http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/Item.asp?ID=3606
Schwarzenegger Wrong for Gun Owners, Wrong for California
By David Codrea
[email protected]
August 28, 2003
“Where else do gun owners have to go?â€â€”Former Republican Party National Chairman Lee Atwater
KeepAndBearArms.com -- In their zeal to rid California of the catastrophic Gray Davis and to prevent the equally loathsome Cruz Bustamante from assuming the governorship, the Golden State’s “centrist†Republican establishment has cast its lot with Arnold Schwarzenegger. On the surface, their reasoning is obvious. Famous, rich, successful, admired by millions, the superstar actor had but to cast his hat into the ring to command international attention and a multitude of star-struck followers—without ever defining where he stands on the issues beyond platitudes and sound bites.
Proving yet again how they value power over principle, the state GOP leadership has been quick to fall behind the Schwarzenegger campaign—and to discourage principled conservative candidates from running, while chastising their supporters not to “split the vote.†The alternative, they tell us, will be to retain Davis, or to give power to turncoat underling Bustamante, either of whom, they assure us, will be disastrous for California.
The problem is, a Schwarzenegger victory would be just as undesirable of an outcome for those who value liberty. Where gun owner concerns are reckoned, there is no difference between Arnold and his Democrat rivals. As far as the Republican machine is concerned, and their scare tactics prove it, the late chairman Atwater’s dismissal is still in full effect, and gun owners are once more being played for fools.
Arnold on guns
“Gun controls should be stiffer.â€â€”Arnold Schwarzenegger
Writer Paul Fischer quotes the action star recommending further citizen disarmament, beyond the thousands of draconian laws already on the books. This position is, of course, identical to the one promoted by Arnold’s Democrat opponents. But what does he mean by “stiffer�
"Arnold has said he supports sensible gun-control laws," campaign spokesman Rob Stutzman said. But what does Arnold mean by “sensible�
“n reality I'm for gun control,†Arnold is reported as saying in The Los Angeles Times. But what kind of “gun control�
According to the same Times article, “the perception of his support for gun control goes back to the early 1990s and was so well established that even California Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) thought of him as a possible ally when actor Charlton Heston testified against her bill to ban assault weapons in 1994. ‘Someone told me we could have gotten Arnold Schwarzenegger because he supports gun control,’ Feinstein was quoted as saying in a 1994 article in the San Francisco Examiner.â€
And COMTEX, the Canadian market news network, cites “Markus Guenther, an Austrian political commentator, [who] contends that Schwarzenegger is an improbable GOP candidate because of his liberal stance on key issues. ‘He supports…a ban on semiautomatic weapons,’ he said. ‘Except in the cinema, that is.’"
When asked by Sean Hannity if he supports "the Brady Bill or the 'assault weapons' ban or both," Schwarzennegger replied "Yes, I do [unintelligible] support that, and also I would like to close the loophole of the gun shows." He repeated that stance on "The Larry Elder Show," and added that he would also like to see laws for trigger locks.
Team Arnold
“Veteran director-producer Bud Yorkin, a liberal Democrat, said he wouldn't hesitate to vote for Schwarzenegger…â€â€”Claudia Eller, The Los Angeles Times
A man is known by the company he keeps, and a look at Arnold’s fellow travelers should quash any hope that they might provide counsel to moderate his unconstitutional anti-defense opinions.
· Warren Buffet: Billionaire socialist—just the guy to identify with the concerns of we, the little people, so naturally, he’s a rabid Democrat and Hillary supporter who doesn’t think you and I are taxed enough. He has also “donated heavily to unilateral nuclear disarmament,†demonstrating his rejection of armed defense as a principle.
· Pete Wilson: Former “moderate†Republican governor, which means he ignored his oath and approved edicts restricting CCW approvals, requiring guns imported into the state to be registered, banning certain ammunition sales to gun owners under 21, and criminalizing storage procedures which, when obeyed, resulted in horrible multiple pitchfork murders of children. Gun owners must never forget that it was on this Republican’s watch that gun confiscation began in California enforced by his attorney general.
· Maria Shriver: A Kennedy. A network talking head. Host of a biased, anti-gun documentary the same night Arnold’s “Eraser†(a movie featuring “good†federal agent Arnold saving the day through gun control) made its debut on network television. “The hard line of the NRA,†she told Charlton Heston, “is a complete loser."
· Rob Lowe: The self-designated “Raw Blow†of video-taped sex-with-minors notoriety, Lowe is another Democrat activist who signed a Handgun Control, Inc. “Open Letter to the NRA†published in USA Today, demanding, among other things: Preventing “minors†(presumably including those old enough to bed down) “unsupervised access to a firearmâ€; requiring locks to be sold with all handguns, taking the choice away from purchasers, and giving tactical advantage to attackers; requiring government permission to exercise your right to obtain firearms; requiring a “cooling off†period to purchase a handgun—even though an attacker or stalker may be all fired up right now; advocating “No one should be able to buy more than one handgun per month. The only people who need to buy more than twelve handguns per year are the professional gun traffickers who make a living reselling guns to children and criminalsâ€; and demanding “No more semi-automatic assault weapons. No more ammunition clips holding more than 10 rounds. We don’t need more killing power on our streets.â€
Arnold and the Constitutional militia
“I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers ... To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.â€â€”George Mason
Clearly, Schwarzenegger doesn’t have a clue about the meaning and nature of the Second Amendment. That, alone, should disqualify him from public office—or at least from getting one vote from gun owners who claim they believe in the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. Bottom line—he believes in gun control, and surrounds himself with people who validate his beliefs.
