-Caveat Lector- THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 1999 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Hold your nose and vote Bush ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- I too agree about denying another Democrat the White House! I am firmly convinced that G.W. Bush is just like former President George Bush -- tap dancing to the same internationalist mindset. I will, nonetheless, support G.W. for the presidency over any Democrat. The Democratic Party has degenerated into the party of the liberal, socialist, and whining gimme-something party; the party that holds strong beliefs that government is the answer for individual problems -- "Better living through more government." The Republican Party is the last-chance party to reclaim our government back to the individual and to reduce the burden of rules, regulations, and taxes upon us the "wagon pulling" individuals -- the ones that pay the bills. Everyone keep in mind that the president is elected by electoral votes and not by popular votes. A major three (or more) party election would badly divide the electoral votes by failing to garner the minimum 277, or so, electoral votes; thereby forcing the U.S. House of Representatives to elect the president by default -- a real mess! Hold your nose and pull for G.W. anyway! RICH HENDERSON ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- It's Bush or no one ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- I was very disappointed by your anti-Bush column. Your position shows a profound lack of understanding of American history and politics. Your ridiculous assertion that this is some special time for America is wonderfully romantic. I think it more accurately indicates your own ego-centric philosophy than describes our era. Yes, we have some special problems and great damage may be done to our nation as at many points in the past 225 years. Still, we face no hazard that is not of our own making. No choice is before us that can't be turned back at many opportunities -- assuming you believe in representative government. Reading your piece I couldn't help but think of my own father. He took a very dire stand in the '50s and '60s. In some ways he was right, but all-in-all America has come through it. Still, while fearing the worst he stayed with the GOP and worked for the growing conservative movement. I'm sorry he couldn't have been here for Reagan's election. Your decision is not anywhere near as constructive. The Joe Farah, All-Seeing Vizier -- Do it my way or the Highway? Yeah, right. With that kind of attitude why the hell should I care what you say? You're totally out of touch if you can't see that the GOP's LACK of a defense against the demonizing of the conservative agenda has TOTALLY destroyed our ability to use the same points. It's not George's fault that the bastards running the GOP let their best ideas be dumped on for four years with barely a whimper in reply. Every poll shows education as a top-three concern. The scrapping of the Department of Education would play like c--- to nearly every undecided voter. I respect many of the GWB team members. I think I see real thought and structure to their campaign so far. Unlike you romantics I DON'T LIKE LOSING. ... America is a TWO PARTY system. All third parties will be assimilated. Crack a history book this weekend and check it out. RICHARD LAYCOCK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Bush, for a better future? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- For the first time, I am completely in disagreement with you about your refusal to vote for Bush for president. Yes there may be a better man for the Republicans to run for the office, but any vote by any Republican for any other party will put Gore or Bradley in office. Can you suffer through another eight years with a liberal who will nominate the most liberal Supreme Court Justices in history? The Congress and Senate will be Democratic and there will never be a chance to change the wrongs that were made by the last Democratic Congress and this corrupt and immoral president. Bush will do a good job, I am sure. If you and others vote for Buchanan or anyone else you will be to blame for anything that goes wrong in the future. Don't be selfish and self-serving and think that you must vote for a conservative candidate in the next election to prove your stand. The country is more important than your private stands on many issues. The whole country needs a Republican president and Congress to survive and for your children to grow up safe. MARGIE GRAY ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Vote with your brains, not your glands ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- One of your e-mailers, signed B.J. Coleman, says, "G.W. is nothing more than a (personally) partially reformed Republican version of Bill Clinton. ..." Either he/she does not know George W. Bush, or does not know Bill Clinton. For almost seven years now, we have observed the incompetence and/or corruption of William Jefferson Blythe Clinton and his minions, apprentices, flacks, and apologists. Anyone who could in any way compare the horrors and almost-terrors the American people have been put through by this president to a completely honorable, concerned, competent, serious man like George W. Bush just needs his/her head examined! I can no longer remain silent when I hear or read that "line." It is so totally off-base that it just begs for a rebuttal. This is cynicism at its worst. As you will