Think Again Magazine Issue 21
Who is C D Robertson?
I will state now, up-front that I am politically conservative. Keep in mind I didn't say Republican; not all Republicans are conservative (Mr. Bush is a good example); not all Democrats are liberal either. I will also state that I am more conservative on monetary issues and tend to be more liberal on social ones.
I graduated high-school in 1967, attended college (taking many ancient computer science courses) but did not graduate. I consider myself well- informed, politically astute, and aware of local, national, and international current events.
The Necessities
Think Again Magazine is a Trademark of and Copyrighted 1992 by Charles Robertson, All Rights Reserved. You may distribute this Magazine to any BBS, person, or Electronic Service as long as it remains unaltered and complete and there is no charge or fee above the normal access charge or postage amount.
If you respond to my opinions or rebuttals, I reserve the right to directly quote you unless you specifically request that I do not. Please, be specific.
Paying the price...
If you want to pay for this or any issue of "Think Again", do it!. I'd prefer a note to let me know you donated (the amount) to your favorite charity. If I'm not doing this for the money, Why? The public receives so much mis-information as it is, I wanted to try to correct a small part of it and present current events in another light, another thought. Don't absorb my opinions or presentations as yours either - "Think Again" for yourself.
Table of Contents
- I. National Health Insurance - A deeper look
- II. Burning Bridges - Gun Control
- III. No Balance Budget - Again
- IV. There is no Liberal Media Bias
- V. The Clintonski Factor (last minute update)
- VI. Reader Response
Announcement: I am currently undergoing the final states of a product development which takes a considerable amount of my free (unpaid) time, The last stages of testing, documentation (ugh), etc. Issues may become a little strung out for awhile for this reason. Don't worry though, they will not cease. I have found out from writing this magazine that like the big ones you should always have two or three issues in advance working at all times <grin>. And before anyone asks, "What Product?" You'll have to seek that information elsewhere. The intent of this magazine is to get you to think again, not to advertise my products, etc.
I. National Health Insurance - A deeper look
Before anyone in Washington (or from Arkansas) goes off the deep end to get some sort of national welfare going, I think they should examine the subject, subjects, and choices more closely. I have heard the figure thirty million people without health insurance many times. So if this figure is correct, out of this number, how many people drive a car, have credit debts, have rent payments, have two cars, etc.
"Oh, I could never afford health insurance for my family. Have you seen the premiums?" This parent sits there with a wanton look because their child may become sick and wipe out their savings. But is it that health insurance is too expensive or the fact that this parent (and I would bet in many cases) makes payments on two cars, one new and one formerly new but now four years old; makes payments (or pays in full) their credit cards, seasonal clothing, jewelry, eating out; pays the rent on that three bedroom apartment (because the kids complained about not having their own rooms); make regular deposits to a vacation savings club or Christmas club.
A single might also make the statement but are making payments on that new red sports car for the next five years; paying the rent for that neat studio apartment that is very impressive; paying on the credit cards for new "in" clothing for the upcoming season; and spend $30 to $50 each weekend to go out on a date or just on the town. It is my bet this also is the case many times.
Maybe the family/the individual may not be making payments for all the items listed, but I would bet in 80% of the cases at least one item applies. These people insist they can't afford health insurance. It is my contention that they can, but choose other things first. These people along with those who "can" afford health insurance should be excluded from any such national plan.
A family does NOT have to have two cars. Sure it is less convenient, but a second car is a luxury. Some families who live in metropolitan areas with good mass transit don't even need one car. What do they want convenience or health insurance? A family doesn't have to have jewelry, eat out, have new seasonal clothing, a bedroom for each child, vacations, or savings accounts for gifts. Health insurance is much less luxury and more necessity. But they choose the luxuries first. These families, individuals should be excluded from government paid health insurance. No? Then should families/individuals who don't have a VCR have the government buy them one? Should families/individuals who don't have a car have the government buy them one?
Where is the logic when considering those who can't afford health insurance? Naturally, when liberals look there is no logic.
II. Burning Bridges - Gun Control
The Leftist Awards (also known as the Emmy Awards) were a real liberal show. Besides just the bashing of anything moral or conservative, one elitist was basing the second amendment. Beau Bridges who played the tragically shot Jim Brady in a second-rate show, decided that the second amendment should be erased from the books. Of course, with overwhelming approval from the leftist hoards in the audience.
