From: dennis@bluemoon.rn.com (Dennis Carney)
Subject: PROponent -- Article "BETWEEN A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE..."
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[024])
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 92 01:08:22 EDT

BETWEEN A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE...

       Now with Ross Perot out of the race, the upcoming
presidential election has returned to our usual one party system.
What do I mean?  Well, the Romans had an expression they used: Cui
Bono?  It means "for whose benefit?"  So when a new tax was
proposed or a new law suggested or a new candidate appeared, the
Romans would ask just who really benefits.  Not the stories for
public consumption, but deep down below the bull, just who is
getting what?
       So we take a hard look at "Slick Willie" Clinton and what we
find is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).  We
find a member of the Rockefeller's Trilateral Commission (TC) or in
short a loyal minion of the rich, the powerful, the bankers,
businessmen and owners of much of the property in this country.
You know, the people often referred to as "special interests."  It
is little wonder that sources indicate that Clinton is the
hand-picked candidate of banker David Rockefeller.
       But "read my lips" Bush is no better.   He was also a member
of both organizations before he "resigned" to become president and
moreover was a director of the CFR.  Do you see what I mean about
a "one party" system.  Can you see why so many saw Perot as a way
out and why they were so disappointed when he quit.
        But if you really want to find who benefits you need only
take a look at who pays - and it ain't the little guy in the street
or that dollar check-off on your income tax.  It's no secret the
big money trail leads right back to the same "special interests."
       So now while the people of the former Soviet Union are
getting to really chose between truly different candidates, America
seems to have slid into a situation similar to the old USSR; that
is if they had given the peasants a "choice" of two parties:
Communist or Socialist.
       However, just as there are differences between communists
and socialists, there are differences between Bush and Clinton.
While Bush did stab us in the back with his import ban and
statements saying he would vote for the "Brady Bill" if it were
attached to his "crime" package, it could have been much worse.
After all, an import ban does save American jobs.  It's kind of a
tough call to decide as a consumer between low gun prices or
American firearms manufacturers being run out of business by slave-
labor countries.  It certainly could be a lot worse with a
president actively screaming for our guns.
       It appears that this is just what Clinton will do.
According to August 7, Gun Week Clinton personally directed that a
plank be added to the Democratic Party platform calling for passage
of the so-called "Brady" registration and waiting period bill and a
ban on so-called "assault weapons".  His understanding of these
measures can be seen in his standing in the ruins of Los Angeles
after the riots and saying that this was a good example of why we
needed these laws.  Too bad no one told him that California already
had these laws and more.  Oh, I forgot the Councilman Kennedy
doctrine: The L.A. riots were caused by the "easy availability" of
guns in Ohio!
       On the other side of the coin, it was pointed out to me that
while our pressure on Bush pretty much made him tone down his
attack, he won't have to worry about re-election in a second term.
This could mean that our attempts at political pressure against him
then might turn out to do as much good as howling at the moon.
       Now matter how you slice it, it's not a pretty picture.  A
rock or a hard place ... you decide.

...

This is from:
    dennis@bluemoon.rn.com
---- The Soviet Union Died, But the Communists Live On ----
Newsgroups: 2,3,talk.politics.guns,fido.rtkba