Sunday, April 13, 2014

Holder's Race Card Deflects from Bigger Issue


Holder’s Race Card Deflects from Bigger Issue
Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
April 13, 2014

Like Aesop’s little boy who cried wolf, Attorney General Eric Holder is once again crying racism, this time before the friendly audience of Al Sharpton’s National Action Network. Holder’s woe is me act is beyond long in the tooth and the more he and Barack Obama shout racism, it dilutes its actual power when it is necessary as well as deflects from more urgent issues.

Make no mistake, racism is not dead in the United States – it would be foolish to suggest that it is. That would be nice, and sure, that is the dream, but unlikely to ever become reality – but not for a lack of trying. Racism will likely never die in this nation, but this is still the country that elected a black man – Barack Obama – twice.

But as Holder claims racist treatment with the left side of his mouth, there is the slight of (hand) lip while attempting to deny rights to law abiding Americans with the right side of his mouth. He claims “unprecedented, unwarranted treatment.” Holder continues to obfuscate, delay, and outright deny Congressional committees and the American people true testimony pertaining to the IRS scandal as well as other incidents.

Holder and his Justice Department have turned a blind eye to voter fraud, voter intimidation by the New Black Panther party – see Pennsylvania 2008, while claiming he is being singled out because of the color of his skin. This is utter bilge that Holder would accuse the GOP of treating him infinitely harsher that his predecessors simply because he is black. Along with the above mentioned issues, could it be that Holder’s pronouncements are his attempt to deflect from a bigger, more incendiary problem?

The 2nd Amendment: Friend of the Patriot, Foe of the Despotic Administration

United States Constitution, Amendment II: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” (Ratified December 15, 1791)

At 27 words, and for 223 years, the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is one of the shortest and one of the most important. In no uncertain terms it guarantees the right of the people – the American citizen to take appropriate, legal measures to possess firearms.

Yet, AG Holder, who already behaves as though he is above the law – a proven failure by the likes of better men, such as Richard M. Nixon – is determined to criminalize guns, legal gun ownership, and legal gun owners. He proposed a bracelet/GPS-type monitor for gun owners and guns themselves for the government to monitor and track.

G-d forbid the government should actually do its job, and pursue the real criminals instead of marking the legal, law abiding owners of firearms for potential prosecution and clearly for persecution. Legal, law abiding gun owners do not need tracking by the government, nor do they deserve such a violation of their right of privacy or a violation of their Fourth Amendment rights of illegal search and seizure. The potentiality of a wrist monitor – a la a criminal’s ankle monitor – smacks of a warrantless search. Such a tracking device seems akin to stalking. This seems beyond unreasonable.

It is positively frightening, but not surprising, that the Second Amendment continues to endure such assaults by the Obama administration. But this is a classic attempt of a despot, dictator, or authoritarian ruler to control the populous. After all, consider Germany’s Adolf Hitler, Russia’s Josef Stalin, China’s Mao Tze Tung, Uganda’s Idi Amin, and Cambodia’s Pol Pot. They had the collective goal of disarming their citizenry in order to control the lemmings as slaves or lambs led to slaughter by the millions.

Germany was considered a civilized and intelligent society, yet it allowed itself to be overrun by a hoard of fanatical hate mongers with the animalistic taste for blood. Hitler, a charismatic figure who was legally elected, said in 1942, “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared for their own downfall by so doing.” (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/01/adolf-hitler-the-most-foolish-mistake-we-could-make-would-be-to-allow-the-subject-races-to-possess-arms/)

The greater the gun control, the greater the gun-related crime statistics pile up. Look at cities like Chicago with one of the strictest gun control policies and people are being slaughtered in Second City. Mayors like Rahm Emanuel are obtuse to believe that keeping firearms out of the hands of the innocent, law abiding citizens will diminish gun violence.

Remember, in order to control the populous, government must strip the people of their ability to protect and defend themselves, their families, their businesses, and their private property. (Then said government takes over health care and outlaws private property.)

Ronald Reagan said it best when referencing foreign policy, “peace through strength.” The same sentiment holds true regarding the safety and security of the domestic population of the United States of America. The Second Amendment ensures all the other amendments remain ensconced in the American fabric. It is up to we the people to ensure the Second Amendment remains the strength that upholds the peace.

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

Monday, April 7, 2014

1st Amendment Stops at Mozilla's Front Door


1st Amendment Stops at Mozilla’s Front Door
Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
April 7, 2014

Once again political correctness and hypocrisy rear their ugly head as the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and the right of free expression is under assault by the extreme left thought police.

The hypocrisy comes from Mozilla, the Mountain View, CA producer of the web browser Firefox for pushing out its CEO Brendan Eich under threats and intimidation and a feckless, gutless inability to stand by its own corporate belief system.

