If a woman runs around and has unprotected sex, Liberals think the child should be killed because it is unfair to make people live with the consequences of their lack of morality. If someone had a bad childhood and has an unnatural hatred for the cherished beliefs of others, Liberals feel we should ostracize Christianity from society so these misfits do not quite so poignantly feel the sting of missing out on Christmas. Illegal immigrants should be granted citizenship so they do not have to deal with the consequences of ignoring immigration law. Disabled loved ones should be euthanized because selfish family members do not want to deal with their care. And, homosexuals should be allowed to marry because they do not want to acknowledge that two beings of the same sex cannot breed.

Reality is the greatest threat to Liberalism, not Conservatives. When reality comes crashing in, and Liberals are forced to see the consequences of their half baked ideas, their first response is to blame someone else for them. Normally, the people who get blamed will be the ones who said their ideas would never work in the first place, but since the Libs hate them, they make a convenient scapegoat. That might sound like an oxymoron, blaming others who said your ideas would not work after they have been proved right and your ideas did not work, but it far easier for Liberals to lash out in overly emotional incoherence than admit they might have ever made a mistake.

So far, the only victims of Liberalism have been our society, culture, children, and way of life in general. However, this soon may change in the face of the international war on terror and nuclear proliferation.

If it was not bad enough that Liberals, headed up by Appeaser-in-Chief, Jimmy Carter, drafted the treaty that North Korea promptly ignored and developed nuclear weapons under, they are now complaining that the treaty did not work, and blaming Bush for it. Evidently, they do not feel that the United States has appeased the psychopath leader of North Korea quite enough, so off we go to the United Nations to learn the true meaning on international diplomatic incompetence. As we speak, the leaders of nations North Korea is not pointing nuclear missiles toward are deciding the fate of those who do. Perhaps, if we are lucky, the UN will get really tough with North Korea, and in addition to a press release expressing “regret” that North Korea is practicing its incineration of Tokyo, and order the United States to send 52 American hostages to Pyongyang to guarantee our good behavior.

Speaking of 52 American hostages, Iran, venue of President Carter’s last diplomatic victory for Liberalism’s cause, is going to develop nuclear weapons, as well. This time, the Bush Administration is doing what the Liberals want, and engaging in multilateral negotiations with a country that is the wellspring of global international terrorism. Not to be the pessimist, but they are not going to work. Iran is doing to pursue the development of nuclear weapons until either they have them, or someone destroys their nuclear production capabilities. We can stand around and negotiate forever, and this fact will not change. Liberals like to pretend that negotiations are an end unto themselves. That somehow, if we talk long enough, and give a hostile enemy concession after concession, peace will mysteriously erupt. The fact that negotiating with rogue regimes is no more effective today than it was in the days of Neville Chamberlain is lost on Liberals. Faced with the reality that the problem is not Iran’s poverty, infrastructure, or need for alternative fuel sources, but the radical terrorist regime running it, Liberals have once again chosen to blame Bush and the United States, in general, for objecting to Iran’s desire to “wipe Israel off the map.”

At no point have Liberals joined the threads of together and realized that we are doing the exact same thing with Iran that we did with North Korea. If there is ever a negotiated compromise to the current crisis, all it will do is give the Iranians a few years to secretly violate the treaty and then drop their fully developed nuclear capability on the world as a fiat accompli.

Liberals are not only ignoring the consequences of their previous decisions, but arrogantly proceeding down another reckless course that will only end in disaster. Just as “The New York Times” has decided there will be no negative consequences to their divulging America’s innermost secrets in how it fight the war on terror, simply because they have decided there will not be any, the international community is gambling that their failed methods of the past will somehow now work with Iran and North Korea. My question is, how many millions will have to die before the Liberals admit they were wrong.

© June 2006, Justin Darr
Justin@justindarr.com
www.justindarr.com

Justin Darr is a member of the Board of Directors of the 2007 Conservative Convention in Reno, Nevada, staff writer for The New Media Alliance, and proud member of the MoveOff Network.

Support the 2007 Conservative Convention.
www.cc2007.us

For years, Conservatives have been trying to alert Americans and all freedom loving people in the world about the dangers the United Nations poses to individual liberty and democracy. Whether it was “Agenda 21,” the United Nations’ plan for global sustainable development that would void your private property rights, force you to give up your car in lieu of a bicycle, and reserve almost half of the United States as no human zones to facilitate habitat for migratory animals, or the United Nations’ plan to wrest control of the Internet away from the United States and place it under the “unbiased” control of China, Sudan, and Cuba, or NRA President Wayne LaPierre’s warning that the UN’s “Small Arms Review Conference” was nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to destroy the 2nd Amendment, Conservatives have always seen the UN as the anti-American organization it is. And, categorically, we have been ridiculed and called insane by the left as a result.

The left is so consumed in their anti-Americanism that they tend to gravitate toward and support anyone who is opposed to the United States, even to the point of becoming apologists for terrorists, and in this case, a dysfunctional and corrupt international organization. When a liberal is defending the UN, the arguments are generally based on some perceived notion that just because the majority of petty juntas, Communist dictatorships, and radical theocracies of the world have an opinion about something, then that opinion is, by default, granted the coveted Liberal mantle of “international moral authority.”

However, reality paints a very different picture of the United Nations. Generally, the world body’s member states oppose and attack the United States not out of the interests of their populations, but their own personal ego and lust for power. There is no international sense of the common good, and unless under extreme pressure, desire to make the world a better place among the nations motivating the actions of the UN. What there is, instead, is a pathological obsession to force the United States to conform to the bidding of the absolute worse of the member states. The operative word there is “force.” The world is jealous of America’s wealth, power, and strength, and has opted to use the United Nations as the vehicle to undermine America by whatever means possible.

Until now, as the left loves to point out, the United Nations had no mechanism to enforce its policies or other neo-Communist resolutions. Compliance with United Nations resolutions was voluntary, and had to be, in the case of the United States, approved by our elected representatives. If any nation does not like what the UN has to say, then they can just ignore it, and in most cases, there is nothing anyone can do about it. That is until now.

Last week, the United Nations unveiled a proposal to develop its own standing army to enforce what it deems to be international law. Oh, wait! Did I say “standing army?” I should have used the UN’s own words.

Last week, the United Nations unveiled a proposal to develop its own “Emergency Peace Service” to “take action to prevent war and dire threats to human security and human rights.”

Do you know what those rights might be? Do not feel bad; nobody else does either, including the people who wrote the proposal. Other than genocide, there are no clear definitions of what the UN would consider a “crime against humanity,” just as it has no clear definition of what terrorism is more than five years after 9/11. So really, the proposed UN army could be used for whatever the UN wants.

The proposal is also unclear about who can deploy the United Nations army. Actually, the problem with the proposal is that lots of people can deploy the force wherever they want, and only one of them is the Security Council. Under the plan, if the Security Council fails to approve an international intervention, the Secretary General of the UN can override the Council and deploy the troops anyhow. Even if the resolution fails because of a veto from one of the five permanent Council members.

