Make your own free website on

Justin Darr

Most Popular Articles
Reader Poetry
About Me
Where to Read My Latest.
Reprint Rights, Interviews, Speaking Engagements, Article and Bookreviews.


Sorry Liberals.  Being Arrogant Does Not Make You Right.



Back during the Presidential Election, Kerry enthusiasts were constantly gushing over the perceived intelligence of John Kerry.  If it was not praises toward his “nuanced” approaches of how to creatively surrender to the United Nations and international terrorists then it was how all of his aides had to run around carrying dictionaries just so they could understand his “big words.”  Well, the truth is out.  Eight months after everyone quit caring about John Kerry’s records, he has finally released them to “The Boston Globe.”  Chance of chances, these records show that Senator Kerry was a “C” student with a virtually identical grade average as the stuttering, slack jawed, ignoramus George W. Bush.  And, Kerry’s aides needed dictionaries to understand him?  Suddenly it is much easier to understand why Kerry ran such an inept campaign and how they thought voting for the $87 billion before he voted against it made any sense.  Kerry chose to surround himself with die hard liberals who made the congenital mistake of all liberals by assuming that arrogance equaled intelligence and being right.


Arrogance is as much a part of liberalism as feathers are to being birds.  In 2004, while under fire for the lack of intellectual diversity in the Philosophy Department at Duke University, department chair Robert Brandon misquoted  John Stewart Mill and stated that conservatives were disproportionately stupid, and therefore underrepresented in academia.  Being one of the intellectual elite, Professor Brandon must be well aware of the need to have supporting evidence for such and outrageous statement.  And, what might that evidence be?  Certainly not any quantitative facts. 


According to Laubach Literary Action (now Proliteracy Worldwide), 51% of adult illiterates in the United States live in the metropolitan suburb strong holds of liberalism that surround our major cities with an additional 44% living in cities, but only 8% in conservative rural areas.  I am not saying that liberals leaders are illiterate, however, I am saying this is the left’s target audience.  Many rank and file liberals cede their thinking to the liberal elite giving deference to their arrogance.  They assume if a person is haughty about their views, mock those who do not hold them, and have some letters behind their name, then by proxy they must have thought it through and be right.  It saves them the time of researching the complex issues of the day and thinking for themselves and enables them to share the coveted “mantle of intelligence” of the left.  It also frees them up to spend their time on the Internet spewing profanity laced personal insults to all those with whom they disagree, always attacking the person but never refuting their ideas.  “How dare you say I’m wrong when I agree with Professor X, AbC XyD, at the University?  Your (sic) nothing but a @#%$ing *&@$# with a big nose.  And your wife’s fat, too!”


The truth of the matter is the liberal elite’s arrogance is based on nothing beyond their arrogance.  They feel they are right for the simple fact they think it.  And, Heaven help you if you disagree.  While conservatives rely on history, philosophy, the Bible, and a full understanding of human nature as a basis of their beliefs, the left supplants these with dubious claims of “tolerance” and “sensitivity.”  When the need for facts arises, they create their own through a series of unscientific and biased studies from some leftist think tank or poles from the “unbiased” media. For example, in the last election, the “LA Times” and a pole showing Kerry well ahead of Bush but neglected to mention that they surveyed disproportionate numbers of Democrats.  Junk science is creating a junk society where how something sounds is more important than its substance or impact.  Liberals push contradictory programs based on contradictory values based on nothing but the changing currents of their whims, then react with pathological “outrage” whenever you point out that their ideas do not work.


Infused with a sense of self importance, liberals are hacking a paradoxical path of destruction through our society for no other reason than they just feel like it. 


If it is the slaughter of the unborn, liberals ignoring all scientific evidence that a fetus is a living human being, because babies cannot vote so why should they care.  When confronted with Europe’s economy collapsing under the weight of its social welfare system, liberals just ignore it because they do not “feel” that it will happen here.  And the impact of allowing gays to marry is ignored because the left just does not feel there will be one.


The arrogance of the left is nothing but a smoke screen designed to stifle the debate of those who do not agree with them.  Armed with nothing but their opinions and disinformation (plus a healthy mean streak to vehemently attack any dissenters) the left is trying to replace the foundations of our culture with a house of cards.  Modern liberals need a lesson from the true liberals from ages past.  People like Socrates, Plato, and Locke who understood that just because you believe something does not make it true, and you should not mess around with things you do not understand.


