*America Versus Mexico’s Ponzi Pyramid Scheme.*



If there is anything people hate more than buying a used car, filling
out tax forms, or visiting their attorney’s office it is meeting the
glassy eyed enthusiasm of some acquaintance who wants to recruit you
into a multi-level-marketing scheme. You know the ones. If you can make
a list of everyone you know, and they can make a list of everyone they
know, and each of you spend a few hundred dollars a month on some
assorted widget or another, in three to five years you could be living
on your own Caribbean island.

Fortunately, in the United States, the worse of these Ponzi pyramid
schemes are illegal. But, imagine for a moment if they were not. Imagine
also if, rather than toothpaste, insurance, and Saint John’s Wort, the
product you were purchasing was the right to build a shed in your back
yard, open a business, or avoid police harassment? And, what if this
extortion was institutionalized to the point that it became the price of
trying to live a normal life?

This is the case of the average citizen of Mexico. In 2005, a survey
conducted by Transparency International showed that between 31 and 45%
of Mexicans had someone in their family forced to pay a bribe to a
public official in the past year.

Corruption is an endemic aspect of Mexican government. Extending from
the local police who routinely shake down people who commit minor
infractions for cash all the way to top government officials who
habitually cut deals with political cronies and drug traffickers to
shape Mexican law.

After endless decades, this culture of corruption has taken its toll.
Over 20% of the Mexican population lives in poverty, only 62% of people
have access to clean drinking water, 25% of the economy is illegal, and
in the oil rich state of Chiapas; 40% of all homes have dirt floors and
21% have no electricity. All in a country with a $1 trillion gross
domestic product.

Mexico has all the resources to develop a successful economy and enable
its citizens to earn a comfortable, modern life, but chooses not to do
so for the simple fact that the government is unwilling to stop
enriching themselves at the expense of average people.

Faced with these realities, is it any wonder 46% of the Mexican
population would like to immigrate to the United States?

It would seem obvious that any responsible government in Mexico’s
situation would take steps to fight the corruption that is ruining the
lives of so many of its citizens, reform itself, and reverse these
trends. Mexican President Vicente Fox tried after he was elected in
2000, but all of his reform efforts failed soon after the Mexican
bureaucracy realized that reform would mean they would have to stop
running back to the cash cows of extortion, bribery and illegal
kickbacks that have financed their lifestyles.

But now, President Fox has found an answer to solving the problems of a
stagnating economy and crushing poverty that does not require him to
confront Mexico’s political corruption: illegal immigration.

Why solve problems when you can export them? It is obvious that almost
half of all Mexicans do not want to be there, so why bother wasting all
the time an effort on making Mexico less of a lousy place to live and
just let them go?

In fact, encourage it. Not only does illegal immigration reduce the
number of impoverished citizens who might get mad enough to vote you out
of office, but it also creates an outstanding, if unauthorized, source
of national income in the form of family remittances. Last year,
Mexicans living in the United States sent over $17 billion in cash
remittances to their families in Mexico, constituting the largest single
source of income into the Mexican economy, outpacing even the oil industry.

However, more important to many Mexican officials, illegal immigration
creates vast new opportunities for them to do what they do best; collect
bribes and extort cash.

Just an in any other Ponzi pyramid scheme, eventually the money starts
to dry up. The only way to keep the scheme afloat is to either find new
population areas where the numbers of victims of your system have not
yet reached a saturation point, or those already caught up in your
deception suddenly find new sources of income to give you. The second is
the case for Mexico. Mexicans working in the United States send their
money home trying to help their families survive, only to see it
extorted from their loved ones by corrupt Mexican officials

Is it any wonder Mexico is fighting to prevent the United States from
securing its borders? If America were to stop the flow of illegal
immigrants, then Mexico would be forced to deal with its own problems
and actually address the issues that have forced millions of its
citizens to want to flee the nation, namely, the incompetence of its
government.

Mexico has recently claimed the United States’ efforts to secure its
borders are an international human rights abuse. However, the only human
rights abuse occurring in this case is Mexico’s treatment of its own
citizens. It is not the United States’ responsibility to act as Mexico’s
economic savior and pull its people out of poverty, but to stop the flow
of illegal immigrants, and force Mexico to change itself. Truthfully, it
is the only moral decision we can make.

© January, 2006 Justin Darr

Justin@justindarr.com <mailto:Justin@justindarr.com>

www.justindarr.com <http://www.justindarr.com/>

Justin Darr is a freelance writer living in the Philadelphia area with
his wife and twin children. He can be read widely on the Internet and in
publications across North America and in Europe.

Justin Darr is a staff writer for The New Media Alliance, and a proud
member of the MoveOff Network..

 

*New Orleans: The Nanny State’s Bitter Fruit.*


Two days. 48 hours. 2,880 minutes. This was all the time it took for the
fabric of 6000 years of civilization to unravel in New Orleans. Streets
which just last week were lined with the fans of Blues clubs and
theaters are now patrolled by gangs of what in any other country would
be called terrorists looking for their next innocent victim or store
front to pillage. Rapes and gang wars in the Superdome, gun fire at
rescue helicopters, and the efforts to search and rescue trapped
survivors of hurricane Katrina have been abandoned in a near hopeless
effort to restore some semblance of public order. Think of it. In just
two days time, authorities have been forced to desert innocent people to
almost certain death because New Orleans has become unsafe for rescue
operations. Two days.

How could this have happened so quickly? Early reports of looting where
portrayed by the media as desperate, hungry people breaking into grocery
stores. In my opinion, this is not looting but survival. However, as the
full scope of events has become clearer, it is evident that the mayhem
in New Orleans is not a result of trapped residents trying to stay
alive, but a carnival atmosphere where the bodies of the dead are pushed
aside in order to steal their stereos.

I was originally going to write nothing about hurricane Katrina. Times
of national tragedy are no time for partisanship. However, what is
happening in New Orleans goes beyond the simple red state/ blue state
debate. This disaster has exposed something putrid in our society. For
this to happen so quickly indicates that there is something
fundamentally flawed in our culture that should not be brushed under the
rug by political correctness or blamed on any simple politician or
political party. What is happening in New Orleans can and will happen
again unless we take sober steps to first understand why these events
have occurred, and then act to prevent them.