This is where the fun part starts. If the Council decides that the Secretary General was wrong, then they can vote under normal rules to bring the troops back. That sounds great, but the problem is that under “normal rules,” the permanent members’ veto comes into play. The Security Council would be powerless to end the United Nations militant presence until a bunch of bureaucrats can get around to find the nuanced wording required to avoid a veto. In effect, the Secretary General would become more powerful than the Security Council, and the United States would be unable to stop UN military actions against its interests without the support of France, China, and Russia.

You will have to forgive me if I do not hold my breath for that to happen, or if this proposal is ever passed, plan any trips to Israel. The United Nations proud anti-Semitic past makes Israel the prime target of any UN military action unchecked by the United States UN veto power. And, that would be only the first of many abuses of this unaccountable military power.

Granted, a United Nations army would probably look like an unholy hybrid of a yoga class, group therapy session, and a gun shop, but it is still a first step. It is not as important how effective an UN proposal could be as it is the fact that yet another piece of our sovereignty has been chipped away from us and yielded to an unaccountable foreign body. Do allow yourself to be deceived, American sovereignty is the only thing that keeps Americans free and preserves our way of life. And, each small step the UN makes takes us one small step closer to losing our liberty. If we allow that day to come, do not claim you were not warned.

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 proud member of the MoveOff Network.

Ah! Then America will once again be the land of milk and honey. Oh, wait, that is a phrase from the Bible! We cannot use that. America will once again be the land of… of… who knows, but as long as George Bush is not President it is better than it is today.

Unfortunately, for the Democrats, this is their only vision for the nation if they won back the Congress and White House. And, the American people know it.

Just as Conservatives have been less than enthusiastic about jumping on President Bush’s call for a Constitutional amendment defending marriage because we vividly remember this is about the two millionth time the Republicans have called for a Constitutional amendment defending marriage without doing anything about it, Liberals are tired of hearing Democrats scream about the Iraq War and poverty. And, likewise, try to do nothing about it.

After years of red-hot partisan bickering, generating enough hot gas in campaign promises to free America from its reliance on foreign oil, Americans are seeing their elected leaders as corrupt liars who are willing to say anything to continue enjoying the perks of power. Every election cycle it is the same thing; Constitutional amendments to protect marriage and forbid flag burning for the Conservatives, abortion on demand and universal heath care for the Liberals. However, no matter who seems to hold the reigns of power, our leaders simply do not address these issues after the election cycles are past.

There have been too many “Terri Schiavo” failures on both sides, and Americans are finally fed up with both political parties. And, it is showing in the polls.

Everyone knows about President Bush’s job and approval ratings are hovering anywhere between the low to mid 30% range. Not a great statistic. However, according to an ABC News/Washington Post Poll conducted between May 11th and 15th of 2006; the approval rating of Congressional Democrats is only 39%, with a 58% disapproval rating. A five percent difference is hardly a number indicating a landslide victory in November.

Even more telling is a CBS poll conducted between April 6th to the 9th, 2006, which asked, “If the Democrats were in control of Congress now, do you think Congress would do a better job than it has with the Republicans in control, a worse job than it has with the Republicans in control, or about the same job as it has with the Republicans in control?” An astounding 48% of all adults surveyed answered “no difference,” with 7% unsure. Let us see, 48% plus 7% equals something in the area of 55%, again, hardly an endorsement for the opposition party.

The Republicans have fared no better, showing ratings roughly equal or a bit lower than the Democrats and the President. However, both sides lost on the issue of the culture of corruption that has spread through Washington like a cancer, with the ABC News Poll from May 26-30, 2006 showing that 72% of respondents did not see much difference between the honesty and ethics of politicians of either party.

The Republicans and Democrats are so busy trying to out strategize the other that they have failed to see that the one thing all Americans agree on is that we are sick and tired of them trying to out strategize the other. We want results, not more of the same. And, the apathy indicated in the above polls is indicative that we are hearing nothing but the latter from our leaders.

So how will be the final victors of the 2006 elections? My guess is it will be anticlimactic with the party alignments in Congress changing little, as disenchanted voters once again reelect the incumbents of both parties. At least those who decide to show up and vote. The real winner of the 2006 election might just be voter apathy, with folks staying home because they see an honest candidate worth voting for.

People should vote because it is our most sacred right and solemn responsibility. So, I urge everyone of every political party and ideology to go out and vote. However, would it not be nice if we were motivated to vote because we believed a candidate was truly going to fight for what we believed rather than a sense of obligation?

© June 2006, Justin Darr
Justin@justindarr.com
www.justindarr.com

We thought it was wrong for people, who came into the country illegally, to be given free college tuition, released back into the general population after they committed a crime, rather than being immediately deported, issued drivers’ licenses, and free medical care. Not because we are cruel and heartless people who do not care about the suffering of others, but because our government had decided to enforce the laws unequally.

If you decided tomorrow that you were not going to pay any more taxes to the government, how long do you think it would be before you suffered repercussions? Oh, I would say about a year or so. About a month and a half after next year’s tax deadline, the IRS would be on you like a chicken on a june bug. Threatening letters, liens on your property, garnishments on your paycheck, lawsuits, and even jail time would await you because “you broke the law.” Your credit, finances, and life in general would be literally destroyed because you chose to ignore a piece of federal legislation.

How is paying not paying taxes any different than ignoring immigration law? Just as the illegal immigrant is financially better off violating the law and coming to the United States, you would be better off if you had access to the 35 to 50% of your annual income that is consumed by taxes. Just as most illegal immigrants commit no crimes other than their being here illegally, you, too, would be a model, productive, citizen except that the government would not be getting its cut. And, as far as most illegal immigrants are paid “under the table,” or otherwise off the financial books and pay no taxes anyway, there would be no difference at all if you stopped paying taxes.

Since many of our leaders think that 10 million illegal immigrants in the United States indicates that we need to completely rework our immigration law, does that mean if 10 million Americans refused to pay taxes they would throw out the tax code? Far from it.

This is why Conservatives are upset about illegal immigration, and why we are dissatisfied with the response to it from Washington. Our elected leaders have chosen to coddle a group of scofflaws, reworking the law to accommodate them, and granting as sacrosanct the same privileges that would be denied every American if they chose to do the same thing. I am not completely certain, but do not the 14th Amendment’s “equal protection” clauses also guarantee “equal enforcement” of the laws?

So, maybe it is not taxes. If illegal immigrants get to break immigration laws if they have a good reason, can we pick a law to not obey if it suits our needs? “Sorry officer, but you pulled me over for speeding without realizing that I am exercising my “Mulligan Clause” on speed limits. Maybe you should point your radar at my neighbor, he gets to ignore local zoning ordinances.”

All we wanted was the current law to be enforced. How can Congress go through all this political drama about changing illegal immigration laws when we have never enforced them to begin? Maybe the laws on the books are great! Maybe they would work if our government could muster the resolve to actually implement them.