2005 Justin Darr





Liberals Think Democracy Has A Reset Button.




A few years back, I was watching my son play little league baseball.  This is not the little league you and I might remember where a few of the older kids would pitch to you with the coach standing behind them, but our new liberalized “T-Ball” little league where the kids get to stand up at the plate and cut away at a stationary ball ad infinitum until they hit it and get to run to base.  On this day the unthinkable happened.  A boy hit the ball, and a player actually caught it, turned and made a strong throw to first base, and to all the parents’ shock and joy, the first baseman caught the ball long before the batter reached the bag.  Now, back in the days when conservative Neanderthals ruled the Earth, this would have been called an “out.”  But not so today in America’s “enlightened” youth athletic programs.  No, this was called a “nothing.”  The boy was returned to the plate so he could have another chance to bat and achieve the “proper” outcome of him getting to run the bases like everyone else.   It is not like they keep score or anything, so who cares? 


The problem is that liberals do not confine this reset button mentality to just the activities formerly known as youth competitive sports, but freedom and the democratic process in general.


The European Union is in turmoil because the voters of France have refused to ratify the new EU Constitution in a national referendum.  Regardless of analysts’ claims that the referendum was more a referendum on Jacques Chirac’s Presidency, or that the French public failed to understand the “nuances” of the cumbersome 317 page European Union Constitution,  it is entirely possible that the French people do not want to be part of a wider European Union.  Who knows, could it be that the French enjoy being French and have no desire to be Greater Europeans? 


It really might not matter.  Even before the referendum, EU rotating President Jean-Claude Juncker, of Luxembourg, stated that France should re-run their referendum in order to achieve the “right answer” if the voters reject it.  Too bad Mr. Juncker did not work for the Al Gore Presidential Campaign, we still might be voting.  Since when has the democratic process had a “mulligan clause?”  This is a national referendum, not a slice off the tee!  


With increasing frequency liberals world wide are seeing when key elements of their agenda are put up for the approval of the electorate, they are soundly defeated.  However, instead of accepting the will of the people and trying to find new ideas for a new age, liberals are intent on subverting the democratic process by any means possible.  In the liberal mind, the only fair election is the one they win.


Currently, 18 states have passed amendments to their state constitutions defining marriage as a union between a man and woman through state wide referenda.  Even in the case of left leaning Oregon, these initiatives were passed in all the states proposing them by huge double digit margins.  Unfortunately for the voting public, liberals do not feel that we selected the “right answer” on the same sex marriage issue, so they are seeking to undermine the  will of the people with the cooperation of their judicial activist allies in the Courts.  In early May, U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon struck down the Nebraska defense of marriage amendment because… well because he did not like it, and effectively voided the votes of 70% of Nebraskans who voted in favor of the amendment in 2000.  Yet once again, when liberals do not like the results of the democratic process, they seek to hit the reset button, toss the decision aside and go on as though the vote never occurred.


As in international treaties, domestic policy and little league baseball, liberals love freedom and democracy so long as they get to pick the winners.  Liberals seek to use the democratic process as a means to affirm what they believe.  When it is rejected, they push reality aside and attempt to go on as though they actually won the support of the people.  A democracy is only a democracy when the majority of voters decide how they will live their lives.  If you are unable to accept this simple fact, and constantly try to undermine the will of the people anytime it is against your opinions, then I do not know if you are a Communist, Fascist, or Autocrat, but you are certainly not an American.



2005 Justin Darr




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




Jesus the Baby Killer?



“Slippery Slope” reasoning is the belief that small, seemingly harmless, decisions can set precedents for much larger, radical, and unpopular decisions to come.  Liberals hate “slippery slope” debates, largely because they have to acknowledge that leveraging small “slippery slope” issues through the activist judiciary system is their only real hope of cramming the radical heart of their agenda down America’s throat.  For example, what started as not having children pray in public schools has now led to the systematic banning of all Christian values from the public education system.  Like building a wall of intolerance and oppression toward traditional values, liberals have over the years added one brick upon another, one small decision upon another with which we might not agree but seems fair at the time, until today where our traditional faith and values are truly at risk.