These are the politically correct facts as we know them. Almost everyone
who could evacuate New Orleans before the hurricane did. Those who
stayed where the very poor or ill who did not have the means to leave.

The reality is that the poor residents of the New Orleans could have
evacuated the flood zone on a public bus before the hurricane for about
the cost of a bottle of water. The total disabled population of New
Orleans who might not have been able to evacuate is estimated at around
55,000 residents. So, the question must be asked why up to half a
million people did not evacuate the city. The sad answer is that many of
these residents remained because they where waiting for the government
to aid them.

Many trapped in New Orleans right now are in a state of shock. They
expected the nanny state which provides them with housing, medical care,
food, and education to also come forward and provide them with the means
of escaping a natural disaster. When a state of emergency was declared
in August 26^th , they waited. When the inbound lanes of the highways
around New Orleans where rerouted outbound to allow for faster
evacuation by road, they waited. If things where really that bad, the
government would come through for them and tell them where to go, what
to do, and provide the means to make it happen. Many residents in New
Orleans remained because they have been so indoctrinated into the idea
that they will be taken care of by the government that they are
incapable to looking out for themselves.

Now the government has failed them. In a culture where all the comforts
of life have been provided to people as entitlements, their sudden
absence has unleashed a violent backlash against the society these
people feel has let them down. In other words, if some people do not get
what they feel they are entitled to get, then something unfair must have
happened, so now they have the right to go out and take it.

Let me stress again, these people are not out just trying to get baby
food and Grandma’s insulin. They are stealing electronics, guns,
furniture, beer trucks, and Nikes. Along with the end of social service
entitlements has come the end of the rules of behavior these
entitlements require. So, if the government is not giving you anything,
some of these people feel that they do not have to follow the laws of
civilized society.

The nanny state has created a class of people in America not only unable
to take care of their own needs, but incapable to existing within normal
society. In your neighborhood, laws and peaceful coexistence are not
maintained by government or the police, but by the people themselves.
You obey the law and live a civil existence because you understand that
this is the only way you will have a good life. You feel that way
because you have worked hard and are unwilling to jeopardize everything
you have earned by acting foolishly. But those who have always been
given everything and told that everything they do wrong is a result of
their being a victim, there is no similar prohibition.

New Orleans is a warning to us all. We must change our culture from one
of entitlement to one of responsibility now, or we may have no culture
left in the future.

© 2005 Justin Darr

www.justindarr.com/

Justin@justindarr.com <mailto:Justin@justindarr.com>

Justin Darr is the Managing Editor of www.RepublicanVoices.org
<http://www.republicanvoices.org/>, and a freelance writer living in the
Philadelphia area. He is published in over 80 publications across North
America, Europe, and in the Far East. Justin Darr is a proud member of
the Moveoff Network, http://moveoff.net <http://moveoff.net/>.
 

Who Cares What Her Son Believed. Cindy Sheehan has an Agenda.

On April 4, 2004, Army Specialist Casey Sheehan died for his country and for what he believed.  After enlisting in the Army in 2000, Casey Sheehan reenlisted for a second tour knowing full well that he could be sent to fight in Iraq.  In late March, 2004, he was stationed with the 82nd Field Artillery Regiment as a mechanic.  Despite the fact Sheehan was in a noncombatant position with the Army, in his first week on base, Sheehan volunteered to go on a dangerous mission into the heart of the Iraqi insurgency in Sadr City and was killed in action.  These are the acts of a hero, not unlike thousands of others in the armed forces who sacrifice, and sometimes die, daily for our country. 

While it has not been reported what Casey Sheehan’s views on the War in Iraq were, it is rather obvious that if he thought he was wasting his time, or participating in an immoral and illegal action, he would not have reenlisted.  Nor, would he have placed himself willingly into the line of fire knowing full well the possible consequences of his actions.  Casey Sheehan was a patriot who showed through his deeds the bravery and determination that can only come from a person who deeply believes in the cause for which he is fighting. 

Well, somebody should let his mother know this, because Cindy Sheehan has decided to use her son’s flag draped coffin as a soap box to shout out her personal leftist beliefs that are completely contrary to those of her son.

Almost everyone in the media is afraid to address this issue.  After all, Cindy Sheehan has had her son torn away from her forever, and as a society we see any attacks on a grieving mother as beyond contemptible.  However, while sorrow from the loss of a child makes many parents seek out the help of the clergy and councilors, Cindy Sheehan’s grief led her to seek out a public relations firm connected to Moveon.org.  While the parents of fallen soldiers usually use the opportunity to speak out in support for what their departed son or daughter believed, Cindy Sheehan has chosen to attack it.  And while most other parents of fallen soldiers limit their comments to the War, Cindy Sheehan has not just attacked President Bush and the United States’ presence in Iraq, but hurled anti-Semitic comments about Jews instigating the War, her son not enlisting in the Army to die for Israel, and demanding that Israel pull out of the Occupied Territories.  What does this have to due with the loss of her son?  Absolutely nothing other than verifying the fact that Cindy Sheehan is using the death of Casey as free publicity to promote her personal agenda. 

Cindy Sheehan may believe her son died for nothing, but I am sure Casey Sheehan did not.  For the media to sit idly by and not investigate this inconsistency and allow Cindy Sheehan to propagate her lunatic fringe opinions without criticism makes them complicit in the dishonoring of her son.  If we have any respect for fallen veterans, then we must speak out against all those who attack them, even if one of them happens to be their mother.  And when the comments begin to stray from the subject of the War, then they should be treated the same as remarks from anyone else.  To do anything less makes us just as bad as Cindy Sheehan and her leftist handlers.

Casey Sheehan died fighting for what he believed.  Unfortunately, this fact has been lost on his mother who has been blinded to nearly everything else except her personal opinions.  Cindy Sheehan has also forgotten about all the other mothers whose sons and daughters are still fighting in Iraq and for the soldiers themselves who have to listen to her vitriol.  Does Cindy Sheehan care about the effects her words have on these people?  Does she care about the pain she is causing to the mothers of other fallen soldiers?  Judging from how much she cares about what her son thought, I doubt it.  Things such as these have little impact on Cindy Sheehan; she has an agenda to push.

