The ACLU is Going Down, and Taking a Few of Us With it.
For years the American Civil Liberties Union has pushed its agenda
as to what the Constitution “really says,” and what freedom “really means” through judicial extortion. In 1978, the Supreme Court exempted the ACLU from the “ambulance chasing”
prohibitions that apply to nearly every other lawyer in the country. Over the
years this has enabled the ACLU’s legions of pro bono attorneys to specifically target various organizations they feel
are vulnerable to their lawsuits, dredge the ranks of the “offended” until they can find someone who will agree
to let the ACLU stick their name at the top of a case, and then attempt to force a group’s acquiesce to their demands
by threatening a costly legal case they usually cannot afford. Many who have
dared to stand up against the ACLU might have won the battle in the court room, but lost the war as their organizations were
driven into bankruptcy under crushing legal bills.
However, in the last few years the tide has started to turn. Alternate civil liberties groups, such as The American Center for Law and Justice,
conservative radio commentators, and even some in the media, have drawn attention to the ACLU’s pattern of abuses, fanatic
beliefs and outright hypocrisy. For the first time the ACLU is faced with legitimate
public outcry over their tactics and slowly those who once would quietly give up their freedoms have been instilled with the
will (and pro bono legal support) to fight. In addition, despite the efforts
of obstructionist liberals in Congress, the court system is being given a much needed infusion of new judges who recognize
that their interpretation of the Constitution should in some fashion be similar to those who wrote it. The ACLU understands its days of forcing Christianity, traditional values, and freedoms out of American
public life are numbered.
Out of a sense of desperation and frustration toward this new
threat, the ACLU has recently begun to change the target of their court cases to include the leaders of public groups and
the private individuals who are leading the charge against them.
The best known case involves popular talk show host Sean Hannity. While interviewing volunteers of the Minuteman Project last April in Arizona, Hannity
inadvertently crossed the US/Mexico border for a few minutes then immediately returned.
It was a simple mistake and easily understood in light of the pathetic security of our borders. However the ACLU, which led the good fight by trying to obstruct the Minutemen and goad them into conflicts
while enabling the rampant invasion of illegals into our nation, decided this was an offense that could not be tolerated. Apparently upset at Hannity’s drawing interest to the good work of the Minutemen,
Arizona State Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, under the auspices of the ACLU, demanded Hannity’s arrest.
It is quite obvious that Sinema and the ACLU were not motivated
out of a sense of respect for immigration law or fairness, but out of personal hatred toward Sean Hannity. The ACLU does not like what Hannity has to say, so what better way to silence him than by having him embarrassed
and thrown in jail. But this is a larger issue than just the ACLU trying to embarrass
Hannity. It is indicative of a terrifying new trend from the ACLU where they
are attempting to hold individual citizens legally liable for doing nothing more than thinking they are wrong. With large organizations starting to resist them, the ACLU must now found a new defenseless target unable
to afford to fight them: private citizens.
There are several other cases in recent weeks which further illustrate
this trend. In Tangipahoa
Parish, Louisiana, the ACLU has called for the arrest of school teachers and administrators because the ACLU does not feel
they adequately exorcised all Judeo-Christian influences from their classrooms and cafeterias.
Diego the ACLU is suing five local personalities, including Rush Limbaugh sub Roger Hedgecock, because they do not
like the wording they have chosen to represent the “Arguments For” section of a local ballot initiative to save
the Mt. Soledad Cross. Who cares about freedom of speech and the right to voice
your political opinions, the ACLU does not agree with it so it must be Constitutional to censor it. What is next? Arresting talk show hosts?
Keystone School District in Clarion County, Pennsylvania, even after the school
board caved into the demands of the Pittsburgh ACLU, the ACLU is still suing the district because they felt that some in the
community still “hoped” that there would be a prayer offered at the high school graduation. Suing a school district because some people in the community, who have no connection to the actual school
district, “hope” something happens? Just what does that mean? Last time I checked “hoping” was still Constitutional. This case is nothing short of the ACLU trying to punish rank and file tax payers for not falling into line
with its edicts. Just what will it take for the ACLU to feel adequately comfortable
with the average citizen of Clarion County’s lack of hope at ever opposing the dictates of the ACLU? Will it be the ACLU individually suing every conservative American until we finally agree to live out our
lives as Godless, Socialist drones, or would it just be Brown Shirts and Thought Police?