Christianity has been the main stumbling block to the complete success of the liberal agenda.  Christians, and their nasty habit of voting all the time, has put the left on notice that unless they so something their ideals of creating a Godless, Socialist Utopia is doomed to failure.


However, things are now beginning to change.  In recent months, the main assault on Christian values has not come from the liberal media or radical atheist groups, but from within Christian denominations themselves.  For example, the Episcopalian Church has just elected Christianity’s first openly homosexual Bishop, V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire.  In typical fashion, the left’s celebrated attempts to promote “tolerance” has led to the trampling of the free speech rights of others.  However, despite the threats of Episcopalian leaders to defrock the ministers of six Connecticut ministers for not supporting the New Hampshire Bishop, dissent is growing among the Episcopalian congregation and may lead to a schism in the Church.  Now before some of you liberals out there go into a paroxysm of screaming “homophobe” until you are hoarse, you must understand that much of the opposition toward a gay Bishop is not necessarily the fact that he is a homosexual,  but for the host of other liberal baggage that a gay Bishop brings with him.


Chief among these is that Bishop Robinson not only disagrees with the Christian tradition toward homosexuality, but abortion as well.  While addressing the fifth annual “prayer breakfast” of Planned Parenthood, Bishop Robinson stated, “In this last election we see what the ultimate divorce from communities of faith will do to us… Our defense against religious people has to be a religious defense… We must use people of faith to counter the faith based arguments against us.”  In other words, Planned Parenthood should target “people of faith” to change their opinions on abortion through a dedicated program of utilizing leftist Christians to twist the Word of God to suit their ends.


Regardless of what your views on abortion are, there is no way you can look at the New and Old Testaments and claim that abortion is a good or moral thing.  The strongest argument in favor of a woman’s right to choose is not that the Judeo/Christian heritage in some way is indifferent or supportive to the practice, but that people in America have the right to do things that others might consider immoral, and that we do not have the right to legislate our morality over them.  Granted, Jesus never said the word “abortion,” however, neither did he say “genocide,” “corporate embezzlement,” nor “taking pictures of your neighbor through their windows at night,” but these are all considered immoral practices.  However, this does not stop many other Christian ministers from claiming that Jesus would have added “blessed are the abortionists, they shall fill the Kingdom of God with the souls of the unborn” to the “Sermon on the Mount” if he had not been up against time restraints.


The Reverend Mark Bigelow stated in a letter to “The O’Reilly Factor,” “I am careful not to presume what Jesus would say if he were alive today… But one thing I know from the Bible is that Jesus was not against women having a choice in continuing a pregnancy.”  Now just where did he find that nonsense?  To even claim that Jesus would not have seen abortion for what it is, an abomination against life and God, is completely contrary to the entire Word and spirit of the Gospels. 


But many radical Christians say such things every day, and their goal is to subvert your thinking into agreeing with them by emphasizing the aspects of Christian tradition that suit their ends.  They will never say “abortion is a moral Christian belief,” but they will say, “who are we to judge,” or “Jesus forgave sinners, why cannot you?”  All are true and consistent with the Christian beliefs, but with each small act of “tolerance”, the slippery slope gets just a bit steeper until one day when you too may not be able to claim that Jesus did not condone the slaughter of the unborn.


The most telling aspect of the beliefs at the radical Christian left is best exemplified by the very words they use.  Look at the quotes above.  Bishop Robinson refers to the members of Planned Parenthood as “us,” and speaks of “our defense against religious people.”  The Reverend Bigelow says, “If Jesus… were alive today.”  All these statements indicate people who are outside and at odds with the Christian Community.  Bishop Robinson sounds like a member of Planned Parenthood rather than the “religious people” he supposedly represents, and last time I checked most Christians believe that Christ is alive today due to that little “Resurrection” thingy we talk about once in a while.  Dig a but further and you will see that many of these alleged Christians deny the Divinity of Christ, the belief in the afterlife, and the doctrine of Salvation through Jesus.  To them Jesus is just a “good guy,” and his teachings “general guidelines” never to be taken literally in order to achieve a nebulous end that may or may not be worthwhile. These people are not true Christians and you must resolve yourself to stand firm in your faith against them, and never allow yourself to believe what is right is wrong.



2005 Justin Darr





The Non-Moralizing Jerk Section.