© 2005 Justin Darr

justindarr@juno.com

www.justindarr.com

When Do We Get to See Judge Roberts Forged “Secret Memos?”

America is suffering from a bunch of P.E.S.T.’s.  Victims of Post Election Selection Trauma, or more commonly know as crazy liberals who have decided to hate democracy because George Bush beat them twice.  Shortly after the November election, the American Health Association identified this affliction in Boca Raton, Florida, with some of its symptoms being: “feelings of withdrawal, feelings of isolation, loss of appetite, sleeplessness, nightmares, and pervasive moodiness, including endless sulking.”  How Rob Gordon, Executive Director of the AHA, was able to differentiate these symptoms from the normal behavior of most liberals I have no clue, but none the less, it is a serious threat.  “You don’t want an epidemic of  suicides,” Gordon warned.  True, suicide is a terrible tragedy that should be prevented at all costs, even if the people doing it are knuckle biting, surrender monkeys. 

However, Rob Gordon was wrong on two points.  The first is Gordon felt the P.E.S.T’s would soon fade away “as the troubled Kerry supporters adjust to reality.”  Mr. Gordon sounds like a good man, but he must live a very sheltered life, liberals inability to “adjust to reality” is congenital.  And second, he should have added “compulsively writing fake government documents” into his list of symptoms.

The P.E.S.T. epidemic has spread throughout America, the mainstream media, and even as far as our nation’s capitol.  Recently, Senator John Kerry, reported carrier of the disease, came to the Senate floor and demanded the Bush Administration release all documents relevant to Judge John Roberts from his stint in the White House Counsel’s Office, from 1982 to 1986, and as Principle Deputy Solicitor General under President Bush 41.  Kerry, apparently oblivious to the irony of his own refusal to release relevant records of his background when he sought the office of President, said, “We cannot do our duty if either Judge Roberts or the Bush Administration hides elements of his professional record.”  

Most of the records in question are stored at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and are not organized by name, but chronological date.  So any search for Judge Robert’s records will be slow, tedious, and the likelihood of documents being missed very high due to human error and the huge volume of documents to review.  So now the stage is set for the “exclusive report” by the left wing media of “secret memos withheld by the Bush Administration” that, curiously enough, just happen to vindicate everything negative they have concocted to say about Judge Roberts. 

Liberal word processors are probably humming right now creating horrific stories of Judge Roberts recommending cutting the heat off to orphanages and advocating the killing of kittens and selling the meat to school lunch programs.

In honor of the left’s penchant for portraying myth as reality, I have taken the liberty of creating a fake memo of my own.  This “secret memo” was uncovered by an unnamed source and I accidentally threw the original away with a pizza box after I retyped it, but it read:

“USE THIS:  Howard Dean (signature)

Hi Bill,

This is your neighbor, Supreme Court Nominee John Roberts.  Just a quick note to thank you for adjusting your lawn mower blades so your grass is even with mine.

Thanks,
John Roberts (Closet Fascist.)

P.S.  I can’t wait to get on the Supreme Court and ban abortion!  HA! HA! HA!”

It is almost a question of not if a forged secret memo about Judge Roberts shows up, but when.  This would be the third time in the last year liberals have tried this tactic, and who knows?  Maybe the third time is the charm and they will actually make it somewhat believable this time. 

The first, and most infamous forged memo scandal is CBS’s “Memogate.”  These documents where amateur at best, and we will never look at “th” in Microsoft Word the same ever again.  The second, the “Downing Street Memos,” seemed to be of a bit higher quality and where developing some political legs until it was discovered that Michael Smith, “Times of London” reporter and source of the story, had allegedly retyped the memos from the originals and thrown them away in an effort to protect his source.  Sure, a professional reporter from a major newspaper saw no need to save documentation on an exclusive story with international implications, no problem.  And, the only way to protect a source is to retype a memo?  I have not been in England for a few years, but I am fairly certain I saw both copy machines and white out widely available in London. 

Maybe the liberals are learning from their mistakes and the third in the series of forged documentation will be the best yet.  If they were smart, they would just stick to their old tried and true methods using baseless personal attacks and character assassination to attack people rather than something as ridiculous as these memos.  The only thing that is certain is if someone actually makes these forged memos, there will be legions of P.E.S.T’s ready to believe them.

© 2005 Justin Darr
justindarr@juno.com
http://justindarr.tripod.com

Karl Rove Should Apologize.  He Went Way to Easy on Them.

After years of attacks from the Left on the War on Terror, Karl Rove has finally said it like it is.  America's Liberals have never approached the War on Terror with the seriousness it deserves.  Oblivious to the obvious irony of Illinois Senator Dick Durbin's coerced and disingenuous apology for comparing the actions of American troops at Guantanamo Bay to those of the Nazis coming within the same week as Rove's comments, Democrats in Congress rushed to the aid of their ideological brethren attacking Rove and demanding either his resignation or a similarly disingenuous apology to that of Durbin. 

This is more than the usual game of Washington tit for tat politics.  While Karl Rove was only intending to criticize Moveon.org and other radical Leftist groups, he hit far to close to the truth for the comfort of the Liberals on the Hill, who above all else do not want the American people to know what they really see as the significance of 9/11 in American history.  This is why the Liberals rolled out their venerable and well used "outrage machine" in response to Rove's comments.  If the voters knew what the real opinions of the Democrats are, the Democrats could look forward to being the minority party for the next 10 years.  And for this Karl Rove should have criticized them. 

Rove was far too soft on the Liberals.  He attacked a few fringe groups on the Left for recommending "therapy" rather than war as a response to 9/11 when he should have condemned the entire Democratic Party leadership and Liberal establishment not for just seeing 9/11 as a crime rather than act of war, but for attempting to manipulate the tragedy for political gain and the advance of their agenda at the expense of American lives.

Just as a quick reminder.  Here are a few of the statements of prominent Liberals and Democrats that vividly demonstrate Rove's point that Democrats are now trying to pretend do not exist.

Democrat Congressman Dennis Kucinich, "Afghanistan may be an incubator of terrorism, but it doesn't follow that we bomb Afghanistan."  ("Offer the Hand of Peace," "Cleveland Plain Dealer," 9/30/01.)