The ACLU is out of control.
They can no longer even pretending to support freedom, the Constitution and Bill of Rights. What once may have been an organization dedicated to high ideals has now degenerated into a literal threat
to our liberty. They are going beyond just trying to prosecute every Boy Scout
troop and are now moving on to either sue people just like you and
me, or actually have us arrested and subjected to criminal prosecution. How ironic
it is that a group who thinks terrorists should not be in prison feels that those who disagree with them should. Sounds a little like the ACLU is no longer endorsing civil liberties but political prisoners.
© 2005 Justin Darr
Activist Judges: Just Ignore Them and They Will Go Away.
After September 11th
, my children came up to me afraid to go to school because they thought they might be attacked by terrorists
and I had all the answers. I could explain how far away from anything important
we live and how many times they were more likely to be struck by lightning than hurt by a terrorist, but they still want to
play in the rain. I would then open the newspaper, or turn on the television
and show them all the steps the government was taking to protect them, “See all those soldiers? Every one of them wants to protect you.” My words soothed
them, but seeing action being taken by our elected officials on the news had a tangible impact on them that something was
being done about a problem in a way my words never could.
However, now I am out of answers.
My daughter came up to me and asked why the courts were killing Terri Schiavo.
I tried to explain the issues as best I could but the only response I got was, “Well, I sure hope they don’t
decide to kill me!” So do I.
The fact of the matter is I could not answer my daughter’s
questions because I am suffering from the same dilemma as millions of other Americans.
We have lost faith and confidence in our judiciary system to do what is right.
Judicial activist judges have turned our legal system into a sick mockery of justice to the point where many people
would rather keep quiet and accept whatever injustices are meted out on them rather than take their chances in a perverse
game of “judicial roulette.” We are afraid of what is coming next,
and feel that there we have no recourse to stop this undemocratic trend. But
then my daughter looked at me and said, “Why doesn’t the President do something about it?”
I started to explain that situation to her when I stopped and
realized that she was exactly right. The President should do something about
the seeming never ending tide of judicial tyranny. In fact, the United States
Constitution gives him the power, authority, and to be blunt, responsibility to do just that.
Alexander Hamilton addressed the issue of judicial activism and
how it would be prevented under the new American Constitution in “Federalist Paper 81.”
“Particular misconstructions and contraventions of the will
of the legislature may now and then happen; but they can never be so extensive as to… affect the order of the political
system. This may be inferred with certainty… from [the judiciary’s]
total incapacity to support its usurpations by force.”
Our government has a series of institutional checks and balances
that keep any one of the three branches from superceding the others. The checks
and balances between the Legislative and Executive Branches are well known. But
what Hamilton is writing about is the lesser known check of the President over the Supreme Court as outlined in Articles II
and III of the Constitution. The Supreme Court is dependent upon the Executive
Branch, as is the Congress, to “execute” their wishes. Nothing gets
done unless the President agrees.
The Supreme Court can decide whatever they want about anything
and nothing is going to happen unless the President agrees to execute that decision.
Political convention states that the rulings of the Supreme Court are executed by the President as a matter of course,
however, there is no Constitutional requirement that this must be done. Political
conventions also dictate that subpoenas to testify before Congress should have required that Terri have her feeding tube replaced
until she could appear before the House Committee on Government Reform, but that did not stop some minor judge from tossing
a Congressional subpoena aside without a word of explanation. So, in light of
the Terri Schiavo case and many others, perhaps blind acquiescence to the will of the Court has gone on too long and led to
crushing judicial arrogance.
America’s judiciary is running amuck because we allow it
to do so. The Framers of the Constitution foresaw this possibility and built
a system into our government to prevent it, and the time has now come for the President use it. It has been done before, in 1832 President Jackson refused to execute the Supreme Court ruling in the case
of Worchester v. Georgia, and the Court responded by not issuing a similar ruling for the rest of Jackson’s term. The same thing would happen today. If
the rulings of judicial activist judges where ignored by the Executive, then the problem of an activist judiciary would end
immediately and Terri Schiavo would be getting the food and water to survive that is the right of every living being. True, there would be a political firestorm.