The bottom line is Washington is showing us where their real priorities are. Taking away our money for them is way up on the list, defending our culture, society, and respect for the rule of law, low. How long will it be before everyone, not just illegal immigrants, ignores them and their messed up priorities?

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 proud member of the MoveOff Network.

Quite literally, you could be. You are probably well aware of the raid by Federal authorities last month that found over 1000 employees of IFCO Systems were illegal immigrants. However, what you are not aware of is the fact that in the audit leading up to the raid, according to CNN, over 53% of IFCO’s entire work force was using fake or stolen social security numbers. Whose numbers? Who knows! The federal government, IRS, and Social Security Administration are not saying. Nor, are they planning on it because to do so would highlight to the public the greatest threat posed to the average American by illegal immigration, identity theft.

If you have started a new job in the United States since 1986, then you are familiar with the first day ritual of producing your Social Security card and drivers license for your new employer to complete the federal I-9 “Employment Eligibility Verification” form. There are several reasons for this report, the first is to ensure that all your personal information is correct so your withholding taxes can be credited properly, the second is for the employer to verify that you are actually you and not an imposter, and the third to verify that you are either a citizen, or authorized immigrant eligible to work in the United States.

The third one is the kicker for illegal immigrants. Obviously, if you are here illegally, you are not going to have any of this documentation. So, luckily for illegal immigrants, the black market has rushed to the rescue by creating the multimillion dollar industry of selling counterfeit Social Security cards, and even entire “citizenship kits” containing, in addition to the Social Security card, a drivers license and birth certificate.

This is where the fun begins for you and me. Where do you think they get the information on these documents? Sometimes from death records or “dumpster diving” through your trash to find a misplaced piece of personal information. But more often than not, they are just made up.

According to Bob Sullivan, of MSNBC.com, there is over $420 billion in tax money sitting in the “Earnings Suspense File” of the IRS and Social Security Administration because they do not know to whom the money should be credited because it was paid under invalid, or misnamed, Social Security numbers. The numbers of invalid tax filers has exploded exponentially during the past five years, 9 million in 2002 alone, coincidentally, coinciding with the latest wave of illegal immigration from Mexico. And, according to Sullivan, “most — between 50 and 80 percent depending on whom you talk to — represent illegal immigrants using a stolen or manufactured Social Security number at the workplace.”

You might be thinking right now, “So, what’s the problem? If someone is in the United States illegally, at least they have the decency to pay their taxes. Even if it is with a fictitious Social Security number.” You might be right as long as you do not consider the problem of what happens when someone guesses a Social Security number that already belongs to someone.

The beauty of this situation is if it ever happens to you, you will be the last one to know about it. In fact, you will probably never know about it because credit bureaus, the IRS, and Social Security do not inform people when their social security numbers are being used by someone else. Nor, can you find out since the information on those who stole your personal information is considered “confidential.”

You will just have to wait around until there is a problem to find out. Maybe it will be a friendly letter from the tax office demanding thousands of dollars in back taxes, being denied a loan because the person using your numbers jumped on an apartment lease, not getting a job because the work history on your credit report does not match your resume, not getting unemployment insurance in New Jersey because you have a job in Arizona, or, for some real excitement, finding your name on the Texas Department of Public Safety’s “Sex Offender Database” which allows you to track pedophiles by Social Security number.

Sounds like fun! Who knows, maybe your five year old is already in debt for an Audi!

The entertainment will go on and on since our elected leaders are evidently planning on turning the illegal immigration crisis into a political circus that will generate nothing but useless sound bits until the situation gets so bad they are forced to act. The problem is we are already to that point, they just do not realize it. Let us hope that whoever steals your identity is on their best behavior until they do.

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 proud member of the MoveOff Network.

Well, here is a reason or two why; over the last 6 years our Republican controlled government has produced the highest levels of government spending in history, soaring deficits, excessive government regulation that intrudes even further into the lives of regular Americans, the belief that the best way to solve the problems of a massive, government bureaucracy is to make it even larger, and the systematic replacement of the promises made to the Conservative base with lip service.

It might seem like a long time ago, but once, the Republicans were the party of limited government. A party that believed the best way to govern Americans was to let them govern themselves, make their own choices, and decide on their own what was right and wrong, rather than relying on some faceless bureaucrats. A party so bold as to make a “Contract with America,” that challenged the voters to take them at their word, and if they did not live up to it, then elect them out of office.

Those days are just a dim memory today, because the Republican Party has fallen in love with big government.

Republicans have forgot the obvious. The only thing government is good at doing is spending money and screwing up. And, for the past several years, Republicans have placed their faith in the ability of government agencies and legislation to solve our nation’s problems rather than common sense and personal responsibility.

In the wake of September 11th, when our nation faced the new challenge of protecting itself at home from foreign enemies, the obvious solution to the problem was the mobilization of the American people to assist in their own defense. Our government should have urged us to be vigilant. Stay alert for suspicious activities and report them to the authorities for investigation, cooperate with law enforcement, and show solidarity for the war effort with our friends and neighbors.

However, this common sense approach to Homeland Security was, evidently, not quite politically correct enough for the Republicans. After all, simply acknowledging the fact that every one of the 9/11 terrorists was a young Muslim male of Mid-Eastern descent is now considered hate speech. Taking the next logical step and saying, “If there is ever another 9/11 type attack in America, its perpetrators will almost definitely come from the exact same demographic,” will get you branded with the Scarlet “I” of “intolerance” faster than you can say G.O.P.

Instead, our government chose to grant Islam “Most Favored Peaceful Religion Status,” spend billions of dollars on the Department of Homeland Security and federalize airport security.

Do not let all those people killed and embassies burned because Mohammad was portrayed in a cartoon, or the fact that every instance of international terrorism over the past five years has been committed by Muslims fool you. Islam is a religion of peace and the best way to combat the subversive elements that seek to distort it is to harass business travelers with and extra carry-on bag, and a color coded threat assessment scale that would stay on yellow if the world was cracking in two.

Who knows, maybe the next Mohammad Atta will be Grandma Maynard with her walker. More than likely, this is not the case, and all the time, money, and resources spent so far on upgrading domestic security with the exclusion of actively profiling likely terrorists has made the entire endeavor a waste of time. But wasting time, money, and resources is what government is good at, so I guess in a perverted sort of way, we have got both our money’s worth, and what we asked for.

The sad truth is the Republicans should have known better. The very fact that they chose this path is indicative of just how far they have moved away from their Conservative base.

Whether it is Republicans proposing nothing but expanding Federal authority and spending to solve the illegal immigration issue, or trying to address of the failures of Hurricane Katrina by making the federal bureaucracy even bigger by adding F.E.M.A. into the Department of Homeland Security, more and more the Republicans are looking like the Democrats they ousted from power over a decade ago. And, if the Republicans continue to act like the Democrats of the past, they will share their fate.

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 proud member of the MoveOff Network.

Ever have a conversation with someone who does not want to talk to you about the subject at hand? You know the ones: Why are you asking me for money again? When are you going to get around to returning all the tools you barrowed? And, what are your intentions with my daughter?