After years of constant personal attacks, being unceremoniously herded out into the hostile elements, and sneered and glared upon on an almost constant basis, I have quit smoking.  Yes, stand up and applaud all you non-smokers out there!  You have finally nagged, annoyed, and taxed me out of one of the few small pleasures life has to offer.


Granted, smoking is bad for you.  And, that is the real reason why I quit.  After just a few short weeks I already feel better, have more energy and the creation of the “plasma TV fund” in my bank account has made it all worthwhile.  Probably the largest benefit of not smoking is that now I can finally join the benighted few in the coveted “non smoking section” of my favorite local restaurant.


Strangely, however, my first over the “non-smoking” red velvet rope was not what I was expecting.  Where were the jewel studded utensils, the extra comfy seat cushions with bonus lumbar supports, the crystal vases full of fresh cut free range wild flowers?  Where was the ethereal glow that only comes from the certainty that you are in some way better than someone else?  There was nothing.  Same tables, same chairs, same food, same waitress.  In fact, I sat at the same table that had been the “smoking section” a month before.  The only thing that was different was that now I was surrounded by all the jerks who had made my life miserable about smoking.


Gone was Mr. “Jones”, who for the past 7 years has shown my son the same dumb magic trick every time he has spied us from a “reserved” seat at the counter that only decades of patronage can earn.  Vanquished was “Barry”, a retired truck driver who personally instructed my daughter into the fine art of making a spoon stick to her nose over a “Bugs Bunny Platter.”  And also absent was “Mary,” who clips newspaper articles of “things you should write about.”


Replacing these denizens of tobacco evil was some lady who I swear is the sister or cousin of a person who saw several of us smokers standing outside on a cold winter’s day at a conference in Providence, Rhode Island, and proceeded to kick the door stop from the door locking us outside.  When I confronted the person as to why she would do something like that, she responded that we should not be smoking.  Also now present at the table across the aisle was a gentleman who weeks before informed me over my escarole soup that the smoking section should be even smaller and darker than it already was because secondary smoke is hazardous to his health.  Well, so is bothering me when I am trying to eat, and I did not see that fact modifying his behavior. 


I was surrounded by a bunch of jerks!  Do not misunderstand me.  Most non-smokers are the same as smokers; just regular folks.  But there is a breed of self righteous, moralizing, tobacco police in the non-smoking community who feel that it is their personal responsibility to make dinner miserable for as many smokers as possible. 


Have any of you ever stopped to think that it is just as equally rude and annoying to bother someone while they are eating, trapped in your car, or if you just happen to spy a pack of cigarettes on their person about the evils of smoking as it is to be around someone who smokes?  Second hand smoke may or may not be a health risk, but stress related anxiety inflicted by anti-tobacco zealots on people who are just trying to mind their own business is too, and I do not see business owners funneling the ranks of the obnoxious into tables by the bathroom.


The next time I go out to eat, I plan on requesting to sit in the smoking section.  Not because I plan to smoke, but I would rather deal with those who accepted me when I smoked than fawn in the erstwhile graces of those who delighted in making me miserable for so long.  So, what is it going to be?  Deal with those who are under the mistaken assumption that I care about their opinions on how I live my life, or smell an ashtray when I eat.  Too bad there is no “non-moralizing jerk” section in the diner.



2005 Justin Darr



The War Within the War.



On March 5th, 2002, long before there was a Camp X-Ray, American Petty Officer Neil Roberts fell out of his helicopter while on an operation in Afghanistan and was promptly bludgeoned, had his throat slit from ear to ear, and was shot in the back of the head by his terrorist captors.  International human rights organizations were united in one voice expressing their outrage at this flagrant violation of the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war.  Oh, wait, did I accidentally say “expressed outrage?”  No, I meant to say “expressed serious concern.”  No, that is not right either.  Perhaps a better term would be “noticed that it happened.”  Actually, that is incorrect as well.  The reality of the matter is that the only thing the international human rights community has been united in expressing about the wonton slaughter and torture of not just American POW’s, but civilian reporters, contractors, school children and pretty much anyone else who has the misfortune of being in their general vicinity, has been nothing.