But if the President takes his oath of office seriously, and truly intends to “protect and defend the Constitution”,
then it is an action he must take.
© 2005 Justin Darr
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
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
Why Liberals Love
If there is one thing liberals love
more than banning Christianity from public schools it is creating ineffective gun control laws. Despite centuries of evidence that gun control laws do not lower crime, stop violence, or
make society safer in any way, liberals keep plugging away at our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
I am not going to weary you with a regurgitation
of all the well known statistics showing how strict gun control laws are followed by sharp spikes in violent crime rates or
with arguments asking the left to explain its intellectual consistency behind their view that the only remedy to a failed
gun control law is the creation of another gun control law just like it. The
real question in the gun control debate is not the statistics or the nuances of the law but why in the first place liberals
are so preoccupied with making it harder for law abiding citizens to carry a gun.
Gun control laws are as old as America,
stretching far back into the early Colonial period. As far as the United States
as a political entity is concerned, the first gun control law came less than one year after the ratification of the 2nd
Amendment in the Bill of Rights with the “Uniform Militia Act of 1792.”
In the Act, every “able bodied white male citizen” between the ages of 18 and 45 was to be enrolled in
the state militia and was required to “provide himself with a musket or firelock, a bayonet, and ammunition.” In early America, it was not a question
of “if” you had the right to bear arms, but whether or not you would be “required” to own a gun. This Act is significant for two reasons. First
it shows the intent of the Framers was that every citizen was considered part of the militia, therefore, no citizen could
have their right to bear arms curtailed by the government. Second, with the Act
designating “white males” as citizens and part of the militia, it effectively deigned slaves and even free African-Americans
their newly declared Constitutional rights.
is quite obvious that there were many in early America who did not want slaves, or those sympathizing with their suffering,
from having access to guns. Why? Well,
it is pretty simple. If slaves had guns, then they would not have been slaves
for much longer. Firearms would be used by slaves as a tool to overthrow their
oppressors just as the American Colonists had done against the British and demand their full rights and dignity as citizens. The “Uniform Militia Act of 1792” opened a door that was used by many
states to pass follow up legislation that made it illegal not just for African-Americans to carry or own a gun, but to even
use one unless under orders from their “master.” From its inception,
gun control was a vehicle to deny basic rights, prevent self defense, and oppress citizens.
Gun control laws still disproportionately
regulate the African-American community, but now our benign liberal leaders want to spread the oppression about a bit more
fairly. But the goal is the same. Gun
control does nothing but oppress a population, deny them basic rights, make them subservient to the government, and prevent
them from changing their collective conditions at the time of their choosing, rather than at the sanction of the State. Liberals do not want you making your own decisions anymore than they did the slaves.
That is their job. How can they possibly restructure society so a Republican
is never elected President again if people are running around not doing what they are told?
Liberals love gun control for the simple fact that it directly impacts the most independent, self reliant, and free
thinking of us as demonstrated by our refusal to proxy our personal protection out to an unaccountable government.
The goal of gun control is not to actually
control guns and make the world a safer place, but to control people. It is not as important if you can pass a criminal background
check so much as it is that you feel obligated to ask the state for permission to buy a gun.
Liberals know gun control laws will not stop criminals, but it will erode the sense of independence and self reliance
of regular people until they feel that they can do nothing that does not meet government approval.
Gun owners choose to protect themselves,
thank you very much. They do not need government protection anymore than any
of the other ill conceived plans of the left. And that is why the liberals want
to control their guns. It is the only means they have to directly control the
lives of those who would otherwise go on ignoring them.
Copywrite Justin Darr 2005
All Rights Reserved.
Keeping the Faith… At Arm’s Length.
When television personality Bill Maher stated on MSNBC’s “Scarborough Country" that the religious suffer from a neurological disorder
that "stops people from thinking," he committed a grievous sin. Not against the
Christian Community that he was mocking, but against his fellow liberals. You
see, the Left as their own set of “10 Commandments,” and like our
own, they do not want anyone seeing them in public. And, Bill Maher has broken
one of the most sacred of these Commandments by being honest and articulating what he, and many other liberals think about
Liberals have a problem, in general, with people of faith, morality,
and values… They do not have any and the majority of the American voting public does.