I am really trying to understand this. Here we have a thousand "idolized" actors who will soon walk outside, protected by several bodyguards each equipped with a `piece' to blow away any adoring fan who might `cross the line,' ready to step into their bullet proof limo's and speed away. These people are calling for outlawing guns? Well, maybe for everyone BUT their bodyguards.
III. No Balance Budget - Again
Slick Willie, Weird Al, and the liberal Congressional hoards have noted many times in this election year that neither President Reagan nor President Bush have ever submitted a balanced budget. "They talk about it, but have never even done so," we are told. Well, I hate to beg their pardon but I came across some interesting information.
Reagan and his advisors prepared a balanced budget in 1984 to submit to Congress. The Democratic Leadership in House announced it was rejected BEFORE they even looked at it. The Democrats prevented it from even leaving the committee room. No floor vote. Next item...
President Bush summited his 1988 budget (below the 1987 budget) showing Congress how he had four budget's planned to balance the budget. The Democratic "Leadership" in the House rejected the budget and passed their own. The same thing happened for the 1989 budget, with a plan to balance the budget. Again Congress rejected the budget.
So the truth is that both Reagan and Bush submitted Balanced Budgets. The truth also remains that the tax and spend mentality of a liberally controlled Congress, threw them in the trash without even looking. So much for Sex and Gore's "truth."
IV. There is no Liberal Media Bias
In a previous issue (I think) I reported that two Harvard Professors (hardly the conservative type) of Political Science did a study of the media's coverage of the election to this point (actually the point was about a month ago). The results of these two liberals were enlightening, especially since they found that there WAS a liberal slant, a clear favoritism of the Sex and Gore ticket. The investigation came to the conclusion that ABC was the worst (showed the most bias) and CNN the best (showed the least bias).
The reason I recounted this should be obvious to those who keep abreast of "current events" on television. There have been several shows recently discussing this very issue. Wasn't it wonderful that NightLine got a panel of leading "experts" together and they decided there was no bias! Naturally the experts included the very unbiased Phil Donawhimp and several other noted liberals. The problem was that the panel was full of liberals and one conservative. What did ABC expect for the panel to conclude? Finding there was media bias had about as much chance as an old woman at the Salem Witch Trials.
I can make a good example of the local paper. I can proudly state that the MetroPlex is still a good fortress of conservatism so you would expect the local paper to reflect this attitude? At least a little. Recently I went through a random issue of the local paper and counted articles on the election. The first section was 22 pages and contained 10 articles on the election. There were ten articles with one positive on the Republican party. Eight of the articles were obviously positively slanted for Slick Willie for example, "Clinton's Retraining Ideas Praised by Labor." While the headline may have been true in content consider that there were seven more worded in much the same fashion. The last article was negative toward Bush and titled, "Bush Claims Growth Despite Stagnant Economy." The content of the title maybe also true, but the wording is obviously slanted against Bush. There were no positive articles on Bush, in an area dominated by conservatives ideas.
There is no liberal bias. I recently heard Peter Jennings open the ABC News with the statement, "In an attempt to divert attention from the terrible shape of the economy, President Bush...." Not slanted? Does Peter Jennings have a psychic that KNOWS what President Bush's intent was? No! Either Mr. Jennings or the copywriter, is so slanted they can't help but "lead the witness" if you used trial lingo.
And the press isn't satisfied either with slanting the news, now they are trying to dredge up the Iran-Contra fiasco. After spending over $100 million investigating, trying cases, and living lavish lifestyles by the Democratically selected "special prosecutor." Not one shred of usable evidence has ever been found, the only conviction was quickly overturned by a higher court. But the press is going to insist that there is something when there isn't. Mark my word, when they finish playing this thing to the hilt they'll start dredging up the "October Surprise" which Congress allocated tens of millions to investigate information which the initial source, US News and World, said was found to be false - again, smoke and mirrors. And I'm sure when that passes they'll start on the S&L crises when in fact Mr. Jimmy Carter and his liberally controlled Congress are the ones who initiated the fiasco by deregulating the S&L's. (By the way, they also deregulated the airlines. Look at what that got us.) And naturally the press will focus on Silvarado Savings since President Bush's son was on the board. Let's not forget that the liberal Congress suddenly dropped the investigation on Silvarado Savings when it looked like the investigations were going to start pointing back to congressfolks in Washington D.C.