The worse part about these conversations is not just trying to bring the subject up, but having to sit through someone’s restatement of the facts as you know them, but with a little twist that comes from their peculiar filter on reality: “So, when I said, ‘I need my reciprocating saw by Tuesday,’ you thought I meant, “Go ahead and keep it.’” Or worse, they just stymie you and avoid the entire subject by blaming you for bringing it up in the first place: “How could you ask me to hurry up when I’m busy watching television,” or, “How could you be so insensitive to bring up my years of drinking and womanizing when I am so upset that my wife has left me?”

No matter what the subject or the person involved, people who react this way are just trying to avoid the facts showing they made a mistake, and are now unwilling to admit it.

Well, sorry to tell you, but, if you have been fortunate enough to avoid dealing with people like this, your time in blissful paradise is over because the liberals are yet once again gearing up with another “How can you be so insensitive to tell the truth” campaign.

This time it is going to revolve around the soon to be released movie, “United 93,” from Universal Studios.

What! A movie about 9/11? Yes, after almost 5 years, Hollywood has finally got around to making something about the single largest event in American history since the Civil War. So far, the simple release of the trailer to the movie has elicited cries of outrage and indignation from the left. “Newsweek” reported wails of “too soon!” echoed through Grauman’s Chinese Theatre in Hollywood, and the manager of a theater in New York said that, after viewing the trailer, “One lady was crying… She was saying we shouldn’t have [played the trailer]. That this was wrong … I don’t think people are ready for this.”

“Too soon” and “not ready for this?” Allow me to translate. Sentiments like these actually mean several things:

1. It is too soon to show a movie accurately depicting the savagery of Muslim extremists and the murderous violence they would gleefully inflict on you, me, your children, or anyone else who has the audacity to disagree with them, before we have an adequate amount of time to find way to blame it on the United States and Israel.

2. Seeing the images of 9/11 makes it far too difficult to call terrorists being interrogated by women wearing tight T-shirts “torture,” and less willing to make the World Trade Center Memorial a multicultural display of injustices through the ages.

3. And, Americans are not ready to remember the horror of 9/11 before a sufficient number of years have past until the left can claim that it never happened.

Within a year of the attacks on Pearl Harbor, movies about the World War II were mainstays of the American box office. Even during height of the War, movies like “The Battle for Midway,” “5 Graves to Cairo,” “The Flying Tigers,” and “Destination Tokyo,” all showed images of sometimes poorly equipped, outnumbered, scared Americans fighting and dying in the War. In 1943, there was even a documentary on the Pearl Harbor attack released called “December 7th,” that won an Academy Award.

So what is the difference between today and the World War II era? In World War II, there where tens of thousands more “Gold Star Mothers” than there are today, where they not horribly offended seeing boys, just like their sons, dying in the trenches? Today, every time we strike a terrorist camp in Iraq and the terrorists who were not killed claim that it was a “wedding party” and no militants, just women and children, were killed, the modern left thinks we should immediately pull out of the country and impeach the President. But, in World War II, tens of thousands of innocent civilians were inadvertently killed in Allied bombing campaigns, but the War effort never wavered. And, Pearl Harbor was a military target that killed far fewer people than the September 11 attacks, but “Remember Pearl Harbor” remains a stirring battle cry to this day while, for some reason, people get upset when we “remind” them about 9/11.

The difference is not that we were less sensitive 60 years ago, but that we are more liberal today.

Decades of liberalization has made our people and both political parties soft to the point that we are more concerned with making friends with our enemies and worried about how their supporters perceive us than we are with protecting ourselves. And now, the left will do anything, including censorship through “outrage” to prevent it.

When you see the images of 9/11, are you upset about what you are seeing, or at what you have allowed yourself to forget?

© April 2006, Justin Darr
Justin@justindarr.com
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.

As you can see, living in Philadelphia is not as simple as you might think. But, the general rule of thumb is if something says “Philly Style,” then it is probably something a little bit different than what you think it is.

Unfortunately, this rule does not apply just to Philadelphia cuisine, but its general elections as well.

What you might call “a decades old vote and corruption manufacturing machine bent on nothing other than enriching a privileged few and Democratic Party at the expense of the average person through an unchecked system of graft, fraud, and intimidation,” Pennsylvania Governor, Ed Rendell, calls a fair election, “Philly Style.”

Some of the ingredients in a Philly Style Election are: Cheese: to hand out to people after they vote for the Democrats. Bread: to vent vehicles for thugs to chase Republican volunteers through the streets. And, Bologna: that it is what you call polling sites in local bars, private homes plastered with pro-Democratic candidate campaign literature, and the district offices of local Democrats running for reelection. Mix all these together and you end up with a big case of heartburn and “The American Center for Voting Rights Legislative Fund” naming Philadelphia as the number one election fraud hotspot in the United States.

However, Pennsylvania Governor, and former Mayor of Philadelphia, Ed Rendell, does not think this is a problem. “I don’t think it is anything immoral or grievous” was his response to a scandal where a local politician paid volunteers to collect and taint absentee ballots. And, “Disagreeing with the Teamsters can be bad for your health,” was the only word Rendell had to say after union goons savagely assaulted two people who were protesting a visit from President Clinton.

So, it is little wonder Rendell vetoed a bill from the Pennsylvania legislature requiring statewide election reform.

Who knows the real reason why Rendell would do this? Maybe it was an effort to protect the illegal incomes of his long time political friends, maybe it was an attempt to keep Pennsylvania blue for the national Democratic Party, or maybe it was the fact that he is running dead even in the polls in his own reelection bid against probable Republican nominee, and former Pittsburgh Steeler great, Lynn Swan, that led him to this decision. No matter what the reason, Ed Rendell has made a bold step to ensure the right of the dead to vote in Philadelphia would not be infringed.

The dead voting? Sure it sounds funny, but in Philadelphia this has been happening for decades. As has residents and non-residents alike creating fictitious addresses which include vacant lots and fire hydrants so they can vote multiple times. But you know how it is in Philly; the political machine loves democracy so much they cannot vote just once.

But then I started to think. This is America not some Third World banana republic. In this day and age irregularities can be expected in any general election but this does not mean the ballot boxes are getting stuffed. Maybe we are over reacting and Governor Rendell is right.

So, I decided to put Philadelphia’s voters and Governor Rendell to the test.

The total number of registered voters in Philadelphia is 1,066,222, however the Census estimate of the total voting age population in Philadelphia is, 1,107,696. This means that just 40,000, or 4%, of the voting population is unregistered in the entire city. So you can reasonably assume that in a random sampling of Philadelphians at least 80% would be registered voters. With voter registration cards in hand, I rushed to Philadelphia to find out.

First, let me stress that despite the fact that I had a note pad and calculator in my coat pocket, this was not a scientific survey. People who ignored me, pushed me gruffly aside, threw things at me, or accused me of having an inappropriate relationship with my mother were not counted. Neither was anyone who took one of my voter registration cards and threw it immediately away.