Former Democratic Presidential Candidate Al Sharpton, "America is beginning to reap what it has sewn."  ("The New York Times"  12/1/02)

Democratic Congresswoman Marcy Kapur, "One could say that Osama bin Laden... [is] very similar to those kind of atypical revolutionaries that helped to cast off the British crown."  (The Associated Press, 3/6/03).

Democratic Senator Patty Murray, "[Bin Laden has been] out in these countries for decades, building schools, building roads... and the people are very grateful.  We haven't done that."  (World Net Daily, 5/17/05.)

Michael Moore, "[L]et's examine our contribution to the unsafe world we live in."  (www.michaelmoore.com, 9/12/01.)

Democratic Senator Joseph Biden, the bombing campaign of Afganistan "reinforced existing stereotypes of the United States as a high tech bully."  (Associated Press, 10/23/01.)

Democratic Senator and Presidential Nominee John Kerry, "War on Terror is far less of a military operation and far more of an intelligence gathering, law enforcement operation."  (Associated Press, 3/19/03.)

The list can go on.  But for a short cut you might want to read "Beyond September 11.  An Anthology of Dissent,"  edited by Phil Scranton, which highlights the writings of over 30 of the most prominant Liberal thinkers who in one voice state that not only is the United States wrong in protecting itself from terrorism, but responsible for the attack to begin.

Then, after the Democratic leadership gives Michael Moore the seat of honor at the Democratic National Convention, they run around screaming, "How can you say we are soft on terror?" 

Despite their denials, the Democratic leadership has gone far beyond just comments aimed at undermining the war effort and our safety, they have backed their words with actions.

Shortly after 9/11, nearly all Democrats supported military action in the War.  This was not so much out of a sense of duty to their nation, but political survival.  Opposing military action in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 would have been political suicide and the Democrats knew it.  So they voted for the War and Patriot Act in the hopes the War on Terror would be fast and clean, leaving plenty of time for the voters to forget about it before the next election cycle as happened after the first Gulf War. 

However, everything has not gone according to plan to for Left.  The War has not been as easy as their weak resolve can stomach.  More importantly, the War has kept the attention of the voters on national security, the traditional strength of the Republicans, and away from the Democrats’ preferred domestic policy agenda. The Democrats are faced with the prospect of remaining the minority party unless something drastic, like the War going poorly, happens.  So, immediately after the initial public sentiments after 9/11 died away, the Democrats initiated a policy designed if not to actually limit our ability to fight the War, at least give the impression we cannot win.

Some of these policy decisions have been the opposition of the use of racial and religious profiling to identify security risks on airlines, demanding the closing on Gitmo and release of illegal terrorist combatants, and calling for a definite deadline for the pull out of American troops from Iraq.  None of these changes would serve to help the United States' image abroad or improve our ability to fight the War, but they do serve the purpose of creating political scandal where there is none and maintaining as steady stream of negative news coverage to a liberal media that is so desperate to see Republicans out of power that they will consider retyped  "official" memos where the originals have "mysteriously" disappeared as valid news sources.

This is what Karl Rove should have talked about.  The systematic deception of the American people and undermining of the War by the Democratic Party for nothing more than a few seats in the House and Senate.  The worse thing that can happen to the Democrats is for people like Dick Durban and Howard Dean to go out and actually articulate the belief and support of the Democrats in the ideas of groups like Moveon.org.  It is alright to believe it, even act on it, but never say it.  To the Liberals, gaining political power at the expense of another 9/11 and a few thousand more American civilans dead, is a price well worth paying.

©2005 Justin Darr
justindarr@juno.com
http://justindarr.tripod.com

Breaking the Filibuster is Not Enough.

Once in America the liberal agenda and its radical programs advanced unopposed.  Liberals held sway over the elected branches of government, and over the course of decades, infected the judiciary system with cadres of like minded liberals who held their goals of forcibly restructuring American society superior to the welfare and will of the people.  Faced with an uncaring and unresponsive government, America’s conservative majority turned to the only tool left for them to affect government change, the ballot box.  Now, as the Conservative Revolution has swept Republicans into majority positions in the Federal and preponderance of state governments, liberals are making their last stand to prevent the will of the people from destroying the cancer they have grown in our judiciary.

The current fight in the Senate to possibly break the Democratic threat of filibustering several of President Bush’s judicial nominees is just one front in this conflict.  While it is important that liberals’ obstruction tactics be stopped, it is also important to remember that we are talking about only 10 judges out of around 700 Federal judicial seats.  Beyond symbolism, breaking the Democratic filibuster is insignificant in relation to the size of the problem we face with judicial activism. 

For most Americans, the outcry against liberal activist judges is an expression of their frustration with the legal system in general.  Everyday, criminals who should be in jail make plea bargains for lesser crimes to make trails faster but penalties far less severe, pedophiles are released early from prison by faceless parole boards so they can hunt down our children like prey, victims of violent crime are treated like criminals because they might have violated the “rights” of their attackers in self defense, and home owners live in fear of a financially devastating lawsuit because the sound of their American flag blowing in the wind might disturb a neighbor’s afternoon nap.  We need far more than 10 new conservative judges, but a fundamental change in the predispositions in the way of judicial system operates that make it possible for the needs of the dysfunctional to be elevated over those the system was intended to protect.

Everyday American families are being crushed by ever increasing health care costs.  Rising premiums and copays coupled with more and more doctors being forced out of their practices is a direct result of the astronomical costs of malpractice insurance.  The governments attempts at tort reform are doomed to failure because it is not the small percentage of multimillion dollar jury awards in the cases of patients who have been legitimately injured by a physician, but the thousands upon thousands of $10,000 to $50,000 lawsuits pressed by patients who want to sue their doctors because they failed to tell them to read their medicine bottles and not take all 25 pills of the prescription at once that is the root of the insurance crisis. 

An incompetent judiciary has created legions of unethical lawyers who understand that the high cost of defending yourself in the cumbersome and inconsistent courts will prevent most doctors and companies from defending their rights and settle out of court.  The affects go far beyond “this coffee is hot” and “this bag is not a toy” labels on everything and create a dilution of our quality of life.  Parks are closed, time honored events cancelled, and even the most simple tasks become bogged down with endless legal paperwork because some people feel that it is everyone else’s responsibility to deal with their lack of judgment.