Mitchell Baker, the executive chairwoman of Mozilla issued a completely hypocritical statement. “We know why people are hurt, and they are right: It’s because we haven’t stayed true to ourselves. We have employees with a wide diversity of views. Our culture of openness extends to encouraging staff and community to share their beliefs and opinions in public.”

Not so fast, Ms. Baker.

Brendan Eich was an employee – he did not own the company. Eich has views that differ from others within the company. Eich shared his beliefs and opinions with the public. And yet, he is on the outside of Mozilla looking for another employer simply because he dared have a different set of beliefs. But wait, wasn’t that encouraged? Apparently at Mozilla it is only encouraged if it is popular and politically correct. Otherwise it is frowned upon – virulently.

What heinous sin did Eich commit? In 2008 he contributed $1,000 to support California’s ban on gay marriage. That non job related activity, funded out of his own wallet, not Mozilla funds, has now put Eich on the unemployment line in a de facto firing.

If a person can’t be fired for his or her sexual orientation, how can a different person be forced out of a job for sharing his or her beliefs on that same very subject?

Threats of boycott by an on-line dating service called OKCupid also helped Mozilla push the panic button in shoving Eich out the door.

Demonstrating its hypocrisy was Sarah Kate Ellis, president and CEO of GLAAD (Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders) who issued this statement: “Mozilla’s strong statement in favor of equality today reflects where corporate America is: inclusive, safe and welcoming to all.”

Ellis could not be more wrong. Welcoming to all? Apparently not welcoming to Mr. Eich. No equality for Eich. No inclusivity for Eich either.

On the other hand, if a company can force out its CEO for supporting a belief antithetical to the corporate mantra, that same concept should work just as easily for the Hobby Lobbys of the world. Its ownership, the Green family should be able to fire all the employees who believe contraceptives ought to be part of the corporate health insurance policy. After all, those employees do not share the same belief as the corporate heads, and just as Mozilla forced out Eich, Hobby Lobby could force out those who possess contrary beliefs. Sounds truly dangerous were that to commence nationwide. It should not, nor should Eich be out of a job.

This action by Mozilla sets a scary precedent that anyone could be fired for their off the clock actions, opinions, ideas, or comments. That anyone could be fired if they don’t tow the company line of political correctness. That anyone could be fired for having contrary beliefs. That anyone could be fired for assuming the First Amendment exists within the confines of the corporate boundaries. Shame on them, shame on the lemmings who fall prey to this, most of all shame on America for allowing George Orwell’s 1984 to become reality where the thought police really do put the kibosh on free thinking and free expression. May G-d save the Republic.

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

Friday, April 4, 2014

Fort Hood - Lesson Not Learned


Fort Hood – Lesson Not Learned
Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
April 4, 2014

Fort Hood, Washington Navy Yard, Sandy Hook Elementary School, Sikh Temple (Oak Creek, WI), Aurora Movie Theater, Fort Hood, and Virginia Tech. The bells toll for them. Blood stains littered across America’s landscape have become more common along with a concomitant devaluing of life as a whole having become less disconcerting.

Once again tragedy has struck a “gun free zone.” While now may not be the most optimum time to lay blame as the nation mourns a second slaughter at Fort Hood in Killeen, TX, if not now, then when.

Certainly the liberal, anti-gun crowd will decry a lack of gun control as the reason Fort Hood is once again bleeding as Ivan Lopez, 34, an Iraq war veteran murdered three innocents before turning the gun on himself. Yet, that is precisely the reason for the unnecessary deaths of three American soldiers and wounding of 16 more on Wednesday, April 2.

Army Sgt. Danny Ferguson, 39, of Florida, Army Sgt. Timothy Owens, 37, of Illinois, and Staff Sgt. Carlos Lazaney Rodriguez, 38, of Puerto Rico were the victims whose names should be long remembered instead of that of the killer’s.

Because of a Clinton administration decision, Federal law, via the Department of Defense dictates that military bases are “gun free zones.” The same is true of all the aforementioned sites. Undoubtedly President George W. Bush could have pushed for a repeal of this misbegotten law. But more responsibility falls on the narrow shoulders of Barack Obama who could have demanded its revocation following the November 5, 2009 terror attack at Fort Hood by Nidal Hasan. Yes, that’s right, terror attack, not that weak-kneed, politically correct “work place violence” nonsense traipsed out by Obama for fear of offending Muslims.

“To call it work place violence is disgusting,” said Sgt. Howard Ray, who saved nine lives during the 2009 Fort Hood massacre.

These gun free zones should go the way of the Edsel – and just as quickly. For as long as they exist, members of the military, students and staff at schools, as well as employees and patrons of other such businesses are and will be sitting ducks – vulnerable at such soft targets.

“Our troops are being sacrificed at the altar of political correctness,” said former Navy SEAL Carl Higbie, a Connecticut Republican seeking election in the fourth Congressional District.