have discerned, I do not agree with the article which you wrote, to which Coleman was responding. If the nation was already almost 90 percent ultra-conservative, then we could be "purists" and try to stack the deck against anyone who is more moderate. That is not the case. Those who point out that we would only throw the election back to the lib-socialists are probably correct. Vote for whom you please in the primaries, but THINK, rather than "emote," when you go into that voting booth in the general election. JEAN MARTIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Focus on Congress ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- I would like to thank you greatly for being reasonable in saying why you would not vote for Bush Jr. I agree with you. Bush has not gone out of his way in discussing how HE feels on most issues. "So called" conservatives are too worried about getting the presidency. What really matters is keeping and consolidating the conservative hold on Congress. Until Bush Jr. starts doing the Sun morning talk shows, showing up on talk radio and talking to WND, he is a "pretender" and a fake in my eyes and all the other REAL conservatives. RAYFIELD CLEMENT JR. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 1999 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- No vote for Bush? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Joe, I agree with you 99.99999 percent of the time, but not here. I am fed up with the Republicans, but I couldn't vote for a Democrat, if that was all that was on the ballot. I not particularly impressed with Bush, but what is the alternative? Another Democrat in the White House? I'll take Bush any day over a Democrat. He's the only one that can win, I think. Third party is out. They can't win. I wished they could. I voted for Perot in '92, and where did that get us? Bush is the only hope, like him or not. I would rather have an imperfect Republican, than a sorry Democrat in the White House. But you're usually right on everything. KENNY ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Farah: closet pinko? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- You have totally discredited yourself in my eyes. To not support a slightly right of center Republican and guaranteeing a Gore far left of center victory shows me that you are a closet pinko. W. is the best hope we can muster at this time. Hopefully in the next eight years a Reagan clone will appear, but until then we can not allow three leftist appointments to the Supreme Court to take away our Second Amendment rights, find a "right" to euthanasia, and the government's "right" to kill anyone with whom it disagrees (a la Waco). We on the Conservative side need W. because he CAN win and can elect a conservative Congress, will sign a partial birth abortion ban, a middle class tax cut, and (hopefully) investigate the current administration's criminal conduct. I don't really hold out much hope on the last point, but am optimistic on the others and more. W. ain't perfect but he's our best hope for even partial victory. RICK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Time to pocket the purism? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- As a regular reader of your "Between the Lines" column who agrees with you 99.99 percent of the time, I must comment on your Friday, September 10 effort. Let me inform you that I will not be voting for George W. Bush in the primary election. I will be supporting Alan Keyes (if he is still in the race) or one of the other conservatives who correctly observes that the country is in a moral crisis. However, I do not expect my candidate, whoever I end up voting for, to win the Republican nomination. If W. wins the nomination (which, unfortunately, seems inevitable) I will have no problem supporting him in the general election. I would prefer him in the White House to any of the other likely "electable" candidates. I agree with you that Mr. Bush is not the ideal choice, but by having a standard that is so "pure," the likelihood that a candidate who is much worse than W. will win is increased dramatically. Your analogy of the country being on the "Highway to Hell" is apt, but I come down on the opposite side of you concerning the choice between the slow and fast lanes. If we are declining to our destruction, (which I think we probably are), I would prefer the slow lane, thank you. Let me lay out a "Nightmare Scenario" apropos to this topic: 1. Pat Buchanan is the Reform Party nominee for president. 2. George W. Bush is the Republican Party nominee. 3. The Democrats (correctly observing that Gore's chances of winning are very low) nominate (are you ready?) Hillary Clinton! (She has a ton of campaign money already raised and she is registered as a presidential candidate). If Buchanan can draw enough disaffected social conservatives (W. is not conservative enough), and male, blue-collar Democrats (who would be unlikely to vote for Hillary anyway) and Hillary can get 60-65 percent of the female vote, all of the hard-core liberal vote and a few yellow dogs, she wins with less than 40 percent of the total popular vote. Can't happen? After the last two years, nothing would surprise me. If it does happen, remember you heard it here first. Even if my "Nightmare Scenario" doesn't happen, too purist an attitude about W., and a strong third party conservative candidate, could cause the Democrat candidate (whoever he or she is) to be our next president. I would prefer a weasely Republican to any