We have a justice system where justice has been lost somewhere in the process and been replaced with arbitrary decision making.  Anyone who has ever dealt with the courts knows that the truth has nothing to do with the results.  If you have the money to buy a better lawyer with a better research staff than your opponent, then you will probably win your case.  We need a reformed tax code that is understandable to everyone and new judges at all levels will who defend the rights of the people rather than set them aside to coddle the irresponsible.  Breaking the filibuster is not enough.  If the Democrats are going to shut our government down over 10 judges anyway, Republicans should seize the opportunity to reform the entire judiciary system of the United States to get it back to what it is intended to be:  A system of justice. 

© Justin Darr 2005
justindarr@juno.com
http://justindarr.tripod.com

Why Europe is Soft on Terror.

The current negotiations between France, Germany, England and Iran regarding Iran’s nuclear power, and probably nuclear weapons program can be summarized into one sentence:  Nothing short of war is going to stop Iran from developing a nuclear bomb. If Europe wants to pay the Iranians to lie to them about it, then the Iranians will be more than happy to oblige.

To Americans, the actions of the Europeans seem to defy logic.  How can they entertain the notion Iran is not trying to build a bomb in light of its history, stated ambitions, refusal to allow full, unfettered, inspections, and the little fact that they are trying to bury their program in bomb hardened shelters under civilian areas?  It is childishly obvious that the only reason the Iranians are even participating in talks is to buy the time necessary for them to complete their nuclear weapons program.  However, Europe still seems to be doggedly determined to be led around by the nose by the Iranians, even to the point of jeopardizing their own safety.

Iran is far from the only example of Europe being soft of rogue terrorist nations.  Wherever you look, whether it is Syria, Iraq, Libya, or Cuba, many European powers have taken a softer, if not completely accommodationist policy toward these dangerous states.  Does Europe have some kind of deranged death wish?  No.  The fact is that Europe’s excessive government regulation of its business community, high tax rates, and over burdened welfare state has forced them to deal with these nations in order to save their economies.  Europe cannot afford not to deal with terrorists.

For the past 20 years, Europe has been increasingly falling further behind the United States in terms of economic growth, business efficiency and innovation.  Do not let the Airbus fool you.  Go to almost any major city in the world and you will see a McDonald’s, Kentucky Fried Chicken, and bottle of Coke long before any European competitor. 

The reasons for this are many.  American workers are on average 20 to 30% more productive than their European counterparts. American companies do not have to deal with Europe’s 15 to 25% “Value Added Tax”.  The Federal Reserve places an emphasis on growth while the European Central Bank pursues price control policies.  America’s elected leaders have reformed the tax code, streamlined regulatory practices, and eased government interference in business.  While Europe, years after the birth of the EU, still struggles with an over regulated and inadequate capital system, inefficient labor policies, and no single community patent.  American businesses are lean, mean, and aggressive, while European entrepreneurs are held back by antiquated and hierarchical systems of government control.

The results can be seen in the numbers.  Europe’s economy is growing at an anemic 0.8% compared to the United States’ 3.8%.  American unemployment hovers around 5%, while Germany has its highest unemployment rate since the Great Depression (13%).  All these numbers indicate that Europe will remain an also ran in the world economy after the United States, Japan, China, and India.

While the EU is working diligently on improving its economic competitiveness, frequently it is American companies that are stepping in to revive the lagging European economies.  For example, the 2000 Lisbon Agenda, which in 5 years has failed to improve business efficiency in Europe is now revitalized due to Microsoft Corporation’s involvement, and Europe’s flailing retail sector is waiting in breathless anticipation for Wal-Mart to fulfill its pledge to open stores in every country in the EU.  This is good news for the European economy.  They will get jobs, capital investment, and new models of efficiency and profitability, but for Euro-businessmen, it is a disaster.  Think about the business practices of Wal-Mart and Microsoft… European businesses are toast.

The end result is Europeans must seek out new secondary markets for their goods and services where they are better able to compete against the American business juggernaut.  In the modern world economy, this means that they are increasingly forced to deal with those nations where American companies are barred or limited by American legislation from entering; a.k.a. The Axis of Evil.

Despite their claims of sophistication and peacefulness, Europe’s governments are doing what governments have done for centuries, protecting their economic interests.  While the United Nations is filled with wild accusations that the United States is going to war for oil in Iraq, it is actually the Europeans who were obstructing the United States in an attempt to prop up the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein and maintain a “no American oil company zone” in Iraq in order to protect their own oil interests.  The hypocrisy extends further as the EU claims to be trying to work for peace in the Middle East while they are simply begging the Iranians to keep its markets open to their products.  And if the Iranians happen to use the time they buy in making a treaty they intend to violate to actually develop nuclear weapons, then so be it.  The Europeans are hoping that the Iranians will only incinerate Tel Aviv and not Rome.  But at least this way they will not have to look at changing their failed Socialist welfare state policies which are the root of their problem anyway. 

© 2005 Justin Darr
justindarr@juno.com
http://justindarr.tripod.com

The Future Assault on All Holidays.


Americans have had may victories this past Christmas season against anti-Christian forces and, in the words of William F. Buckley, taken a stand against political correctness by “yelling 'Stop,' at a time when no one is inclined to do so.” But Christmas is over now, and by this time visions of Christmas sugarplums are probably dancing rapidly out of your head giving way to the traditional debates of when to take down the Christmas tree, how long is too long to leave the Christmas lights up, and just how are you going to purge the living room of mounds of wrapping paper. However, one thing that Americans should not pack away until next Christmas along with Santa’s cookie plate is our dedication to protect the Christmas holiday from the politically correct forces who seek to destroy it. Christmas is just the first battle in the Culture War being waged on the American way of life by the left. Unless we are vigilant, soon all of our treasured national holidays will be face the same fate as Christmas because they do not reflect multiculturalisms’ skewed vision of diversity.