So, here are the results. Chance of chances, I must have miraculously stumbled upon the one section of Philadelphia where most of the 40,000 unregistered voters ate lunch, because, over the course of 2 hour 35 minutes, I handed out over 90 voter registration cards. I jumped right on the phone to let the Mayor’s Office know, but they hanged up on me.

The exact counts were: 92 cards accepted (91 plus one guy who used his as a coaster for his coffee cup but did not throw it away.) 87 “Thank you, but I’m already registered.” 35 “not interested, I would rather play the role of slobbering drone in life.” And, 6 “walked away after asking ‘what do I get for filling this out,’ and I told them ‘To vote!’”

For the sake of argument, I included all the “I’m registered,” “what do I gets,” and “not interested” into the “Registered Voters” category, and still found a full 41% of the Philadelphia residents I met were unregistered. No matter how unscientific my poll was, this is a statistical impossibility, and a chilling example of just how low to Democratic Party has stooped to subvert the electoral process in Philadelphia.

This is what the Pennsylvania election reform was intended to stop by requiring voters present valid identification before they vote. Actually, they gave “valid identification” a pretty broad definition. It could be a driver’s license, a non-driver’s license (which would be issued to anyone for free), a utility bill, a bank statement, the stub of a paycheck or government check, a passport, an I.D. card issued from a school, job, or government agency, a voter registration card, or gun permit. Pretty much anything up to, and possibly including, a note from your mother would constitute valid identification in Pennsylvania elections.

But, Rendell still said “no” to this much needed reform because he knows if the system of voter fraud in Philadelphia was stopped, and its disproportionate numbers of votes for the Democratic Party counted accurately, the Democrats would never win another statewide election in Pennsylvania.

The possibility of Pennsylvania going from blue to red in a national election gives the liberals a case of indigestion like no Philly cheesesteak ever could. And, just like rooting for Dallas at and Eagles game, it is something Philadelphia will not allow without a fight.

© March 2005, Justin Darr
Justin@justindarr.com
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 proud member of the MoveOff Network.

Paul’s motives were simple. He wanted to “…hire an ex-President to promote a company that inspired and motivated adolescents.” To accomplish this, Paul organized an offer to Clinton of $17 million in cash, stock, and donations to the Clinton Library. Well worth the price when you consider the notoriety and prestige Stan Lee Media would have gained if Clinton joined the company.

However, what Peter Paul got was a guided tour of the putrid underbelly of Clintonian politics. A place where the powerful openly manipulate our justice and political systems for their own personal gain, conspire to destroy anyone who stands in their way. They systematically ignore the laws, and standards of morality and common decency that apply to the rest of us. Peter Paul discovered the hard way that there are two systems of justice in America: One for the Clintons, and another for the rest of us.

Hillary Clinton hid Paul’s contributions of over $1.2 million to her campaign from the F.E.C. and denied she even knew Paul. When the smoke cleared, Hillary was elected to the Senate while Paul’s company was forced into bankruptcy and he personally lost $1.2 million dollars. All because he wanted to ‘sell some super heroes’.

A survey of the major players in the case of Peter Paul shows just how deeply Bill and Hillary Clinton, their closest associates, and some of the most prominent officials in the Democratic Party, have allowed corruption to infect our political process. They may have impressive titles, but take those away and the Clinton Political Syndicate is
nothing more than a gang of street thugs… with one key difference, the government will do nothing to stop them.

The Hustler

You would think it would be fairly easy to get noticed if you were offering someone $17 million to come work with you. No so in the case of Bill Clinton. In order for Peter Paul just to gain access to President Clinton’s associates so he could begin talking to them about talking to Clinton for him, he first had to deal with the Democratic Party’s main moneyman, Chairman on the Democratic National Committee, now Pennsylvania Governor, Ed Rendell. Paul met Rendell at a fundraiser, where he proposed his idea about Clinton joining Stan Lee Media. Rendell, long time veteran of the Philadelphia “Pay for Play” system where kickbacks, bribes, and back room deals with corrupt politicians are the price of doing business, told him quite bluntly that in order to get his proposal to Clinton, he would have to pay up. For starters, $30,000 to co-host a DNC fundraiser on February 17, 2000, featuring Bill Clinton as the key note speaker, at Café De Artistes, in Hollywood.

At the fundraiser, Paul was seated with Bill, however, by now the hustle was on. Rendell approached Paul and told him that in order to get even more access to the President, he would have to come up with even more cash and offer to hold a Clinton fundraising event in his home. But that was not all. In April 2000, Rendell also asked Paul for an additional $150,000 to underwrite and produce yet another fundraiser, this time for Al Gore, in June 2000.

While producing the “Hollywood Supports Gore” fundraiser, Rendell was back again asking Paul for yet another $150,000, this time to underwrite a fundraiser at Spago Restaurant for Hillary Clinton. Paul ended up paying $32,000 in expenses related to the luncheon, in addition to the $150,000 he pledged, but now he could at least get to talk to Hillary about Paul’s deal with Bill.

Finally, after over a quarter of a million dollars spent in campaign donations and event promotions, Rendell arranged with the Secret Service to have Paul’s deal mentioned to President Clinton in person.

Unlike many other political donors, Peter Paul was not politically motivated in his donations. He was seeking out a business relationship with an outgoing President. Rendell opened the door for Paul to get his offer to the President, but also lined the pockets of the DNC, Al Gore, and Hillary Clinton campaigns in the process. Curiously, reporting none of it to the F.E.C.

The Shill

The relationship between Bill and Hillary Clinton is a complex, some would say incomprehensible one. It is obvious that while most couples’ marriages exist for the purpose of creating a family and happiness, the Clinton marriage has existed only to produce power.

Maintaining power, and keeping themselves in the limelight, was the only thing Bill and Hillary Clinton were thinking about as the Clinton Presidency ended. Just as Hillary was pushing aside Monica Lewinski’s blue dress, Bill was pushing aside his Vice President, Al Gore, so he could focus more completely on getting his wife into the Senate.

This was a larger task than many imagine. While Hillary is one of the most popular political figures in the country, her support tends to be diffused along national, rather than regional lines. Lacking a preexisting geographic base, the Clintons had to shop for a venue with a sufficient number of liberal voters to elect Hillary into office.

The problem was that most of these liberal areas already had liberal Senators representing them: California, both seats taken; Massachusetts, both seats taken; the Clinton’s home for decades, Arkansas, well, they were happy to see Hillary leave and the feeling was mutual. Luckily, there was one seat open in one blue state, New York, and that,
coincidentally, was where the Clintons decided to “retire” after leaving the White House.

The second problem for Hillary’s Senate run was funding. Most people running for Senate are political veterans who already have established organizations in place to produce political donations from local sources. Hillary did not have the time, or desire, to build up a grass roots organization. Hillary, never fond of getting down with the “dirty
nail” crowd, chose, instead, to solicit funding for her campaign through her existing network of special interest groups and large block donations generated from mega fundraisers scattered across the nation.