Democrat. Overall, I love your column and this is my first real disagreement with you. Keep up the great work. ERIC MILLER ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Slick W. Bush ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- I just finished reading your article about not being able to vote for George W., and I agree with your opinion. I have been saying ever since George 'Double U' surfaced as a contender that there is not much difference between him and Slick Willy. I think that time will prove me correct. Ever since the white-washed impeachment of Slick Willy, I have concluded that there are not many differences between the Democrats and the Republicans. Neither party is representing the views of 95 percent of the people I have spoken to over the past two years. It must be time for an Independent Party president. The news media says that an Independent could not accomplish anything facing a Republican and Democratic Congress. That is simply not true. An Independent Party President could veto the lobbist/campaign finance favored legislation coming out of the Congress, which would be all of it. The country would at least get four years of pause while the Republicans and Democrats tried to figure out how they could get back in touch with the voter. At least we would not lose any more freedoms for four years. It is important to understand that every time Congress passes legislation that is signed by the president, we use our own tax money to deprive ourselves of a little more freedom. The last time significant legislation was passed that enhanced our freedoms was around 1792. Ever since then, laws have been restricting freedom. GENE LOVELL ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 1999 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Give us a real choice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Bravo, Joe Farah! I agree that a vote for George W. Bush is unthinkable for anyone who cares about putting our country back on the right track before conditions are irredeemable. Care to adopt my current motto, "READ MY LIPS ... NO NEW BUSHES"? G.W. is nothing more than a partially (personally) morally reformed, Republican version of Bill Clinton, who practices that same duplicitous, Dick Morris style politics of triangulation. The Republican Party establishment, by pushing forward the candidacy of Bush the Younger, has entered a delusional world of total and destructive fantasy. The cure for Clintonesque poisoning of our constitutional order is not more of the same, just in smaller doses. G.W. is not a homeopathic remedy for what ails our nation! And on the pragmatic level, pandering to swing voters is almost invariably a losing strategy. But during times of great trial, such as our age today, it is completely immoral to comfort the comfortable. I have been utterly sickened and disgusted to watch Bush stand there and, Clinton-like, say that he's not doing the very thing you can see him doing -- "double-talk from double-U" is right! The choice between G.W. Bush and any of the Democrat field of candidates is merely between Tweedle-Dumb and Tweedle-Dubya -- and we need a real choice this time out, because our country needs a real change. B.J. COLEMAN ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Don't be a purist ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- This country cannot withstand the Supreme Court and federal judge nominations of Gore or Bradley. Also, the George Bush Sr. crowd of foreign policy people is a 1,000 times better than that ridiculous dwarf we have know. Give me Brent Snowcorft, Larry Eagleberger and Dick Chaney. W. is not perfect, but don't be a damned fool -- like the Perot voters who gave the Whitehorse to that scumbag and his foul wife. Look at the horrible damage to our institutions and rule of law that Perot caused. Stop being a purist -- please. RICHARD ACERRA ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Wrong on slamming Bush? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- I think you are all wet. Go ahead and put Gore in office. Vote for that jerk Ventura. Do you really think that he is even sane? I think he has had his brains scrambled. Sure he says some things that make sense, then he goes off script and says what he likes, and it is pure liberalism. I am not sure that Bush is the BEST, but he sure is BETTER than the rest so far. You are smart, and most of the time I agree with your views, but I totally disagree on this issue. J. MARTIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Bush is no savior ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Your vigilance in pointing out the dangers of the prospective Bush presidency is encouraging. While his blatant support for the unconstitutional Department of Education was the final straw for you, the final straw for me was the fact that Mr. Bush opposed the Lambert Resolution, a measure in the Republican National Committee, which would have stopped party funds from being directed toward candidates who want partial-birth infanticide to remain legal. Bush's acceptance of Goals2000 funds and his liberal use of vulgarity in a recent interview only further distanced him from my vote. Of course, 'Spotted Owl' Gore advocates a socialist agenda which is even more clearly defined, so I won't be voting for him either. Fortunately, for this election there are two candidates for whom I can vote without feeling like I'm eroding constitutional freedoms in the process. Furthermore, I can vote for them with confidence knowing their commitment to governing within constitutional boundaries and reducing federal intrusions and confiscation of our property (i.e. income taxes). They are Howard Phillips and his running mate, Joseph Sobran. ADAM VALLE ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Yeah, but for Pete's sake, let's win for a change! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Your attitude towards "Dubya" (as Texans call him) is a perfect example of why Republicans keep losing elections! Anyone conservative enough to please you wouldn't have a snowball's chance in Hades of winning a general election! We have to stop cutting off our nose to spite our face and get about the business of winning elections for a change. BILL STURGEON ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 1999 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- A second look at the draft ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- There are always loopholes in a draft that allow the privileged to escape. Historically, the poor and uneducated have been conscripted and sacrificed in the most dangerous combat situations. Hackworth endorses boot-camp type physical training. With our schools being equipped with premium quality gyms and athletic equipment and college educated phys. ed. instructors there is no reason children shouldn't come out of school in prime (fighting) condition. I have no problem with some military training being incorporated in our school system so that we can have a pool of people ready to fight. I do have a problem with forcing people to do anything. I believe that in the absence of a declared war that fighting should be voluntary -- even for active military personnel. Many of our questionable military involvements from Kosovo to Waco only discourage enlistment. M. YELHSA ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Rough, but good ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- "Rough draft of a bad idea" was excellent -- making an important point with flair. I especially liked your bio note that "the only sensible and understandable thing ever done by Bill Clinton was dodging the draft." It was as a draftee in the Army in the mid-1950s that I first realized that government doesn't work. HARRY BROWNE ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Rough, but bad ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Although Mr. Miller makes a strong argument, toward the end of his article, for no draft, I would bet he never served. Most of it is driven by emotion or feelings. And since his bacon is not threatened he feels the draft is a waste of time and money. Unfortunately, by the time you need the benefits of a draft your butt, if not the country's, is already in a sling. As an adult there are times when you have to do things that you don't necessarily want to do or agree with. Our country has been built on the bodies of those who have done just that. It's not pretty. It's not ideal. It's just the way it is. Mr. Miller is a shinning example of how the population at large has forsaken the fallen heroes of our country and the Constitution they fought for, for their own selfishness. I'll bet he sleeps very well at night, too. CHRIS THOMPSON ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Drafting the world's police force ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Joel Miller has it exactly right. As a U.S. Navy veteran of the Nixon-Ford-Carter years, I am adamantly opposed to the draft. The political and corporate class have used our youth as a manpower base for their overseas adventures and empire-building for far too long. Why should anyone volunteer to risk their life in the ill-conceived foreign wars the U.S. has waged for the past 50 years? The Korean and Vietnam conflicts would never have been possible without the draft. Now, our misguided forays into "global peacekeeping" have made recruitment and retention serious problems for the military. The elimination of the draft serves as a check on the tendency of combat non-participants and their ilk to blithely throw others into harm's way. HARRY S. HILL ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- No friends of freedom? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Hackworth means well, I think. But what can you expect from a career military man? A military mindset, that's what! But do these guys comprehend freedom? Too many do not. All you need to know about the man is that he calls for eliminating the various branches of the military and replacing them with ONE monolithic U.S. Military. He claims that would make "our" military "more efficient." Just the sort of tool we need to place into the hands of Clinton, Bush, or "our" next elected emperor! Some months back, I sent "Hack" a polite e-mail questioning his wonderful idea, and received back a quasi-snotty reply. OK, I have never served in "our" military. I refused to invade Vietnam. I detest the military mindset (though unlike Clinton, I do not necessarily detest those who "serve"). You'll get no freedom from a career military man -- for he cannot understand the concept! Bind them down with the chains of the Constitution, say I. Issue me a fully automatic battle rifle and the training to use it and I'll gladly store it in my home under lock and key and take part in (Swiss style) citizen's training. Otherwise, the hell with the military. With such friends, who needs enemies? MR. TSUN ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 1999 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Undoing