The chief argument against traditional Christmas displays and celebrations is that they do not reflect the diversity of modern American society. Third graders singing “It Came Along a Midnight Clear” is not harmless holiday entertainment for their parents, but a heinous violation of church and state that vilely discriminates against non-Christians by forcing them to experience the dreaded emotion of possibly “feeling uncomfortable.” The ranks of the “potentially uncomfortable” are for larger than you might think. According to the 2001 "American Religious Identification Survey," by The Graduate Center of the City University of New York, only 77% of Americans are Christian. Despite the fact that this study only counts Protestants and Catholics as “Christian”, excluding millions of nondenominational Christians and other religious groups who define themselves as “Christian” (such as the Mormons), there are potentially 47 million non-Christian Americans who might be irrevocably harmed by the sight of a cardboard cut out of a nativity scene in a public park.

Alright, so what is the point? There are lots of people who do not celebrate Christmas and we should be sensitive and respectful of their beliefs so long as they do infringe on our own. So let’s move on to New Year’s and restart the fight for Christmas next November. However, this numbers game of declaring holidays intolerant based on population statistics of those who might not share the same values or cultural heritage as the majority of Americans can be used by the left to destroy any other American holiday of their choosing.

For example, according to the Census Bureau, there are approximately 25 million non-citizens living in the United States. How dare we celebrate the Fourth of July! Uncle Sam marching about, country fairs, and huge fireworks displays only serve to remind these tens of millions that they are far from home in a foreign land that does not share many of their traditions and history. Why I assume that these intolerant displays of American nationalism could even make many of these people feel “uncomfortable.” So Americans must stop celebrating their Independence Day in the way they have for years due to its prejudiced and non-inclusive nature. School children may no longer sing “The Star Spangled Banner” and not even fully instrumental renditions of “Stars and Stripes Forever” shall be permitted because they might remind these non-citizens that they are living in America. Do not even begin to sing “The Battle Hymn of the Republic.” God, respect for the military, and America all in the same song, forget about it. At the very least any public display of an image of the Liberty Bell, Statue of Liberty, or the Constitution, should also be accompanied by representations of the Bastille, the flag of the United Nations, and “The Communist Manifesto.”

Then there is Labor Day. According to the 2000 Census, over 50 million Americans can be classified as “disabled”. If we can cancel Christmas because 47 million people are not Christian, how can we possibly justify a national holiday where even more people are discriminated against? A day set aside to honor a nation’s workers does nothing but make those who are unable to work reflect on their physical disabilities and feel excluded. Dare we say this holiday could make many of them feel “uncomfortable?” Then away it must go. Labor Day should be replaced with a celebration of America’s diversity called “The Thinking About Doing Something You Might Not Want to Do Festival.”

Memorial Day unfairly elevates 25 million living veterans over the rest of us. Thanksgiving discriminates against the 2.5% of America’s population who are vegetarians and encourages the wonton slaughter or turkeys (and allegedly endorses illicit prayer around dinner tables). Valentines Day oppresses loners, Groundhog Day discriminates against the alternative small rodent population, Arbor Day encourages people to increase the number of trees that directly degrade the lives of those with tree pollen allergies and April Fool’s Day advocates Americans disingenuously acting like liberals. There is no national holiday acceptable to the left’s standard of fairness, inclusiveness, and multiculturalism without draconian and flat out silly revisions.

The goal of the left is not primarily the destruction of the Christmas holiday and the relegation of its Christian adherents to the fringes of the social order, but the destruction of American society in general. If Americans are not permitted to celebrate those things that reflect America’s past and traditions as they see fit, then slowly they will begin to lose their impact and importance. What begins with Christmas will spread out to all other holidays until there will be nothing for America to celebrate except the sanitized, bland, everything is fine so long as it feels good dogma of the left. Unless this assault on our holidays is stopped, America will lose its heritage, its culture, and eventually its moral compass.

Justin Darr
justindarr@juno.com
 

Christianity’s Double Standard.


In no case are the left’s efforts to undermine our society more apparent than in the debate over the separation of church and state. The intent of the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment is quite clear: The government of the United States will not establish an official state religion or inhibit the free practice of any faith. While government may not work to influence or regulate the values and beliefs of citizens or their churches, there is no inhibition whatsoever on these same citizens and churches from working to influence their government through the democratic process. In effect, the First Amendment and Establishment Clause are the embodiment of the entire spirit of the Constitution: Government is subservient to the will of the people, and the people have the right to seek to influence and form their government according to their own standards so long as they do not restrain others from holding or practicing differing ideas.

It is amazing how far America has strayed from these simple truths. Now, instead of people of faith being protected by the government, they are victimized by a liberal controlled activist judiciary. Led by the ACLU, American liberals are pushing an agenda of forced inclusion of alternative faiths and lifestyles into school curricula under the euphemism of “diversity,” while at the same time working to deny the same rights to Christians whose views are decried as “intolerance.” In the ACLU’s version of the world, it is acceptable for a kindergarten girl to be pulled from the cafeteria and threatened with expulsion for saying grace over her afternoon cookies and milk, but protecting a high school student’s right to wear a “Satan’s Church” T-shirt is worthy of a lawsuit in Federal Court. In Louisiana, the ACLU feels that the state abstinence web site should be shut done because a few students mentioned “God” in the site’s unregulated chat room, but efforts by California schools to indoctrinate students in to the precepts of Islam, complete with assuming a Moslem name and staging their own “jihad” via a type of dice game, are praised as models of sensitivity. It is obvious that the ACLU and liberal court system’s goal is not to keep the American classroom a secular arena free of religious biases, but to systematically undermine the American system of values through excluding Judeo-Christian beliefs and attempting to supplant them with a cadre of alternative beliefs of their own choosing.

The assault on Christianity goes far beyond the classroom. Today, liberals actively seek to oppress local churches’ freedom of speech through an arbitrary and inconsistent tax code. For example, churches are no longer churches, but IRS 501(c)(3) organizations. Since few churches could survive under the tax burden imposed on Americans today, houses of worship can no longer be concerned about merely saving the souls and acting as the moral compass of their brethren, but maintaining their tax exempt status. As outlined in IRS Publication 1828, churches are prohibited from “endorsing any candidates, making donations to their campaigns, engaging in fund-raising, distributing statements, or becoming involved in any other activities that may be beneficial or detrimental to any candidate. Even activities that encourage people to vote for or against a particular candidate on the basis of nonpartisan criteria violate the political campaign prohibition of section 501(c)(3).” In effect, our churches as no longer free to address the issues of the day from their own moral and ethical viewpoints, but must submit to government mandated censorship or face financial ruin. While “secularist” organizations are free to promote political candidates under the full protection of the First Amendment, religious groups who attempt to do the same contend with paying a free speech tax.