So it must be just fine that our enemies’ preferred method of determent for their prisoners is to chain them to a concrete floor until they can get around to beheading them on video tape.  The International Red Cross must be aware of some obscure international protocol that makes it acceptable for Daniel Pearle to be murdered because he was Jewish, or nuanced caveat of a custom that calls for kidnapped civilian prisoners to have photos of their decapitated heads perched atop their dead bodies broadcast on Al Jazeera, as was done to Paul Johnson. 


In the eyes of human rights groups none of these actions sink to the depths of depravity of the United States leaving the lights on when illegal combatant terrorists are trying to sleep.  Maybe it would be better if we followed the enlightened and acceptable example of our enemies and balanced our captives’ severed heads along the fence of the White House.  At least then they would have been spared the inhuman tortures of feeling bored, not having adequate reading material, listening to loud music, and talking to women wearing tight t-shirts. 


This blatant duplicity is a not a symptom of any actual affinity for the beliefs or actions of international terrorists on the part of leftists.  Remember, most terrorists want to kill not just Americans, but homosexuals, atheists, and feminists as well.  So, there is no way the left would actually support groups who hate so many of their core constituencies.  The current leftist human rights groups’ current concern for the health and safety of terrorist captives during the War on Terror is nothing but an intellectually dishonest attempt to co-opt the cause of terrorist detainees and warp it into yet another front in the left’s War on America.


Most liberal international groups could care less for the alleged plight of terrorists being held by the American military.  If the United States was not involved in this matter, then the international community would pay no more attention to the conditions of America’s detainees than they do the 300,000 dead Christians in the Darfur region of the Sudan, or the rights of hundreds of slaughtered civilians who died at the hands of the very terrorists the left is now trying to protect. 


As usual, liberals are only involved in this issue because they sense the opportunity to further their own goals and agenda from within it.  And that goal is to force the United States to become a European style Socialistic welfare state. 


In order to reach this end, the left must force several changes not just in the behavior and beliefs of the American government, but its citizens as well.  Some of the traits that must be eliminated are national pride, self reliance, moral clarity, and a sense of individualism.  If the left can succeed in purging these traits from the character of America and her people, then they will be no different from the phlegmatic, corrupt, and weak European nations they so envy. 


In the opinion of the left, the best way to do this is to confront the United States on every front, criticize its every failure, ridicule it every victory and question its every motivation.  It might be the conditions of terrorist detainees today, but it will be the “plight of the dolphins”, or global warming on another.  The actual cause does not matter, so long as they are able to obstruct the United States from doing what is right.


For decades during the Cold War, liberals aligned themselves with the Communist Bloc.  You will notice that there was never a line forming of these leftists to leave the Free World and find greener pastures on the plains of Siberia.  However, that did not stop them from criticizing every effort made by the United States and praising every abuse of the Soviets.  Today, Communism is nothing but a pipe dream even to its most ardent adherents, but the left has still not stopped complaining.  Now they are supporting the cause of international terrorists, and yet once again, you do not see America’s mosques filling up with the ranks of the left’s former atheists, converted homosexuals, and reformed feminists who now realize there is nothing better in life than never showing your face in public and walking three feet behind your husband.  It is not that liberals are necessarily hypocrites, but that they see themselves as part of a larger War on America in which the War on Terror is just a small part.  And, just as in any war, conflict sometimes makes strange bedfellows, and the enemy of your enemy becomes your friend.


The problem for the left is that they have never thought their cause out to the end and considered the consequences if they actually succeed in their goals.  If the left can one day turn America into a timid giant, who would be left to defend them from the all those whose “rights” they fought to protect?



Justin Darr 2005





Goodbye Reality! 

The Tough Life of a Liberal Blogger.



It is difficult to imagine how anyone could not celebrate the first free Iraqi election in over 50 years.  Even France, which vehemently opposed the United States’ liberation of Iraq, set its differences aside to praise the people of Iraq for their strength and bravery as they take this first step toward true freedom.  However, there are people in this world who are not celebrating this great event.  No, I am not talking about the usual folks we know oppose freedom not just in Iraq, but across the globe, such as North Korea’s Kim Jung Il, Osama Bin Laden, and a few Nazis hiding in Argentina, but others who will attack the successful Iraqi election with the same hostility, distortion, and hatred for the truth as the tyrants above.  And, they are as close as your computer.  I am talking about the Internet’s Liberal Bloggers. 