Many lives have in fact been sacrificed because the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution apparently is not recognized on military bases or schools. Members of the United States armed forces should absolutely be permitted, nay, required to carry their sidearm on the bases. Schools should be armed by reservists, retired police officers, or retired servicemen.

Clearly, the gun free zone is a concept ignored by the murderers and terrorists who seek to commit mayhem and destroy the fabric of American life. After all, criminals flout the law at every turn and it is the law abiding who suffer. Time is long overdue to turn those tables, reaffirm people’s rights and freedoms and save lives as well.

The continuing saga of mass shootings in “gun free zones:”

April 2, 2014 – Fort Hood, Killeen, TX – three killed
September 13, 2013 – Washington Navy Yard, DC – 12 killed
December 14, 2012 – Sandy Hook Elementary School, Newtown, CT – 26 killed
August 5, 2012 – Sikh Temple, Oak Creek, WI – six killed
July 20, 2012 – Aurora Movie Theater, Aurora, CO – 12 killed
November 5, 2009 – Fort Hood, Killeen, TX – 14 killed*
April 16, 2007 – Virginia Tech University, Blacksburg, VA – 32 killed
*This number includes the unborn baby of PFC Francheska Velez, 21.

At times like this, remember Ronald Reagan’s foreign policy mantra – “Peace through strength,” it is just as effective at home.

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

Thursday, March 20, 2014

Drug Test All Welfare Applicants


Drug Test All Welfare Applicants
Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
March 20, 2014

The Indiana State House needs to stand its ground regarding the drug testing of all potential welfare recipients. The watered down version approved by the State Senate is simply too weak.

Either version of the bill (HB 1351) must still answer questions pertaining to its Constitutionality as per the Fourth Amendment and unreasonable/reasonable search and seizure. The crux is the word reasonable.

Welfare is not mandatory; and while it is deemed reasonable for potential employees to pass a drug test prior to commencing a new job, it is thusly equally reasonable for potential welfare recipients to pass the same drug test. After all, it is the taxes paid by the drug tested employee that fund the welfare of the unemployed. This should be uniform law in all 50 states.

In a recent interview on the O’ Reilly Factor on the Fox News Channel, former Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich raised the aforementioned Fourth Amendment issue as well as the Fifth Amendment in his objection to drug testing welfare applicants. The point about the Fifth Amendment pertains to the right not to incriminate oneself. In both cases – the Fourth and Fifth amendments remain inviolate as one is not required to apply for, or accept welfare. Should applicants accept the aid, they would need to adhere to government policies pertaining to such acceptance. Remember, these are people going to government, not the other way around. Another case for smaller, less intrusive government, by the way.

Kucinich further declared that should drug testing occur, it should be across the board for all who request government aid – such as bank bailouts. Kucinich harped on the bank bailouts without mentioning the bailout of the auto industry, but his point is well taken. But from this vantage point, government should not have bailed out either the banking or automobile industries in the first place. If a business fails, either go back to the drawing board for a more desirable product or go the way of the dinosaur and Oldsmobile. Don’t want strings attached, don’t become a government puppet.

There are concerns about the children of the drug tested welfare applicants whose benefits are denied. According to The Indianapolis Star article of March 5, 2014, “Senate OK’s drug testing for some on welfare,” children “would continue to receive benefits through a trustee.” That idea is very reasonable as drug users are rightfully punished without taking food out of the mouths of children.

Bottom line, if those paying the taxes are held accountable, so too should the recipients of those very tax dollars.

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

Tuesday, March 4, 2014

Ninth Circuit Short Circuits on Flag Shirts


Ninth Circuit Short Circuits on Flag Shirts
Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
March 4, 2014

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 Constitution.

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 school.

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 May 5th?

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 restriction?

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 Independence Day?

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 present danger.”**

“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 law.”**

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 Court.

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.

*The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States, P. 875

** The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States, P. 758

Friday, February 28, 2014

Send Cancellation Notice to Reid


Send Cancellation Notice to Reid
Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
February 28, 2014

“There's 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

For 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.

For 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.

And just where did Reid make these outlandish pronouncements? The hallowed halls of the Senate chamber.

The 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.

Now 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.

These 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.

For 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 political opportunist.

Visit Reid’s official website: www.reid.senate.gov.

Send the copy of the cancellation notice to Reid’s office: 522 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510

Fax the copy of the cancellation notice to Reid’s office: 202-224-7327

Call his office to politely lodge your disgust with Reid – yes, politely – don’t sink to his level: 202-224-3542

Flood 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 the truth.

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

Tuesday, February 25, 2014

Adoption is the Option


Adoption is the Option
Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
February 25, 2014

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 abortions.”

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 na├»ve 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 blood.

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 enterprise.

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 not.

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 organizations.

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.