Who better to drive this national fundraising effort than the popular two term President Clinton?

The left’s enthusiasm for Bill Clinton is something rarely seen outside of religious cults. During the Clinton years, the sun was a little brighter; the grass a little greener, and cherry soda was pumped through all the drinking fountains, according to the left.

In the final months of his Presidency, Clinton supporters would do anything to make the claim that they had a piece of the Clinton legacy. Whether it was a weekend in the Lincoln Bedroom, seeing him speak, or stealing all the pens and toothpaste (and probably floor mats) off Air Force One, everyone wanted something that said “I was there when Clinton was king.”

Clinton exploited this by using access to himself to generate revenue for Hillary’s political ambitions. Want to hear Clinton talk about the price of tea in China? No freebies here, shell out a grand to the benefit of Hillary 2000. Whether Clinton’s fans supported Hillary or not, they were all willing to pay to see Bill.

No small time tea and sandwich events either. Hillary likes her money in big chunks, preferably from big name donors who might impress people into voting for her.

Where better to find supporters like this than Hollywood, California?

And, who better to organize events like this than respected Hollywood producer Peter Paul?

After initial contacts, Bill Clinton agreed to accept Paul’s $17 million deal to join Stan Lee Media. However, Clinton’s agreement came with a caveat. Help Hillary win the Senate, or there is no deal.

Peter Paul responded by organizing the largest Senate political fundraiser in history. “The Hollywood Tribute” was also the largest single private concert in history, featuring the talents of Cher, Michael Bolton, Diana Ross, and Paul Anka, among others. Tickets to attend the concert were $1000 each, with an additional offer of attending the concert and dinner with the Clintons for $25,000 a couple. In all, over 1,200 people attended the concert with 350 staying for dinner, raising over $1.1 million in donations. This event was billed as Bill Clinton’s goodbye to Hollywood as President, and his supporters turned out in droves with their pocket books open. However, the beneficiary of this concert was not Bill Clinton, or his Presidential Library, by the Senate campaign of his wife.

The Triggerman

After the initial contacts with President Clinton regarding Paul’s offer to join Stan Lee Media, Clinton indicated that he would prefer if Paul would deal directly with his close friend and associate, Jim Levin, rather than himself.

Jim Levin, the former owner of “The Doll House,” a Chicago top-less bar that nationally popularized the trend of strip clubs offering lap dances to their patrons, filled many roles in the Clinton White House.

In addition to serving on Hillary’s fundraising committee, Levin played prominently in the Al Gore Presidential campaign, raising money for the Clinton Library, and was allegedly “the lap dance provider to the President.”

In any other organization, a person with Jim Levin’s background would be considered an embarrassment, or at least a hindrance to the group’s public image. However, in the Clinton White House, Jim Levin was considered a personal friend and confidant. A person with such a low standard of ethics that he could be counted on to do the Clinton’s dirty work.

After Levin presented the President with Paul’s official written offer to join Stan Lee Media, Levin returned the message to Paul that the President had accepted the offer subject to Paul’s underwriting and producing a major fundraising event for the benefit of Hillary’s Senate campaign.

Paul agreed, and Levin set up a conference call between Paul, himself, and other high level contacts within the Hillary Camp.

During this conference call, the first discussions of Paul’s helping underwrite and produce the Hollywood Tribute were made. Initially, Paul agreed to pay roughly half the costs of the event, about $525,000, with the rest of the funding coming from other sources. However, as the event neared, the other sources of funding did not materialize and Paul was forced to cover the entire cost. The Hillary campaign even refused to help finance the cost of printing and sending the invitations for the event.

In the face of funding the entire Hollywood Tribute on his own, Paul began to balk at the astronomically escalating expenses. At this point, Levin turned from Clinton confidant to Clinton enforcer, as he, and others associated with Hillary, threatened Paul that if he failed to produce the entire Hollywood event, as planned, the deal between Stan
Lee Media and the President would be off, Paul would lose all the money he had already invested into the event, and Levin and his associates would accuse Paul of incompetence and blame him personally for the failure of the event, irreparably damaging his reputation in Hollywood.

Blackmailed with no alternative, Paul continued to produce the event. However, only at the continued assurance from Levin that the deal to have the President work with Stan Lee Media was still intact.

Levin even became a frequent visitor to the offices of Stan Lee Media, interviewing employees, evaluating the accommodations, and otherwise planning for the President to eventually joining the company. During one of these visits, Levin was introduced to Tendo Oto, President of Venture Soft Company, Ltd., out of Japan.

Oto learned of Paul’s plans to bring Clinton onboard Stan Lee Media, and desiring to gain access to the President to assist him in taking Venture Soft public in Japan, agreed to finance one half of the $5 million cash portion of the $17 million Clinton deal and to joint ventures between Venture Soft and Stan Lee Media in the far east.

Paul explained the association between Oto and Stan Lee Media, and Levin signed a confidentiality agreement acknowledging the “proprietary nature” of their relationship. In other words, Levin agreed that Oto and Stan Lee Media where one in the same. The Clintons could not work with Oto independently of Stan Lee Media.

Based on the access gained by Paul with the President, Levin arranged for Oto to attend events at the White House normally forbidden to foreign national under normal circumstances, even managing to have a photo of Oto taken sitting in the chair of the President in the Oval Office.

Oto, Levin, and the Clinton’s became so close that Oto was initiated into the time honored Clinton tradition of backstabbing their friends. After arranging for Oto to attend a state dinner at the White House in September 2000 and the Hollywood Tribute, Paul learned that Levin had flown to Japan to personally set up a deal between Oto and the President independent of Stan Lee Media in complete violation of his confidentiality agreement.

Instead of Oto working with Stan Lee Media, he entered into an independent deal where Clinton would get the $2.5 million promised to Stan Lee Media, Venture Soft would get its U.S. subsidiary, with Levin at its head, and Peter Paul would be left holding the bag with Stan lee Media and its public shareholders sharing the consequences of being denied $2.5 million in funding Oto promised in November, 2000 when the dot com meltdown made funding in the US impossible.

After Hillary utilized the money generated from the Hollywood Tribute to win her seat on the Senate, Bill and Hillary Clinton never spoke to Paul again. It was not until 2005 that Paul learned Levin and the Clintons had induced Oto into secretly incorporating Venture Soft, USA, in Illinois with Levin as the manager, just days after Hillary’s Senate election victory. The Clinton’s effectively pulling the plug on Stan Lee Media’s financing from Japan caused the company to fold a month later and made the job offer to Bill untenable.

In typical Clintonesque style, Bill’s defense for not working with Stan lee media in late January 2001 was that the company had become insolvent. An insolvency created by Clinton’s own interference with a strategic partner of the company.

When Paul reached out to the Clintons, he could not even get a return phone call. The Clintons acted as though nothing had ever happened. Paul’s role in producing the Hollywood Tribute was denied; over half the money Paul spent on the Tribute was not reported to the F.E.C., leaving Paul with nothing to show for his good faith efforts than a damaged reputation and depleted bank account.

