 | ||
| Dave Marlett, Editor | theconservative@usa.net | Number 5 |
| ||
| ||
| Dave Marlett, Editor | theconservative@usa.net | Number 5 |
| ||
We are into the primary season. While the first primary hasn't happened yet we are still less than 10 weeks from when the front loaded primary system will have determined who the Republican candidate will be. By March 15th the race for the nomination will be decided. The strategy for how to finish this race is being decided as you read this newsletter. When are you going to finally get around to supporting the conservative candidates?
The liberals have banks full of money and can do anything that needs to be done on a moment's notice. The conservatives have to plan carefully to make sure they use what they have to its fullest effect. Have you helped? Stop now. Write the check and a note of support and put it in the mail. Tomorrow may be too late.
Alan Keyes http://www.keyes2000.org/get_involved/join/print.shtml
Steve Forbes http://www.forbes2000.com/ (follow the links for a form to fax or mail.)
A couple of weeks ago I offered my thoughts on GW Bush's comments on Jesus Christ during the Arizona debates. This transcript from a Crossfire broadcast has since been brought to my attention. Evidently I am not the only one to think GW doesn't know what he was talking about.
"PRESS: Well, the other night at the debate he showed some conviction when the question was asked about the political philosopher that's influenced you the most. You said the founding fathers. I thought it was a pretty good answer. George W. Bush said Jesus Christ. Do you think he was showing conviction there or was it pure political pragmatism?
"KEYES: No, sad to say, I was -- I think he was showing an entire misunderstanding of the question. I found it kind of shocking and I think a lot of people did. Not, by the way, because of all the separation of church and state nonsense, no, but because GW Bush thinks that Jesus Christ was a philosopher, and this is not possible. Philosophers are people who seek the truth. Jesus Christ is the truth. And there is a vast difference between the one category and the other individual. If he puts Christ in that kind of a category, then he has secularized him to a degree that reduces, in fact, what he really is. I don't admire Christ, and he doesn't influence my life: I worship him. He is the living son of the living God, and he doesn't influence my mind, he shapes, guides and commands that mind, because he is the sovereign of my will. Now, if -- that's not a philosopher's role, and I just found it strange that, asked that question, you would respond with Christ. The most influential figure, certainly, but thinker, political philosopher, Jesus Christ was not a thinker, quote/unquote. He was the Word itself. And so I just found it to be kind of -- what can I say? I thought it was a little bit of a misunderstanding of the question. And I also thought that it reflected a misunderstanding of who Christ really is."
"Did you kill this victim because of his or her race, religion, sexual orientation, or political affiliation?"
"No, I robbed the jerk and killed him so he couldn't identify me."
"Are you sure?"
"Yeah, better I snuff out a life than take a chance the jerk might identify me."
"Then you didn't commit a Hate Crime?"
"Oh, heavens no. What do you take me for, an insensitive lout?"
What is the difference that sets a crime apart as a "hate crime?" The only legal explanation has to include the word "malice" or the phrase "malice aforethought." But, aren't these issues already addressed by law in every state of the Union? Yep.
What is "malice aforethought?"
malice aforethought: actual or implied malice existing in or attributed to the intention of one that injures or esp. kills without justification or excuse and usu. requiring some degree of deliberation or premeditation or wanton disregard for life. Example: murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought -- California Penal Code ( Mark it down, you'll see this again in a discussion of abortion! )
If the issue of malice is already written in the law, why is the federal government set on making "hate crimes" federal law? There appears to be only one possible answer: To be able to force its agenda through corrupt federal courts.
Hate crimes legislation allows federal law enforcement to drag defendants into federal courts on what should be state charges. Then administration-appointed federal judges can push the current political agenda in front of the national media. There can be no other explanation.
"Republican presidential hopeful Steve Forbes said he worries that President Clinton's desire to leave a legacy will put Israel at a disadvantage in peace talks with Syria. 'We've got to pop this euphoric bubble of peace talks and realize that there's a lot of hard bargaining that has to be done, and the Syrians have to be made to realize they have to make real concessions, not just the Israelis,' Forbes told reporters Tuesday after meeting with voters."
(Concord Monitor, 1/5)
Why did the Clintons have housing Secretary Andrew M. Cuomo take federal funds away from New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani? It's the polls, stupid. Or at least that is what Dick Morris thinks, and Mr. Morris knows both Clintons very well from his days as their political guru.
The latest Marxist Poll shows Hillary Rodham Clinton's lead in New York City has sagged from 40 percentage points to 26 in a matchup with Mr. Giuliani for a U.S. Senate seat.
"No doubt it's when she saw these numbers that Hillary pivoted from her focus on upstate and decided to take the mayor in his own back yard. When Hillary says she doesn't pay attention to polls, chalk it up to the same category as her Pinocchio president-husband's denials of sex," Mr. Morris writes in the New York Post.
"The Clintons' New York City offense is truly unprecedented. Together, they have mobilized the full resources of the federal government in a carrot-and-stick approach to America's largest city. Acting through their puppet Andrew Cuomo, they virtually federalize city government by taking over homeless funding on the slender pretext that the mayor downgraded one of the dozens of homeless-aid groups. From now on, we are New York, D.C., America's second federal city."
(Washington Times by Greg Pierce 1/5)
This newsletter is sent by subscription only. If you do not wish to be on the mailing list, please let us know and you will be removed immediately. To be removed from this mailing list, simply reply to this newsletter with the word REMOVE in the body of your reply. You may also send your request to theconservative@usa.net .
Thank you.