Conservative Truth started as an email newsletter, and grew into one of the most powerful voices of the conservative community. The newsletter is still a vital part of what we do, informing over 50,000 readers all over the world, and serving as a publication notice that our other writers' columns have been posted on the website. Many of the subjects we cover are developing stories. This area is where we keep you up to date on new developments as they occur.


Update To "Mr. Hitler, Please Crack Down On The Nazis" (December 9, 2001)

Your email ("Mr. Hitler, Please Crack Down On The Nazis" - December 9, 2001) was very informative and right on target except for the President Clinton slur! Deceased President Hussein [of Jordan] and [Nelson] Mandela, on the same dias, praised Bill Clinton for his tireless work to gain peace in the middle east. They went a step further when King Hussein, forgetting protocol, said that President Clinton had done more than any former U.S. leader and Mandela echoed his words. Unfortunately, he had only the scum bag Arafat to represent the Palestinians. Who did you think he would bring to the table? Two representatives of Israel could not make a treaty. As a Jew, who has every reason to dislike Arafat, I cannot see what other alternative President Bill Clinton had.

Question: When will it be possible to be a Conservative and refrain from insulting the diligent work of the former President?

I'd appreciate a candid answer.
Thank you. Bob.


And a candid answer you shall receive.

King Hussein was no friend of democracy, and did his share of whipping up anti-Israel sentiment in his day. I have even less respect for Mandela, an avowed Communist, who to my knowledge never renounced socialism. Their opinions of Bill Clinton (or anyone else) are about as impressive to me as would be Arafat's.

The only "tireless work" Clinton did in his eight years in office was in the area of self-promotion. If you closely examine the "peace process" he championed, not only did it not work, it had no chance of working. It was all 'smoke and mirrors' to make Bill Clinton look good. He wanted the Nobel Peace Prize so badly he could taste it! If he had cared at all about a lasting peace in the Middle East, he would not have pushed Israel to cave in on things that were vital to their national security. (The only reason they did so was that he threatened to pull U.S. support from Israel.) During his two terms of office Israel was attacked repeatedly by the Palestinians. Clinton's response was always to pressure Israel to "show restraint."

As to your question about why a conservative would "insult the diligent work of the former president," I have already stated that I saw no diligent work from him. That is not a partisan observation. I have seen other Democrat presidents who worked hard in office for the benefit of the nation. I respect them for that, even though I disagreed with much of what they worked for. Clinton worked hard for Clinton, and he cared nothing for the good of the country. More important, I believe that people need to be reminded of the dangers of Clinton's style of governance, lest history repeat itself. If we let stand such statements as Al Gore's (made right after Clinton was caught literally with his pants down) that "Bill Clinton will be remembered as one of the best presidents the nation has ever had," then gullible people will believe them. We need to challenge the lie with the truth whenever and wherever possible.

Respectfully, Tom Barrett


Subscriber Leslie Parker from Colorado wrote, "Well, smallpox DOES scare me more than driving. The vaccines won't be ready till the end of next year. Why didn't you tell me why I needn't be anxious about THAT?"

Dear Leslie- There's no question that smallpox is a scary matter. I didn't have room to address every possible threat, so I included smallpox in the general discussion of biological warfare, and referenced the article by the U.S. Army weapons expert. The gist of his message is that these types of weapons are very difficult to use effectively. Does that mean that no one will get smallpox if the terrorists attempt to use it? No. IF the terrorists have smallpox (no one knows for sure; it's speculative), we may see similar results to the attempted anthrax campaign. Its main value to the terrorists was the "scare" value. In terms of numbers, it was a miserable failure. And that is the message I was trying to get out. Unless they suddenly get a lot more technologically sophisticated very quickly, you stand a far better chance of dying as a result of an accident in your home that you do of dying from anthrax OR smallpox. I hope this helps.


"As a proud Canadian I am offended by any implication that we will not support the U.S. in this war. It appears you need to be reminded that we as Canadians entered World War II well before the U.S. because we believed in freedom for all and fought to stop the atrocities going on in another part of the world. It took an attack on your own soil for you to get involved. You obviously know very little about your neighbors to the North. Fortunately I know that not all American's are so small-minded. Most realize what allies we are to your country. Shirley O'Neill."