Just add one more victim to the pile of those unfortunate enough to do business with the Clintons.

The Patsy

After Hillary’s election and the subsequent fallout from the attempted deal with Bill Clinton, Paul decided to fight back and pursue the Clintons through the Justice Department and courts in an attempt to hold them accountable for what they have done.

In the case of “PETER F. PAUL, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON, HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON FOR U.S.

SENATE COMMITTEE, INC., NEW YORK SENATE 2000, DAVID ROSEN,

GARY SMITH, JAMES LEVIN, and AARON TONKEN”, the Clintons tried to pass off a campaign worker, David Rosen, as the mastermind behind the entire plot to defraud Paul out of millions of dollars and hide his enormous
contributions from the F.E.C.

David Rosen was Hillary Clinton’s national finance director and had extensive contact with Paul throughout his entire association with the Clintons and the planning of the Hollywood Tribute. However, as the foreman of the jury at the trial said, “Rosen did not have the ‘means or clout’ to carry out what the government alleged.” (Associated Press, May 29, 2005.)

The Court acquitted Rosen of all charges because he was so low on the Clinton political totem pole that he was not even responsible to sign the fraudulent F.E.C. paperwork submitted by the Hillary Campaign.

Contrary to the Clinton’s duplicitous efforts to on one hand feign support for Rosen and attest to his innocence, and on the other to paint him as some kind of super criminal out of one of Stan Lee’s comics, David Rosen is, in reality, a 30-something political fundraiser whom
Peter Paul “would not have bought an encyclopedia from,” if it had not been for the fact that he was representing the Clintons.

In fact, treasurer of Hillary’s Joint Fundraising Committee, New York State 2000, Andrew Grossman, admitted to filing the false F.E.C. reports and hiding over $700,000 in contributions from Paul in January 2006. But he is not the one getting charged. Nor have the Clintons been called to the stand to testify under oath.

However, this has not stopped the Clintons from declaring victory in the case and acting as though the acquittal of a person who was not responsible for their crimes is the same as an acquittal for themselves.

This is just one more example of the Clintons destroying a person to cover up their own crimes.

The Enablers

The Clintons could not get away with what they do if they did not have some pretty powerful friends, or, as is the case with the Clintons, enemies who are unwilling to do what is right.

If the Clintons were not the Clintons but you, me, or any other person, they would be in jail for the crimes they committed long before the they ever met Peter Paul. However, Bill Clinton offers something to the Democratic Party that they have not had in over 40 years. A candidate with true charisma and appeal to the general public.

Take Bill Clinton away from the Democrats and all you would have would be a conglomeration of organized labor puppets with ties to organized crime, 1960’s burnouts, effeminate college professors, animal-rights activists, and people who want to burn all our cars, build thatched huts, and live on nothing but tofu and wi-fi internet access.

Despite the fact Bill Clinton can never again be President, his awesome presence and ability to generate cash is so indispensable to the survival of the Democratic Party that they are even willing to try to propel his acidic wife into the White House to keep him happy.

The Democrats are also willing to sell themselves out and cut deals to protect him.

In June 2002, word was leaked that Congressional Democrats and the White House had made a secret deal where the Clintons would escape criminal indictments stemming from the “Pardongate” scandal, and, in return, Democrats would not aggressively obstruct Bush’s agenda in the Congress.

Who really knows how far this deal with the devil the Republicans made to protect the Clintons actually goes. However, these are the facts in Peter Paul’s case:

The Federal Election Commission, despite finding evidence supporting Peter Paul’s allegations against the Clintons and even the admission of wrongdoing of Hillary’s campaign treasurer has done almost nothing in five years to prosecute this case.

The Bush controlled Justice Department, likewise has done almost nothing in five years. They have refused to call the Clintons as witnesses, withheld information regarding the case from the public for years, and they have refused to prosecute high-ranking Clinton officials in lieu of David Rosen, and even then, made efforts to stress that the Clintons themselves were not targets of the prosecution.

However, the largest enabler of them all has been, surprisingly, the Republican Party.

Setting all backroom deals aside about protecting the Clintons, the Republicans know that Hillary is going to run for the Presidency in 2008 as certainly as she still does not know who the catcher for the Yankees is. The Republicans also know Hillary is no Bill Clinton.

While Hillary may be “unconvictable,” she is far from “unbeatable.” Her record on the issues alone makes John Kerry look like an icon on consistency by comparison, and her personality is one the American people will find abhorrent once the barriers Hillary has erected between herself and anyone who might ask her a tough question collapse under the scrutiny of a Presidential run.

Despite the fact that every conservative blogger worth his salt has a “Hillary” file at the ready for the day she declares her candidacy, much of this information is outdated.

Nobody is really going to care about Whitewater, Travelgate, Pardongate, or Monica Lewinski in 2008. These issues will be old news and Hillary would be able to easily deflect these attacks calling them “efforts to drum up the resolved issues of the past,” or “the vast right wing conspiracy” trying to take another shot at Bill.

What the Republicans need is a new Clinton scandal for the 2008 election, and the Peter Paul scandal fits the bill perfectly.

However, it is too early. The Republicans do not want Hillary to lose her seat in the Senate; they want her to lose her bid for the White House. When Hillary wins the Democratic nomination, as expected, only then will the Republicans have a need for Peter Paul. But, the Republicans want to time this information’s release so it has the
maximum political impact.

When the magnitude of what Hillary has done becomes apparent to the American people, and they realize just how dangerous this woman is, they will never vote for her, and the White House will easily be won by another Republican.

Sounds like a good plan if you do not mind that it is unethical and deceitful. Justice delayed is justice denied, and political expedience should have no impact on the prosecution of Hillary Clinton for her violations of federal election law. No person, no matter how powerful should ever be above the law.

The Scam

The most troublesome aspect of the Peter Paul scandal is that it is over something so basic: Being honest to the voters.

Hillary Clinton did not report how much money Peter Paul gave her campaign to produce the Hollywood Tribute, or even the fact that he ever gave it to her.

She could have easily reported it and there would have been no problem. Actually, that is not correct, there would have been a very big problem. The Hillary for Senate Campaign stated it would accept no money from Peter Paul.

On August 15, 2000, three days after the Hollywood Tribute, “The Washington Post” ran a story exposing Peter Paul’s organizing the event and his felony convictions from the 1970’s for his role in the “Cuban Coffee Caper.” The story’s author, Lloyd Grove, asked quite bluntly, “Is Hillary soft on crime?” Hillary’s campaign spokesman, Howard Wolfson, stated firmly that Hillary “will not be accepting any donations from him [Paul].” Two days later, Wolfson clarified that the campaign actually had received a $2000 donation from Paul in June 2000, but that they had “returned the check.”

$2000 is one heck of a lot less than $1.2 million, and being not just the underwriter of the Hollywood Tribute, but Hillary’s single largest single contributor is a far cry from not “accepting any donations” from someone.

