 | ||
| Dave Marlett, Editor | theconservative@usa.net | Number 41 |
http://www.wilderness-cry.net/tcn | ||
| ||
| Dave Marlett, Editor | theconservative@usa.net | Number 41 |
http://www.wilderness-cry.net/tcn | ||
Her Excellency Mrs. Madelaine Allbright
Secretary of State
The State Dept.
Washington DC
Monday October 2, 20000
Dear Secretarv Allbright:
I deeply regret, and I find it totally unacceptable that your spokesman was quick to make a false statement that my visit to The Temple Mount "may have caused tension," insinuating that it ignited the riots and disturbances in Jerusalem that spread to Judea, Samaria and Gaza and later, to Israel itself.
I find it most regrettable and disturbing that your spokesman has been swayed by slanderous propaganda on the part of the Palestinian leaders and media, intended to put pressure on Israel and the US to make additional concessions in the negotiations, under threat of violence if their demands are not met.
I have expressed my concern and regret at the widespread violence and the senseless loss of lives and injuries on both sides. But it must be clearly understood that it wasn't my visit to The Temple Mount the holiest site for Jews and under full Israeli sovereignty - that ignited the current outbreak of violence.
Israel's Security Establishment has publicly presented its conclusions that the violent riots and armed confrontations, are part of a premeditated and organized campaign initiated by the Palestinian Authority (P.A.). This campaign began over ten days ago in the Netzarim area in Gaza, starting with stone throwing and escalating to the use of firearms and explosives against Israeli soldiers and civilians travelling there.
These riots have spread out through the deliberate incitement (prior to the visit) by the 'Tanzim' (the armed militia of Chairman Arafat's Fatah organization). Last Friday Arafat instructed the 'Tanzim' to escalate the riots. Moreover, Palestinian Security Chiefs have been directly involved in inciting the violence and in ordering Palestinian Police to open fire on Israeli soldiers, Police and civilians.
Arab Members of the Knesset (MKs) have contributed to and joined this violent campaign by repeated incitement calling Arab Israelis as well as Palestinians to resort to violence prior, during and after my visit to The Temple Mount.
This is not the first time I'm visiting The Temple Mount. The Inspector General of the Police has explained that the large Forces which the Police deployed to safeguard the visit, were required due to Palestinian threats prior to the visit to resort to large scale violence in order to take control of the Western Wall area below The Temple Mount.
I wish to emphasize, Mrs. Secretary, that Prime Minister Barak has already stated very clearly that every Israeli citizen, be it Arab or Jew, has a right to visit any place which is under Israeli sovereignty.
The united city of Jerusalem, which you are all very familiar with, as well as The Temple Mount, are under full Israeli sovereignty. Neither I, nor any Israeli citizen, need to seek permission from the PA or from any foreign entity to visit there or any other site which is sovereign territory of the State of Israel.
As for myself, I wish to assure you that despite the recent violent events I remain fully committed to achieving peace with all our Arab neighbors including the Palestinians.
I believe we can reach peace, but it must be durable and real peace based first and foremost on complete negation of violence. Furthermore, it requires Arab Palestinian recognition and acceptance of the historical inherent rights that Jews have on their land in their undivided Capital Jerusalem and particularly sovereign rights and free access to our most sacred site on The Temple Mount. This right is granted and has only been safeguarded to every Israeli citizen as well as visitors, regardless of race, creed or religion since Israel united the city in 1967.
Sincerely Yours.
Ariel Sharon, Chairman
Likud Party
38 King George St. Tel Aviv 63298 ISRAEL
Tel. 972-3-5252925 Fax 972-3-5252932
E-MAIL: likud@likud.org.il
One of Bush's appointments to the Texas Supreme Court, Al Gonzales, said, 'He [Bush] never asked me my position on any particular issue.' The Texas Lawyer newspaper supported Gonzales' statement. It concluded that Bush's approach to appointing judges 'isn't quite what one might expect from a conservative Bible-belt governor and tort reform champion.'