So when is the ACLU going to defend our religious leaders’ free speech rights? They are not, because the true enemy of the ACLU, and the left in general, is not just Christianity, but the free speech rights Christians use to point out the immoral and fundamentally oppressive nature of the left’s beliefs. The ends justify the means to the left as any stratagem is acceptable so long as it shuts those meddlesome Christians up.

Modern liberals have perverted the simple idea of the First Amendment so that now it has become a bludgeon to forcibly silence all churches and individuals who hold Judeo-Christian viewpoints. Government now actively dictates what the values of our culture should be and attempts to use legal intimidation and extortion to relegate all Judeo-Christian morals and religious values to the fringes of American society. Whether it is through a capricious tax code, threats of lawsuits, or fear of being called insensitive to diversity, the left has turned the Establishment Clause into an Orwellian nightmare.


Justin Darr
justindarr@juno.com

Laziness is Not Disenfranchisement.


One of the most disturbing attributes of American Liberalism is its penchant for “victimizing” those who act irresponsibly.  While the right to do whatever you want, whenever you want, to whomever you want, in whatever way you want is held sacrosanct, liberals feel that there should be no accountability placed on those who exercise their rights recklessly.  In the liberal mind, any negative consequences of a person’s decisions are not the result of poor judgment, a lack of understanding, or just the quirks of the real world, but the product some nebulous injustice being committed.

We are all too familiar with clever word games liberals love to play where criminals become “adult victims of child abuse”,  perverts become “defenders of the First Amendment” because they only look at drawings of child pornography, and “alternative” becoming a pseudonym for “dysfunctional”.  Despite the fact that for the last 35 years this liberal pabulum has been rotting away the social and moral fiber of America, most people never thought that it would ever cause any real harm.  After all, superficially, political correctness is nothing more than being polite to others,  so many average people assumed that it was little more than a nuisance. That is until recently.  Backed by thousands of lawyers, the Democratic Party is laying siege to our democracy by making spurious claims that many of their supporters are loosing their right to vote because they lack the will and motivation to comply with even the simplest aspects of election law. 

The John Kerry Campaign would like to have us think that the right to vote is the same as the right to sleep in late on a Saturday morning, or choosing the brand of soft drink you prefer.  However, it is not.  Voting is not just the ultimate right America affords but also its ultimate responsibility.  It is the one time where the personal decisions you make directly affect every person in your town, state, and country.  It is your civic duty not just to show up and pull a lever, but take the time to research the views of the candidates and make the decisions you feel will best serve not just yourself, but the society as a whole.  It is what defines us as Americans, and there is nothing more important we can do as its citizens.

In light of the serious responsibilities involved in casting a vote, it is not too much to ask a prospective voter to take the time actually read, or have read to him, a voter registration card so he can fill it out properly.  It is not a social injustice to ask a person to open up the letter carrying their new voter registration card, look at the address of the polling site and then find it at some point before the election.  And it is not disenfranchisement requiring that you show up to vote on time, read the ballot, and pay attention to which lever you pull, box you check, or chad you poke.

Far less important matters require more attention to detail than registering to vote.  For example, you cannot mail a letter without putting on a stamp.  You cannot get cable without filling out the entire application.  You cannot put gas in your car without pushing “regular”, “plus”, or “super”.  So why do Democrats have such a problem with requiring  prospective voters to list a valid address or check a box verifying that they are actually citizens of the United States?  The reason is that John Kerry is attempting to abuse the electoral process in order to either subvert the electorate or to so polarize the political landscape that Bush would be limited in his effectiveness in his second term.  There is nothing more deceitful and despicable and it must not be tolerated.

Lastly, it is not George Bush’s fault if the person who accepted your registration form cared less about its being completed properly than the crack he was being paid to collect it.  It was just one more to add to the stack with the other 25 bogus registrations he filled out himself for “Hairy Foote”, “Bill Fold”, and “Seymour Butts”.  It is your responsibility as an adult and citizen to protect your own right to vote by ensuring that you are in the fullest compliance with all election and voter registration regulations.  It is one thing to be too lazy, uniformed, or just not care enough to take voting seriously, but it is quite another to expect society to cheapen its most important process in order to accommodate your irresponsibility.

Justin Darr
justindarr@juno.com

The New Conservative Movement.


In a society addicted to sound bites, labels mean everything.  In conversation, when people ask the general question “who are you”,  people will answer with the label that they feel most aptly describes them, which in most cases is their career field: i.e.  “I’m a doctor, lawyer, electrician, salesman, etc…”  While we usually resort to stereotyping ourselves in this way for expediency, since most people do not want to hear your philosophical opinions about the universe at a casual meeting, labeling ourselves is inherently dangerous in that it gives others the chance to define who you are based on their own particular biases and predispositions.  You may own a plumbing business earning yourself several hundred thousand dollars a year, and you will still run into people who say, “Oh, you clean out toilets.” 

The problem with being misidentified by others is particularly acute for the new generation of Conservatives who have taken the Internet, and increasingly the air waves by storm.  For example, in his book, “Where the Right Went Wrong”, Pat Buchanan attacks what he refers to as “neoconservatives” for  undermining what he considers the true values of Conservatism as exemplified by Ronald Reagan.  In Buchanan’s world, neoconservatives are ushering in a new era of big government, rampant spending, and fighting the excessive regulation of society of liberals by sponsoring excessive regulations of their own. 

Buchanan is correct to a degree.  The new conservatism is not the same conservatism of the 1940’s, or in line with the policies and actions of the Republican Party from the early 20th Century through the late 1970’s.  No, we share far more in common with Lincoln, Jefferson, and Teddy Roosevelt than Warren Harding, Thomas Dewey or even Richard Nixon.  However, what Buchanan fails to understand is that the modern conservative movement is not opposed to the beliefs of Ronald Reagan, but their culmination.  And, what Buchanan sees as the downfall of “true” Conservativism is nothing more than the end of the acceptance of his own isolationist, racist policies that once held sway in America. 