However, ever since the 2004 Election, where the Electorate made it clear that they will hold candidates accountable
for their ethical and moral beliefs, liberals have been scrambling to find someone, anyone, who holds traditional Christian
values in their ranks and might be able to win an election outside the San Francisco Bay area.
Alas, the search has been largely futile. Liberals at the head of the Democratic Party are awakening to the realization that their years of ridiculing,
insulting, and marginalizing Christian values has pushed the majority of not just Christian Americans into the fold of the
Republican Party, but the majority of Americans who hold any form of traditional morality central to their lives as well.
In traditional liberal fashion, rather than even considering the
fact that their convictions and beliefs are immoral, impracticable, or even wrong, liberals have decided that Christians are
in fact the ones with the problem and need to change. In the past, liberals would
have just attacked and demonized Christians. Call a few folks “Jesus Freaks,”
throw up a few “Welcome to Jesusland, Jesus Juice to the Right” banners and a couple of those “evolve”
fish with legs bumper stickers on some cars and the Christians would go running right back into their box. But that does not seem to work anymore, so the liberals themselves have to evolve.
So now, in addition to the usual insults toward the religious,
liberals are refining their attacks into arguments saying; first, we are ignorant of what it really means to be a Christian. That is why we support such silly ideas as the sanctity of marriage and the lives
of the unborn. The “Los Angles Times” has for years led the media
wing of this Leftist charge portraying Christians as illiterate bigots in such articles as Stephen Prothero’s, “A
Nation on Faith and Religious Illiterates,” where he claims studies “[paint]
a picture of a nation that believes
God speaks through Scripture but that can’t be bothered to read what he has to say.” And Geraldine Brooks’, “Rattling Sabers of Bigotry,” where she claims “’An eye for an eye’ has become our shorthand for the hot satisfactions of revenge,” because
75% of Americans supported military action against terrorists in the weeks after 9/11.
This is nothing more than the standard liberal elitist belief that regular people are unable to think on their own
and must be given their ideas through a properly vetted and indoctrinated intellectual caste.
It is not enough to be a person of humble and sincere faith to be a good Christian, but now you have to submit your
university credentials as well.
Second, we do not practice our beliefs properly. Perhaps the liberal ideal for how religious belief should be reflected in public life was said by former
North Carolina Senator and Vice Presidential candidate, John Edwards, “My personal faith guides and affects my personal decisions in my personal life. But as President of the United States
… I think you have to be very, very careful to not let your own personal faith beliefs… influence national policy." So it is alright to be a religious person, so long as you leave your faith at the
door and not let it interfere with the liberals’ agenda. The implication
in this is that as voters, we too should not allow our values and beliefs to influence our votes. But what is a “value” if it is not part of the core of your being, influencing your every decision
and action? It is an “opinion”, a simple preference you have like
what breakfast cereal you eat or how you feel about the color or your neighbor’s house.
failure to hold any real values makes it impossible for them to understand those who do.
To them, everything is an opinion so there is nothing that they can see that would make a person act outside of their
own self interest. They will never understand how an out of work mechanic in
Ohio could vote for George Bush because he wants his daughter to be able to protect herself with a gun from criminals when
she is grown, or does not want his son indoctrinated into the glories of the gay lifestyle at school. They will never understand what it means to believe in something bigger than yourself, or taking on the
challenges of doing what is right even when it might be inconvenient.
In the next few years we will be inundated with the “new
liberals” attempts to portray themselves as having and supporting Christian values.
But do not be deceived by their propaganda. The faith of the Left is a
faith kept at arm’s distance. A shallow and passive preference that can
easily be cast aside at the whim of expedience. And, most of all, something that
will have no impact on the actions of liberal government officials once Election Day is past.
© 2005 Justin Darr
The Election Fraud/Illegal Immigration Connection.
Duplicity is the name of the game for America’s liberals. It has been standard practice of the Democratic Party for decades to create a problem
through poorly conceived and unrealistic legislation, decry and obstruct any attempts by Republicans to fix the problems the
Democrats created as “racist,” sexist,” or any of the other myriad of “-ists” they concoct,
and then when the problem is not solved, blame the Republicans for doing nothing about it.