Paul was even forced to play along with this charade in fear that the multimillion dollar deal he believed he had with Bill Clinton would be jeopardized if he told the truth.

Hillary Clinton’s unremitting lust for power has left her incapable of admitting the most basic facts in fear that someone might criticize her for them. She would rather do whatever she wants, and lie about it, than tell the truth or act ethically to begin.

In a sickening attempt to create a façade of infallibility, Hillary Clinton willfully lied to every single American over something most people would not have even cared about. If Hillary is so audacious to lie about who her largest contributor is, what else is she capable of lying about? How could anyone who even considers voting for her trust
what she has to say?

The second very big problem Hillary has is that she raised the money to win her Senate seat illegally.

Federal election law regulates how much and in what ways “soft” money contributions like Paul’s can be used to raise “hard” money. Exceed the limits, and the candidate either has to pay the soft money back within 60 days, or face restrictions on the uses of the hard money raised at the event.

If Hillary had either reported the actual cost of the event, or returned the excess expenses to Paul, she would not have had enough cash to win her election bid.

So, she chose to break the law, lied about the money Paul spent on her fundraiser, kept the full amount of the hard money raised, and tried to destroy Peter Paul in the process to keep him quiet.

What is truly horrifying are the depths Hillary Clinton will sink to gain power. Is it really worth breaking the law, destroying peoples’ lives, and undermining our governmental institutions just to hold an elected office? Are the benefits of the power so great as to justify anything the Clintons have done? Just how far is Hillary Clinton willing
to go, and how many of us is she willing to destroy so she can add her Presidential portrait next to her husband’s?

Hillary Clinton’s lust for power goes beyond mere ambition, and enters the realm of mental illness. There is literally no telling how far she would go to win, or what she would do once elected.

Peter Paul says, “The truth is worth fighting for.” Faced with the possibility of a megalomaniac like Hillary Clinton being elected President, I hope he fights hard. And, I pray he wins.

© March 2006 Justin Darr

Justin@justindarr.com
www.justindarr.com

This article based on research at www.peterfaul.com, and personal interviews between the author and Peter F. Paul. It was originally published at www.newmediajournal.us as part of a multipart expose on the abuses of Hillary Clinton during her 2000 New York Senate candidacy.

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 proud member of the MoveOff Network.

Oh wait, such a large scale, successful, attack could only have been accomplished with the collusion of the good old U.S of “Great Satan” A, chimes in Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah to an assembly of Shiite Muslims in Lebanon fresh back from their latest firebombing of a foreign embassy in their endless struggle to beat back the insidious western plot to conquer the Muslim world through political cartoons and assorted animated characters.

You see, the final stages of the plot have finally been uncovered by Iranian Education Ministry advisor, Professor Hasan Bolkhari, who has discovered that the loveable cartoon characters, Tom and Jerry, are not at all that loveable, but tools of the global Zionist plot to lull good Muslims into equating Jews with the mouse, Jerry, and liking them. Now, the scenario is complete. Tom and Jerry will distract the Iranian defense forces with their madcap antics as Bugs Bunny drives deep behind enemy lines to destroy all the Iranian military’s weaponry by intermittently inserting little flags that shoot out with “bang” written on them and exploding small sticks of dynamite down their barrels. Once their defenses are down, Woody Woodpecker will lead a squadron of F-16’s on a bombing run on Iran’s nuclear facilities, whose locations where revealed by a group of “meddling kids” and their dog, as Superman blows away all of Iran’s oil platforms with his super breath. Wonder Woman will provide intelligence from her invisible jet, as Green Lantern… Who can tell what Green Lantern will do? The Green Lantern is a JEW!

However, Pakistani Islamic leader Maulana Hafiz Hussain Ahmad really hits the nail on the head as he proclaims that is was the United States, Israel, AND India who all conspired together to destroy the Iraqi mosque. Makes sense since these are the same three powers that orchestrated the Indian Ocean Tsunami in late 2004 with their deep-sea nuclear weapons tests. Wait, the Tsunami was created by Allah to punish the infidels for celebrating Christmas. Or, was it to punish wayward Muslims for not beating their wives enough? Who knows? But the really important thing to remember is the Muslims are in no way, shape, or form, responsible for any of the problems that afflict them.

Sure must be nice. It is almost as though those who espouse to the Islamic faith have somehow been bestowed with a mantle of perfection which not just prevents them from ever doing wrong, but protects them from all criticism and scrutiny of their behavior as well. They must indeed be a super race.

The problem is the super race seems to assailed from all quarters by groups of evil, malicious, groups who have nothing better to do than make life harder for the people of a bunch of countries half of them never heard of before. Led by the most useless, nefarious, group of beings ever to set foot on the planet: the Jews.

So, is your country a virtual open cesspool of poverty, corruption, and violence led by a petty dictator or religious guru who lives in opulence as you boil rocks to eat? Blame the Euro-Anglo-Zionist “Keep Middle-Eastern People Poor Despite Giving Them a Bazillion Dollars a Year in Oil Revenue and Foreign Aid” plot.

Are you being forced to deal with the consequences of electing savage, terrorist thugs to replace the last bunch of savage, terrorist thugs you elected in the last time you voted to run your government? Blame the American/Israeli “For Some Reason Innocent Civilians Don’t Like Getting Blown Up on a Bus” plot.

Earthquake? Blame the Germans. Domestic riots? Blame the English. Leaves blow back into your yard just after you finished raking them? Blame the international “Keep Your Front Yards Messy” conspiracy. But, above all else, blame the Jews. After all it was the Jews who fought back after being repeatedly attacked and threatened with extermination. It was the Jews who… Well, not much else, but they are still there so you are allowed to hate them.

No matter what Islamist defenders try to claim about the wrongs the United States and Israel have inflicted on the Palestinians and Islamic world as a whole, the current idiocy of concocting one conspiracy theory after another and blaming Western civilization for all of the travails that impact them is nothing more than the current flavor of the day for the Muslim world.

Jews were blamed for the fall of the Ottoman Empire in 1924, and the accusation that Jews used the blood of children for religious rituals appeared in Damascus, Syria, around 1840, 50 years prior to the Balfour Declaration and a full century before the foundation of Israel, are just two recent examples of the endemic anti-Semitism that some Muslims have harbored for centuries. And, conspiracy theories themselves have played a prominent role in the Muslim worldview almost since the birth of the faith with the assassination of the third Muslim Caliph Othman bin ´Affan during the original schism between the Sunni and Shiite branches of Islam.

The bottom line is the Islamic world has the habitual characteristic of blaming others for their own problems. Usually, they blame the group they currently hate the most, but there is always a scapegoat other than them for any problem. This is a fundamental weakness in Muslim society, and, as time goes on, will be an increasing impediment to the interrelations between Islam and the other cultures of the world.

If Muslims are ever going to integrate into the modern world, and if there is ever to be true peace between our civilizations, the Muslim world must stop making excuses and grow up.

© February, 2006 Justin Darr
Justin@justindarr.com
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 proud member of the MoveOff Network.