drugs ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Alan Bock makes some good points in his column, "Let all politicians answer drug questions." He points out the inequities and gross injustices of our drug "laws," such as the fact that rich peach guys don't go to jail for the same drug use that sends poor ebony guys to jail for longer periods of time than murderers, rapists, or child molesters of any color. Then he wimps out. He says "Maybe it doesn't necessarily mean the drug laws should be repealed, but it at least suggests strongly that they're in need of thoughtful discussion and serious revision." What kind of revisions would satisfy Mr. Bock's desire to dominate and control other people? Will he advocate that we have drug laws that actually apply equally and fairly to all drugs? Will he support repealing the unlawful exemptions of alcohol and tobacco from the Controlled Substances Act? Will he support making coffee a controlled substance like codeine cough syrup? Will he make criminals of people who want to buy and use tobacco, alcohol, and coffee? If our drug laws should not be repealed, then will these revisions satisfy the desire of Mr. Bock and other tyrants to completely control the minds and bodies of the slave/subjects of "Amerika," who mistakenly think they are free citizens? After all, if the government can tell us which drugs we can use and which drugs we cannot use, can't the government at least have the common sense, honesty, and fairness to apply these drug laws to ALL drugs, including the most harmful drugs, tobacco, and alcohol? Or else we could repeal these evil prohibition "laws" and put the people who enacted them into law and the people who enforce them in prison where they belong. TOM BARRUS, PHARMACIST ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- The war on drug (laws) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- While I was certainly pleased to see that Jon Dougherty got the cause right when he blamed the War on Drugs for the increased militarization of our nation's police departments, I was equally disappointed to read his comments in support of the continued war on drugs "like most conservatives." The reason conservatives and libertarians will never see eye to eye is that conservatives continue to support the premise that government should be used as a tool against personal freedom if that freedom upsets certain people's vision of morality. The truth is that our streets have become the kind of war zone that necessitates M16s, black ninja outfits and midnight raids -- because drugs are illegal. Their illegal nature drives up the profits, all dealing is in cash, which must be defended by force, and there is no legal recourse for business "disputes" (necessitating gunfights instead). Since the use and sale of drugs involves no victims, illegal wiretaps, paid informants, intimidation, and other violations of personal and privacy rights are the only way to catch "lawbreakers." Further, unconstitutional seizure laws funnel drug profits right into the hands of law enforcement so that they can buy bigger assault rifles and more elaborate ninja outfits. To somehow believe that laws can be passed that will spare us from this militaristic onslaught is both naive and preposterous. Conservatives like Mr. Dougherty who are "all for law and order" are the very folks that got us where we are. Free people retain the inalienable right to do with their bodies as they wish as long as they are not violating the rights of others. The Ninth Amendment among others should have protected those rights. Conservatives would do well to stop "being their brother's keeper" and instead to start supporting policies that will restore freedom and personal responsibility. Ending the War on Drugs would be the best step in that right direction. DAVID SAROSI ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Goldman hooh-hah ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- I just read Goldman's Sept. 3 column and am disturbed. I imagine his satire is humorous to many most of the time. However, I find Goldman far from witty. He is coarse at best and far beneath the normal excellent commentary. Why do you waste the space when there are so many other good writers? JACK CROTHERS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Stupidity proves what? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Just as the exception proves the rule and stupidity proves the brilliance, so does S.L. Goldman's blabber against Christianity prove WND's unbiased willingness to allow for the occasional lunacy. Truly a pitiful piece. Only an idiot would use blanket statements to make a point with total disregard for the truth. Once again, the exception has proved the rule. SCOTT ROBBINS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- No fan am I ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Long ago I concluded your Goldman columns are rancid tripe. Being a recovering obsessive-compulsive type, I still occasionally read one to see if they have improved. No, they never improve. Why waste the bandwith? K. ROBINSON ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- � 1998 Western Journalism Center ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- This page was last built 9/15/99; 10:49:33 PM Site scripted with UserLand Frontier Direct corrections and technical inquiries to [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_e-mail/98.e-mail.shtml Bard DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