There is a reason FDR was elected President four times and the Democratic Party gained the reputation of supporting the common man.  The reason is that the negative stereotypes propagated about Republicans by liberals today were once true.  In the 1920’s and 1930’s, the Republicans had lost touch with regular Americans.  Republicans were slaves to Corporate America.  The Republicans did nothing to spread the American Dream to the average person.  The Republicans did nothing to advance the cause of freedom either at home or abroad.  And, the Republicans engaged in the petty racism of the day that said it was alright to distrust Jews, minorities, or anyone that did not speak English.  These failed beliefs that led to the Republicans becoming the minority party in America for 40 years are the same beliefs Buchanan is lamenting the loss of today.  Modern Conservatives feel that if this old thinking is what is required to earn the label of “Conservative”, then Buchanan can keep it.

New Conservatives draw their roots from a far older and nobler tradition.  The tradition of freedom and opportunity for all that formed the Republican Party under Lincoln.  The tradition of individualism and self reliance that led our ancestors to immigrate to America.  And, the tradition of government deriving its power from the consent of the governed as embodied by our Forefathers in the Declaration of Independence and The Constitution.

New Conservatives do not trust Corporate America any further than we could collectively throw them.  Personally, I am always worried while on a business trip that some corporate auditor will show up in my hotel room while I am sleeping and try to harvest my internal organs for sale overseas just so they can hit their quarterly projections.  No, we place our faith in the small business and entrepreneurs  who struggle under an ever increasing government tax load. 

New Conservatives have no time for racism.  We are too busy trying to live our dreams than to worry about what color your skin is or what your religious beliefs are.  We understand that we are all a nation of immigrants, unfortunately, some of us unwillingly.  We cannot dwell on the evils and mistakes of the past, but must focus on not repeating them in the present.  Freedom and opportunity are the great levelers of America.  If we could stop meddling with the system, whether that is through government regulation or racial prejudices, America will become a far more equitable place in the future.  So long as your money is green and American, and you hold the same respect for our beliefs as we hold for yours, everyone is welcome to the table of American opportunity. 

New Conservatives believe that all people, not just Americans, have been endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, and it is our responsibility to protect, defend, and propagate freedom, liberty, and democracy across the globe.  We may not like the French, but we would fight to defend their freedom again, even if they do not support us in Iraq.  And, I am sorry Mr. Buchanan, you may not like Israel, but we should defend and support that small nation with all the tools our great society affords us as it is an oasis of liberty in the sea of fascist tyranny.

And, lastly, it does not matter where you were born, or what language you speak so long as you immigrate legally according to the Rule of Law and love America for all that it is and wants to be.  If it is the fate that America will one day speak Urdu, Hindi, or Dutch, it will still be America so long as we continue to cherish our ideals.  The last time I checked, freedom still meant freedom even if it was said in Spanish. 

In the end, radical right wingers, like Buchanan, hate New Conservatives for the same reason as the radical left (and the 18th Century European aristocracy, for that matter).  We are the crests of the wave that is bringing freedom, democracy, and true human dignity to the entire world.  And, they know there is nothing they can do to stop it.  I like to think that history will look back at our time and say that Ronald Reagan and the New Conservatives who followed in his footsteps marked another “new birth of freedom” in America, and made it possible that “government of the people, by the people, for the people” never vanished from the face of the earth.


Justin Darr
36 Rolling Lane
Levittown, PA.   19055
justindarr@juno.com

A Nuclear Reality Check.


Gone are the days when nuclear weapons capability was controlled by a few, if not friendly, at least relatively sane nations.  After 60 years, advances in technology have made it possible for rogue states with the inclination and resources to release the nuclear genie.  The major question facing the United States today is quite simple; what are we going to do about it? Lacking the prescience to see the future, American voters have a choice between two men with diametrically opposed views on how this issue should be addressed.  And, despite the spin of the candidates’ respective campaigns, they are basing their choices on little more than faith.  Faith that their respective candidate better understands the nature, goals, predispositions, and methods of dealing with the issues these states seeking nuclear weapons raises.  The problem is that while John Kerry is sincere in beliefs, his world view is not based on the reality of the character of the rogue nations he must face as President.

In regard to North Korea, Kerry feels that it is best to pretend that Kim Jong-il has not just violated an international treaty with the United States and developed nuclear weapons.  Kerry may want to blame this development on the Bush Administration, but it takes far more than the year Bush was in office to develop a nuclear weapons program.  No, in order to develop the WMD they now hold, North Korea would have had to systematically violate the treaty almost from the day it was signed by the Clinton Administration in 1994.  The rigorous system of oversight and inspections stipulated by the treaty were easily side stepped by the North Koreans and now two of our closest allies, South Korea and Japan, have a psychopathic despot pointing nuclear weapons at their major cities.  John Kerry’s solution to this major crisis is to give into the demands of the North Koreans, pretend the last 10 years did not happen, and hold bilateral talks with North Korea, effectively ostracizing the nations most directly effected their nuclear threat. 

What do you suppose the character of these negotiations would be?   It is pretty simple, North Korea will want its oil, food, medicine, and humanitarian aid back that was cut off by Bush with the violation of the old treaty with a new caveat where the United States would accept and forgive their development of atomic weapons.  What would we get?  Nothing but promises from a regime that has proven itself unable to abide by an international treaty.  John Kerry may claim that the guarantee of North Korea dismantling its WMD is worth the price of abandoning our values and risking millions of lives, but what does Senator Kerry plan to do if North Korea violates this treaty just like they ignored the last?  Set up another round of negotiations begging them to just tell us how much we have to give them live up to their word? 

John Kerry has a similar plan in regard to Iran’s nuclear weapons program.  Oh, I am sorry, peaceful nuclear power program.  First, Iran needs nuclear power about as much as Bill Gates needs food stamps.  The entire country is floating on an ocean of oil!  Iran’s history does not need retelling.  Since 1979, Iran has