There is no “vast left wing conspiracy” orchestrating
all of this deceit from behind the scenes. No secret bunker under Berkley’s
city hall where Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy and Oliver Stone meet to lay out their stratagems to destroy our society. But the intellectually inconsistent train wreck of philosophical thought that constitutes
what America’s liberals believe today has the same affect. Combine a lack
of vision, the refusal to accept the consequences of decisions, and a pit bull’s determination to twist any issue for
the sake of political expediency, and you have the Democratic Party’s plan for America.
The problem with this situation is that we are not playing a game. America
is faced with serious issues today that require the utmost seriousness and political courage, and any party that decides to
play politics with these issues puts the entire country at risk.
For example, for the second time in a row, America’s Presidential
election has been marred with accusations of voter fraud and intimidation. Despite
the fact it was Republican campaign offices that were vandalized, vans intended to be used by Republicans to get their voters
to the polls that had their tires slashed, and former Senator Tom Daschell’s attorney who was forcibly removed by sheriffs
for disrupting a polling station, Democrats are still trying to claim Republicans stole the 2004 Election.
Missing from these liberal tirades espousing their various psychotic
conspiracy theories about how John Ashcroft used military radio waves from Area 51 control the minds of Democratic voters
to make watching television more appealing than voting for John Kerry, most of the mess leading to the fraud allegation are
a result the Democrat’s much beloved “Motor Voter Bill” making it impossible to create accurate voter registration
records. When the federal government creates a system where any organization
can recruit people to sit around and get $2 for every person they get to register to vote and offer no supervision or verification
procedures, you get what you have in the 2004 Election. Get out the vote “volunteers”
filling out fraudulent registration forms just to collect the offered fees, incomplete and inaccurate forms, and thousands
of people who may want to vote, but have no concept of how, where, or when to do it.
The Motor Voter Act has created legions of voters who may or may not exist, may or may not know how to vote, and may
but probably will not show up to vote unless they remember after registering to vote for the 23rd time at the local
Now let us add another issue liberals love into the mix, illegal
immigration. Currently liberals and some other groups are up in arms over House
Republicans adding the “Right ID Act” as a rider into the new Congressional appropriations measure to fund the
War on Terror and Tsunami relief efforts. With Pavlov like predictability, Senate
Democrats have promised to fight the measure on grounds that it is racist, discriminatory, sexist, and so forth. How dare Republicans try to actually do something to make the country safer from international terrorists! The recommendations of the 9/11 Commission where supposed to be talking points for
John Kerry to use to criticize the President, not actually enact. But the Right
ID Act does more than just make it harder for international terrorists to infiltrate our country, it also makes it less likely
that illegal aliens, in general, can register to vote.
Under the Motor Voter Act, all you need to register to vote in
many states is a valid drivers’ license. That does not seem so bad on the
surface until you realize that there are currently 10 states that allow illegal aliens to attain valid state issued identification
identical to that of any United States citizen. There is no way to prevent an
illegal alien from registering to vote when there is no way to differentiate them from anyone else. The Real ID Act would put an end to this conflict by requiring states to distinguish between the identifications
of citizens and immigrants. If you
do not have the proper ID, then you are not a United States Citizen, therefore, ineligible to participate in our elections.
Seems pretty simple, but it is not. Despite the fact that Mohammad Atta could have voted for Al Gore in Florida in the 2000 Election, Democrats
have refused to enforce this basic of national sovereignty. In fact, many liberal
groups, such as the ACLU, have actively worked against any effort to verify the citizenship requirements of suspect registered
voters calling it “intimidation.”
So Democrats and liberals work against a much needed measure that
would prevent voter fraud, and then lead the charge in hurling voter fraud allegations.
In the end, the Democrats want to have their cake and eat it too. They
obstruct any effort to reform the flawed Motor Voter Act because they are trying to protect the “oppressed.” Then when something happens that they do not like, such as losing another election,
they have a ready made, prepackaged, “voter irregularity” excuse to once again claim that they are protecting
the “oppressed.” The Democrats are trying to protect nobody but themselves. Their only goal is the reacquisition of political power and any price, even the destruction
of out national sovereignty, is well worth paying.
© 2005 Justin Darr