Most Internet leftists are still seeking therapy helping them cope with President Bush’s reelection victory, so another Bush Administration triumph, particularly one in association with the hated Iraq War, is all they need to free them from their already tenuous grasp on sanity.  As of Sunday afternoon on January 30, 2005, the insanity had already reached a fever pitch.


The reactions of liberal bloggers can be grouped into four categories.  The first is the “Let’s Talk About Something Else Posse.”  For example,  “Black Eyed Sunday”,  ignored the election completely and chose to center their daily post around promoting the commemoration of the second anniversary of the Iraq War with a “global protest” calling for Bush’s impeachment.  One what grounds?  Who knows, probably for the “high crime” of President Bush disagreeing with them.


The second, or the “Let’s Pretend It Didn’t Happen Faction,” are a group who broke with the traditional liberal habit of talking endlessly about anything so long as it can be twisted into a childish penis reference about Vice President Cheney, and said nothing.  As of mid Sunday afternoon, bloggers such as Josh Micha Marshall, Stephen Bainbridge, Stephen Green, Crooked Timber, and liberal blogger giant, Atrios, had said nothing.  Yes, nothing at all about anything.  Can you believe it?  The birth of democracy in Iraq has actually managed to make a liberal stop talking!  This is indeed a historic day.  In all fairness, these bloggers will surely weigh in on the Iraqi Election at a later date.  Perhaps it was unfair of me to look into their sites on Sunday afternoon when so many liberals are just beginning emerge from the drug induced haze of their traditional weekend medicinal marijuana benders. 


The third group is by far the largest.  They are “The Conspiracy Theorists.”  This is the same group who gained notoriety by advancing the claim that Karl Rove used stolen alien technology from Area 51 to make it rain on Democratic areas of Ohio on Election Day in an attempt to disenfranchise voters through adverse weather. led the charge with the tried and true “Bush will not count the votes properly.”  Just what Iraq needs, hanging chads.  Rather than offering any proof to back up their claim, challenges its readers to e-mail them with any evidence that the votes will  be counted properly.  Who knows, maybe two or three people will respond and Moveleft will have its web traffic double for the day. asserts that all claims of election success are lies spread by Republicans because there are no “unbiased observers” on the ground in Iraq.  I guess this is a subtle admission that CBS and CNN are the prejudiced left-wing rags we suspect them to be. claims nobody actually voted in the Iraq election and all reports to the contrary are propaganda.  I’ll just leave that one alone.  Buzzflash really goes over the edge with their headline “The ‘Great Game’ of War for Oil Under the Propaganda Flag of ‘Spreading Democracy’ Continues.”  And, I thought I wrote bad titles!  Lastly, in a unique twist, Talkleft posted an article by journalist Chris Allbritton claiming the election successes where actually the result of a terrorist conspiracy, “Our sources in the insurgency say the election will make no difference to them, so why expend the energy?”  Yeah, right.


The last group is the “Just Being Nasty for the Sake of Being Nasty Alliance.”  DailyKOS says the Iraqi election was not actually an election but “a PR stunt” and a chance for the media to gather “pretty pictures.” stays true to their optimistic liberal ideals with the headline, “Who’s Paying for All This Freedom?”  That is an easy one, the same people who support the largely unemployable, still living at home in the basement readers of The Democratic Underground; their parents. And, MyDD writes “Fundamentalists of the World Unite” and laments the fall of Saddam Hussein’s benevolent “secular” government.  It is not that MyDD likes Saddam, its is just that they hate God more. 


These are tough times to be a liberal blogger. In light of the rejection of the left’s domestic polices and beliefs by the American electorate, and now the failure of their “Surrender at Any Cost” foreign polices,  you might be inclined to believe the liberal bloggers many begin to fade away.  But not so.  So long as there facts to twist, lies to spread, and profanity laced personal attacks to hurl, liberal bloggers will continue to run away from reality for years to come.



2005 Justin Darr





The Rise of the Homosexual Super Citizen.



“All pigs are created equal, except some pigs are more equal than others"  wrote George Orwell in his classic “Animal Farm.”  While it is always fun poking fun at Stalin being a pig, applying Owellian metaphors to American society will usually do nothing but get a person called “paranoid” by their friends, and a “ranting lunatic” by most others.  However, when reality strikes you in the face and the preponderance of evidence is undeniable, the truth is the truth no matter how insane or impossible it may sound.  The facts in America today are that homosexuals have been elevated to be America’s Super Citizens, above the law to the point where their psychological need for acceptance trounces even the most basic Constitutional rights of others.  