'Bush doesn't question would-be appointees about abortion or school prayer, affirmative action or guns, and this may speak volumes about the men and women he'd tap for the most powerful courts in the nation if he becomes president.' Indeed. His four Supreme Court appointees are widely viewed as moderates that consistently side with big business.
Other Bush appointments are even more disturbing. His first appointment was a Democrat to the insurance commission. His next appointed was a militant pro-abortion Democrat as commissioner of health and human services. Just recently Bush appointed a long-time supporter of abortion and gay rights, Martha Hill Jamison, to the 164th district court. From a conservative perspective, this is hardly a record to brag about.
If conservatives would pay more attention to what they are voting for instead of what they are voting against, the nation might turn around! As it is, all we get is more of the same, Republican labels notwithstanding."
What some people call GW's "avoiding gridlock", or "coalition making" is nothing more than trying to "out-liberal" the Democrats. Ecumenism stinks whether it requires putting aside religious doctrine to establish some kind of man-made false unity, or the rejection of morality, nationalism and the US Constitution to gain political power. GW is not a conservative, he is a luke-warm moderate and does not deserve a single conservative vote.
Is it throwing your vote away to vote your conscience? Is it throwing your conscience away to vote for someone that rejects your views as too narrow? GW will not get my vote. He has not earned it. He does not share my political views and he will not represent me in Washington even if he gets elected. He will only represent luke-warm political ecumenists that hold nothing but disdain for those doctrines that have made us who we are... or were. He will only represent those who want to gather us all together under one big global, ecumenical tent as one big happy family in a false man-made UNity.
Dr. David E. Marlett, Editor of TCN
Chuck Baldwin
October 13, 2000
It is assumed that this will be an ordinary election year in which our government peacefully changes administrations. While this is likely to occur, remember it is Bill Clinton who is scheduled to leave office. That does tend to put the situation in a different light.
After all, Clinton has managed to tear apart practically every restraint that was designed to arrest his insatiable lust for power. He has turned the Constitution upside down and turned Congress inside out. He has demonstrated that neither the media nor the military brass has the character to resist his tyrannical inclinations. Truly we have experienced America's first imperial presidency. Therefore, why should he leave office gracefully? Some people don't think he will.
What would the American people do if Clinton decided to stay in office? What would the media do? What would our military leaders do? What would America's religious leaders say? What would Congress do? If recent history were any indicator, they would do what they have done already: nothing at all! There hasn't been a serious challenge to Clinton's corrupt and treasonous regime since he became president. Why should he think that suddenly one would now materialize?
If Bill Clinton decides to stay in office, I seriously doubt that our current crop of political leaders would have the character or the courage to resist him. The media adores him, so the idea wouldn't upset them. Religious leaders have already forgiven him for any and all sins committed, so they wouldn't have much to say. The military brass (the ones that have stayed anyway) have largely sold their collective honor for career advancement; therefore, it is obvious where their allegiance lies. Congress has shown itself to be comprised of a bunch of toothless hound dogs, so their growls are harmless. It might appear that the portal to kingship is wide open for Clinton. Therefore, why shouldn't he walk through it?
If Clinton has entertained such ideas (and I'm sure he has), there could be only one foreseeable problem standing in his way: tens of million of armed citizens! Without a doubt, the only thing standing between tyranny and us is the widespread possession of privately owned firearms.
If the American people want to retain their liberties, they will fight to the death for the right to keep and bear arms. If they have any hopes that their children will grow up in a land of freedom, they will fight to the death for the right to keep and bear arms. If they expect the Clintons of tomorrow to submit to their role as servant of the people and not to become their masters, they will fight to the death for the right to keep and bear arms.
Hopefully, Bill Clinton will leave office next January just like he is supposed to. When it happens, rest assured that it wasn't Clinton's inner conscience or the resolve of Congress that brought it to completion. It will be nothing less than a testimony to the necessity of an armed citizenry!
The homepage and archives for The Conservative Newsletter are located on the WWW at http://www.wilderness-cry.net/tcn/
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.