V. The Clintonski Factor
Well here we have a new look into the two faced liberal, who now lies about two subjects. Despite Slick Willie himself and other cunning liberals turning the attention to Clinton's lack of military service, I'm glad to see so many people keeping the focus where it belongs, on the fact that he lied and continues to lie about the whole issue. Every time he is questioned about his previous answers and their non-compatibility, old Slick either attempts to laugh it off or tries to divert attention away from his lies. First according to Slick, he was never drafted, then he never applied to the ROTC, then he never asked for special favors, then he never.... His story has changed twelve times (by my count) since the primaries.
Now there are new issues and new lies starting. When running for governor, Slick said he was against the War in Vietnam, but never participated in any protest. In days the Arkansas Gazette produced a picture of Clinton holding a protest sign while standing in a tree at a local protest march. Next Slick said, well I may have participated but was never really involved in the protests. In a biography favorable to Slick the author quotes Clinton bragging about his organizational skills when it came to the protest marches of the VietNam War. Now Slick says that he may have helped a little but was never a major factor in the protests. A roommate in Oxford told the press that old Slick himself was the initiator and chief organizer of Vietnam War Protest at Oxford.
In fact he was invited to the Soviet Union at the height of the Vietnam War because he was the chief organizer of the protests. The Kremlin and the KGB loved to showcase Americans who protested the war. The suspicion is that the KGB is the entity who invited and paid for Clinton to take a trip to Moscow and participate in a protest there. When Slick was first asked about going to the Soviet Union, he first said he had never been. Then later when confronted with evidence, he admitted he had gone there one time for one day. Slick also has mentioned this several times noting that "well, there was a thawing of relations between the Soviet Union and America at that time." In fact 1969 was the height of the Cold War with the Russians bankrolling with money and arms the North Vietnamese. There was no "thawing" except for the temperatures during this "vacation" as Slick put it, when the temperatures in Moscow were 26 below! Further, Clinton first said he went with someone else (unspecified) then changed the story to he went alone.
Remember too the point isn't that he went to Moscow. Although someone like the KGB or Communist Party had to intervene in the passport/visa procedure to get him in. The point is that he has continued to lie about the fact surrounding the "visit." I'm still terribly interested to find out where he went in the Soviet Union, who he met with, where he slept (and probably with how many), and why he has continued to change his story.
Maybe the most interesting detail about this story is that when the Washington Times first started investigating the facts they asked the State Department for a copy of Slick's passport for this period. When a copy was furnished, several pages were missing - happening to be the ones that would have been stamped, verified, etc while he was in the Soviet Union. This apparent coverup is being investigated by the FBI. I hope it breaks before the debates end.
Is Clinton, was Clinton a communist flunky? a communist agent? How far- fetched is "The Manchurian Candidate"? Some ideas for you to consider.
VI. Reader Response
I did get one interesting letter concerning issue #20. The reader admitted early they were quite liberal so I expected a letter bomb. I was surprised to find an apology. They actually apologized for the Liberal Awards, aka the three hour Slick Willie Marathon, aka the Emmy Awards. Even to an avowed liberal it was obvious and embarrassing.
I enjoy reading the correspondence I receive each week. Often I have to budget my time between working for a living, writing for a hobby (including reading your mail), acknowledging your mail, and other miscellaneous things like sleeping, eating, etc. Sometimes my writings stir enough response it is IMPOSSIBLE to reply or acknowledge every piece of mail I get. I do want to thank the hundreds of you who have written and urge you to keep writing. Often it is your responses that gives me ideas for articles. Keep up the good work on your side and I will on my side.
Would you like to write an article for THINK AGAIN MAGAZINE? Would you like compensation? (Forget that, I don't charge for this publication.) Do you have a rebuttal to my views. Have an issue you would like me to address? Feel free to write, email, fax..
Charles Robertson Fax Only (817) 249-4284
Post Office Box 26613 CompuServe, 70130,330
Fort Worth, Texas 76126-0613 Charles Robertson, EXEC-PC
End of Issue #21