The Super Citizens have struck their latest blow to our rights in my home state of Pennsylvania, in the well known case of the “Philadelphia 11”, or “Philadelphia 5”, or the “Philadelphia 4, plus one minor, who despite being ignored by the press is still being prosecuted.”  Whatever you call it, the situation is the same.  Several people are being put on trial for having the audacity to say they believe homosexuality is wrong. 


Despite what you may have read, this is not a case of judicial activism.  Philadelphia Municipal Court Judge William Austin Meehan has a long, solid, history of upholding the letter of the law as it was written.  Nor is the problem the law itself.  Title 18 of the “Consolidated Pennsylvania Statutes” regarding Crimes and Offenses has no language or penalties that differ greatly from any of the other 49 states.  In fact, 18 Pa.C.S. 5504 (e) clearly states that the sections on hate crimes “shall not apply… to any Constitutionally protected activity.”  A good law, a good judge, and two group of people peacefully assembling to exercise their First Amendment rights.  So what went wrong?  Nothing except that one of the groups of protestors chose to read Bible verses to America’s untouchable elite, homosexual activists.  Now, this small group of Christians must face the full wrath of the militant homosexual lobby for infringing on their self created right to be above all reproach.


In the America of the homosexual Super Citizen, it does not matter what the law says, how it applies to others, or even the intent of the legislators who wrote it.  All that matters is how homosexual activists can twist it to achieve their goal of not just forcing Americans to accept their chosen lifestyle, but it place it and themselves above any criticisms or scrutiny.  Homosexuality should not be the equal of traditional heterosexual marriage and families, but its superior.  What people chose to do in their bedrooms should be a private matter unless they are homosexual, then their sexual choices should be taught in the public schools, celebrated in the media, and warrant preferential treatment in the workplace.  Additionally, all this should be backed with the full force of legislation so if you should choose to speak out against homosexuality, you can face criminal prosecution.


However, according to the Super Citizens, the law should only be respected and enforced if it directly benefits them.  If the law cannot be twisted to fit their agenda,  as in Pennsylvania, then they will break it.  Who can forget San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsome tossing aside California law and marrying homosexual couples last year?  Rather than Newsome receiving the censure any other elected official would have received for, say ignoring state gun control laws, he was exulted as a hero and those who stood up for the will of the people and rule of law were vilified.  Why?  Because homosexual activists see themselves as above the law. 


The duplicity and elitism of the homosexual activists is undeniable.  They see the law as something applying to others, but never themselves.  Democratic processes are the enemy because the will of the people staunchly opposes the forced indoctrination of their lifestyle on their children, therefore should be ridiculed and ignored.  While saying one critical word to them should be met with accusations of intolerance, no degree of intimidation or slander is too outrageous to achieve their goal of using which ever public bathroom they choose. 


The life blood of a civil society is free speech and respect for the rule of law.  Nobody likes to be criticized or have their beliefs questioned, but it is a necessary part of being free.  If Americans allow any group to be elevated above the others to the point where saying “I think you are wrong” is a crime, then only a select few will be free and the rest subjugated. 


We are not saying that homosexuals do not have rights.  We are not saying homosexuals should be permitted to be the victims of prejudice or violence.  What we are saying is being a homosexual does not make you better than anyone else, and that intimidating or silencing those who disagree with you through legislation is wrong.   If anyone sees themselves as a Super Citizen, where their rights supercede those of all others and the law becomes a one sided force for their benefit alone, then our entire democratic society will be lost.



2005 Justin Darr







Last week, my wife and I were invited to eat dinner at the home of some of our more liberal friends.  Or, I should more properly say, my wife was invited and I came along because I come with the set.  Do not take this the wrong way.  I have nothing personally against this couple.  They are intelligent, friendly people, and other than the fact that they are a pair of short sighted, pseudo-intellectual, tie dye wearing liberal freaks who hold a burning resentment against me because I am usually right, I can tolerate them for short periods every few weeks. 