Dear Mrs. O'Neill- I am sorry you misunderstood my remarks. Perhaps if you would read my article, BIN LADEN'S GREATEST MISTAKE, you would feel differently. In that article I criticized my own nation for taking so long to get involved in the war on terrorism. I am condensing here, but I spoke of the fact that now that we have been attacked, suddenly there is a war on terrorism. I said that England and Israel among others, have already been fighting this war for years. But the U.S., just like in WWI, didn't get involved until WE were attacked. I think that was wrong then, and it's wrong now.

I didn't say that Canada would not support the war. I first mentioned that Canada has been a long-time ally. Then I questioned only her commitment to the long haul. We were attacked, and yet our pacifists are already suggesting that we should not defend ourselves. Canada was not attacked, and I know that you also have a large contingent of pacifists who believe that military action is never justified for any reason. Imagine the pressure they will bring to bear on your leaders.

We love and appreciate Canada. I was just giving my opinion about the circumstances the whole world finds itself in. (That's what people who write editorials do; they give their opinions.) The whole situation may change soon. I hate to say this, but just as I believe the U.S. will probably suffer further terrorist attacks, I believe it is likely that Canada will join us on the list of nations who have suffered terrorism. That will probably quiet the voices of your pacifists (as it has most of ours), and then the majority of your nation will find themselves fighting the same fight with all your resources.

(EDITOR'S NOTE: I also received several notes from Australian subscribers informing me that Australia was sending troops to Afghanistan. I was unaware of this at the time I wrote the article. As one Aussie so passionately put it, "As long as there is one Australian left alive, the United States has a friend." We appreciate the support and participation of all our allies.)


"Just for your information, and to relieve you of some of your ignorance, the ACLU is not a terrorist organization. It is shameful (and perhaps sinful) that you equate the ACLU with the people who committed such an atrocity against my country. You should be ashamed of yourself. What is wrong with a "God Bless America" sign in a public school is, not all believe in God. Nor do we know which God. Some actually believe in satan as a god, do you recommend we pray to that god?" (Name Withheld)

The ACLU actively supports the right of NAMBLA (the North American Man-Boy Love Association) to publish on their website (under "free speech" provisions) materials teaching pedophiles specific techniques to seduce young boys and lure them away from their parents. Two NAMBLA members who used these techniques recently abducted, then repeatedly raped and eventually murdered a six-year-old boy. I didn't call the ACLU a terrorist organization; an author I quoted did. I think the ACLU is worse than a terrorist organization. They are a sick, perverted group of socialists who care more about the rights of scum than the rights of innocent children to grow up without being defiled.


"Tom - You and I both have lived and traveled through foreign countries. I have always expected citizens to be proud of and display their pride in their country. This is not's expected. Imagine the message public officials send to foreign visitors by being ashamed of pride in our country. This is in response to the Head Librarian at Florida Gulf Coast University, who, in an 'act of tolerance' ordered 'Proud to be an American' signs removed because they might '...offend international students.' Jim Griffith."

Jim - It seems that the events of the past few months have brought out both the best and the worst in our nation. This is why we published this special edition of "Heroes and Villains." As a nation we have been inspired by extraordinary heroes such as the men on United Flight 93, and ordinary heroes such as the people who took victims of the World Trade Center disaster into their homes. Our nation has also been shamed by people like this librarian, the treasonous members of the Berkeley City Council, and the cowardly Miami firefighters who refused to respond to emergencies because their fire truck displayed a "symbol of oppression": the American flag. I believe that the stress of the terrorist attacks has simply intensified the manifestation of whoever folks already were. If they were socialists before September 11, those tendencies were intensified. A good example is the Berkeley City Council's proclamation condemning the United States for defending itself against the terrorists. If they were decent, patriotic Americans prior to the Attack on America, their decency was manifested in the many acts described in the listing of "Heroes and Villains."