing battle.” Considering the lengths he has gone
fighting the teachers’ union and many other “white whales,” Christie should
have at least made an effort to speak out against the ruling and defend
traditional, one man, one woman marriage. But he balked in deference to a
powerful special interest group.
Additionally, one week after the ball dropped in Times
Square, across the river back in New Jersey, Christie signed a bill into law
dropping tuition costs for illegal aliens residing in the state. While legal
residents and citizens of the other 49 states in the union must pay an out of
state premium to attend Rutgers, Kean, Montclair State, William Paterson and
the seven other state universities, people who have no legal right to even be
in the United States, let alone take up space in a college or university, are
given yet another incentive to break the law.
These are two important issues where Christie has opted
to support the sides most deleterious to American society, culture, and
morality. Sure, it won him reelection in an ultra-blue New Jersey as a
Republican, but to most voters outside of the state, Christie is a bona fide RINO supporting the wrong side of issues that have
galvanized not just other politicians, but a wide swath of American voters –
especially illegal immigration which costs the United States’ taxpayers
billions upon billions of dollars each year.
Each entitlement given to illegals only serves as an
incentive to continue breaking the law while milking the American cow for all they
can get. Free health care, public school attendance, food stamps, welfare – all
paid for by hard working American citizens and legal residents who follow the
law, but to what end? The continuing incentives given illegals will never stem
the tide of their invasion into the United States, the breaking of our laws,
and the rewards for simply being in this country.
Sadly, both major political parties are complicit in
aiding and abetting the miscreants running amok in these United States. The
Democrats see illegal aliens as future Democratic voters. Republicans see
illegal aliens as cheap labor and thus are afraid to punish employers who are
potential campaign contributors.
The answer is to punish employers by the amount of what a
legal employee would earn in a year, deny illegal aliens any incentives for
crossing the borders, and amend the 14th Amendment to the United
States Constitution granting citizenship for simply being born on American
soil. The anchor baby notion of once there is a legal citizen in the US, he or
she can then have the parents and eventually other family members in this
country. The anchor baby citizen can then qualify for all sorts of goodies paid
for by the real citizens of the United States working hard and paying taxes for
the leaches to glom off of.
Between Christie’s bridge crisis which will no doubt span
into the next election cycle and the liberal policies he is endorsing either by
action or inaction, he is not just wrong for the Republican Party, but wrong
for the nation.
Sanford D. Horn is
a writer and educator living in Westfield, IN. He is a native of New Jersey.