This week was their turn to host dinner.  So, as with most things in life, there is good and bad in all situations.  For example, by going to their house I do not have to deal with their critiquing my home’s recycling program, but by going to theirs I am forced to endure whatever collection of sticks, small stones, and berries constitutes a vegetarian meal.  This week was no exception as we were treated to yet another half raw meat, cheese, salt and taste free dinner.  As I finished eating and my mind was turning to thoughts of what kinds of real food I would eat once I got home, my hosts asked if I would like some chocolate non-dairy, frozen, naturally sweetened confection.  This is close enough to be ice cream for me, so I accepted. 


As my host gave me the bowl, he asked me with a smile if I would like some hemp seeds on the top as a garnish.  Ah, yes, it was evidently time for yet another of my friends’ attempts to entrap me into a lecture about the evils of something.  I knew that if I was to refuse the hemp seeds, then I was guaranteed at least a 45 minute long tirade about the need to legalize marijuana.  Willing to avoid this at any cost, and knowing that hemp is the non narcotic form of marijuana, I accepted.  My hosts’ crestfallen stares was proof to me that I have managed to spoil their planned entertainment for the evening, so they immediately switched to “Plan B” and began their sermon anyhow about how wonderful hemp is and how if everyone grew it there would no longer be any problems in the world.


Did you know, I was told, that a bunch of people out west just drove a car the entire way around the country powered on nothing but hemp seed oil?  How much does hemp seed oil cost?  About $160 a gallon… I think I will keep using regular unleaded. 


Did you know that another bunch of people out west just built an adobe brick house out of nothing but mud and hemp stems?  Hope it does not biodegrade by spring.  And so on it went. 


Other than the fact that there must be a lot of goofy people “out west” who think they can fly to the moon in a hemp rocket, all I learned is that some people are willing to say and do anything in order to try to make marijuana use culturally acceptable.  Up to and including, overstating the benefits of hemp.


The fact of the matter is almost any vegetable matter can be processed into some form of fuel.  We have been using ethanol for decades in our engines and it is made from corn, and many other types of legal crops can do the same, such as wheat, soy beans, and alfalfa.  There is nothing unique in hemp’s ability to modify into fuel that cannot be accomplished with a preexisting farm crop.


The same can be said for fabrics and paper, which the “hemp-maniacs” point to as hemp’s most vital contribution to society by offering us a renewable and biodegradable alternative to cutting down trees and abusing sheep by cutting off their wool.   Sorry to say, many other crops can also be used in this capacity, such as rice stalks and corn husks.  In fact, other staple crops far exceed hemp in its usefulness in creating environmentally friendly products.  Corn and soy beans can actually be processed into biodegradable plastics and polymers that can be used in industries and textiles.  But these crops are not illegal and a slightly different variety of them cannot get you high, so liberals just ignore them. 


Maybe it is the allure of something almost illegal that attracts the left to hemp.  How can society be so short sighted as to overlook the benefits of this great plant just because it is hard to tell apart from a controlled substance?  Well, if something almost illegal is what the left likes about hemp, then they should go batty over tobacco.  The tobacco plant is known as one of the biotech industry’s “white rats.”  It is by far one of the easiest plants to bioengineer, and the fact that an average plants yields over 1 million seeds, makes it an invaluable tool for scientific research.  One day very soon, pharmaceutical products in human medication and vaccines may be grown in tobacco plants, as well as the plastics used in consumer products.  That is unless liberal politicians do not tax the plant into extinction first. 


The hemp seeds on my almost ice cream tasted like dirt, by the way.  Or maybe the dust off your television screen would be a better description of what hemp tastes like.  My dinner experience is like the entire hemp use issue in a nut shell.  Hemp is nothing but an old outdated crop that does not offer society anything that cannot be attained elsewhere much more readily at a far cheaper price.  But people still persist in trying over inflate its usefulness because they think that it would make a good cover for the “real” crops they are trying to grow in their gardens.  If you are actually concerned about farmers, renewable sources of raw materials, and biodiversity, then why not stop bothering us with your hemp extract hand sanitizers and expend your energies on something that might actually work.


2005 Justin Darr



Copywright 2003, 2004, 2005 Justin Darr.  All rights reserved.  All requests for reprint rights should be directed to Reprint Rights, Interviews, Speaking Engagements, Article and Bookreviews.