This from a candidate who, if elected, will be “commander in chief of a militia that shall be provided by statute. The Governor may call it forth to execute the law.†After he has used the force of edicts to disarm “the whole people†of the very arms suitable and necessary for militia service.
This from a candidate who, if elected, will take a solemn oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; [and to] bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California;â€
Speaking of foreign and domestic…
“I find it very interesting that an Austrian can influence American politics.†—Joerg Haider, Austrian politician.
There’s another oath Arnold took, back in 1983, when he became an American citizen:
"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."
But there’s a problem: Arnold apparently never really meant it (any more than he would the governor’s oath) and pulled strings with the Austrian government to retain his citizenship there, as well. This despite the fact that the government of Austria “n general… does not allow dual citizenship…Thus, if a person acquires US citizenship, he/she usually has to renounce the actual citizenship he/she is holding.â€
The problem reaches beyond Austrian law. According to Kurzban's Immigration Law Sourcebook, “The U.S. government has generally looked with disfavor on United States Citizens maintaining dual nationality.†Indeed, the US Department of State cautions that “dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country.â€
Furthermore, the State Department warns of “security clearance implications†when people in its employ hold dual citizenships, and while Arnold won’t be working for that agency, as governor he would be privy to classified information as it relates to coordinating “homeland security†in California. Among State’s concerns:
· “The evaluation element presented by dual citizenship is that it could raise an issue of possible divided loyalty to the United States.â€
· “If there is any doubt about unquestioned preference for and allegiance to the United States, unencumbered by any undue foreign influence, DS must render a determination in favor of the national security and determine that individual ineligible for access.â€
· “Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include:…the exercise of dual citizenship…military service or a willingness to bear arms for a foreign country [a requirement for all Austrian males] …using foreign citizenship to protect financial or business interests in another country…seeking or holding political office in the foreign country;â€
As columnist Phyllis Schlafly reminds us, “Dual citizenship is an oxymoron…One cannot truly be a citizen of two countries because ultimately loyalty cannot be divided.â€
Can any of Arnold’s apologists really guarantee that conflicts between his competing loyalties will not arise? And remember, according to the State Department, “dual nationals…are required to obey the laws of both countries.†Anyone who says this is a non-issue had better be able to reconcile Arnold’s own admission: “Without going into details, I can say that being half-Austrian and half-American, I don’t like the idea that these two countries that mean so much to me are in such a disagreement.â€
Why not go “into the details� Arnold wants us to give him tremendous political power—with such an apparent conflict, don’t “we the people†granting it to him deserve to know, including whose side he’d take?
But the more important question is: Why did Arnold hedge his bets and not renounce his native citizenship? That he could have things both ways, while the same dispensation would not be granted to less “important†Austrians is a given—the privileged operate by a different set of rules than we mortals. Why did he leave the option of being an Austrian—instead of an American—open? Hasn’t he been in this country long enough to make up his mind? Hasn’t he prospered here more han he could have anywhere else in the world? Doesn’t he want to govern Americans? Why hasn’t he made his commitment to this nation complete? Why hasn’t he honored the OATH he SWORE to “absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen�
What advantage does retaining the Austrian option give him?
------------------cont'd in next post
Schwarzenegger Wrong for Gun Owners, Wrong for California
By David Codrea
[email protected]
August 28, 2003
“Where else do gun owners have to go?â€â€”Former Republican Party National Chairman Lee Atwater
KeepAndBearArms.com -- In their zeal to rid California of the catastrophic Gray Davis and to prevent the equally loathsome Cruz Bustamante from assuming the governorship, the Golden State’s “centrist†Republican establishment has cast its lot with Arnold Schwarzenegger. On the surface, their reasoning is obvious. Famous, rich, successful, admired by millions, the superstar actor had but to cast his hat into the ring to command international attention and a multitude of star-struck followers—without ever defining where he stands on the issues beyond platitudes and sound bites.
Proving yet again how they value power over principle, the state GOP leadership has been quick to fall behind the Schwarzenegger campaign—and to discourage principled conservative candidates from running, while chastising their supporters not to “split the vote.†The alternative, they tell us, will be to retain Davis, or to give power to turncoat underling Bustamante, either of whom, they assure us, will be disastrous for California.
The problem is, a Schwarzenegger victory would be just as undesirable of an outcome for those who value liberty. Where gun owner concerns are reckoned, there is no difference between Arnold and his Democrat rivals. As far as the Republican machine is concerned, and their scare tactics prove it, the late chairman Atwater’s dismissal is still in full effect, and gun owners are once more being played for fools.
Arnold on guns
“Gun controls should be stiffer.â€â€”Arnold Schwarzenegger
Writer Paul Fischer quotes the action star recommending further citizen disarmament, beyond the thousands of draconian laws already on the books. This position is, of course, identical to the one promoted by Arnold’s Democrat opponents. But what does he mean by “stiffer�
"Arnold has said he supports sensible gun-control laws," campaign spokesman Rob Stutzman said. But what does Arnold mean by “sensible�
“n reality I'm for gun control,†Arnold is reported as saying in The Los Angeles Times. But what kind of “gun control�
According to the same Times article, “the perception of his support for gun control goes back to the early 1990s and was so well established that even California Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) thought of him as a possible ally when actor Charlton Heston testified against her bill to ban assault weapons in 1994. ‘Someone told me we could have gotten Arnold Schwarzenegger because he supports gun control,’ Feinstein was quoted as saying in a 1994 article in the San Francisco Examiner.â€
And COMTEX, the Canadian market news network, cites “Markus Guenther, an Austrian political commentator, [who] contends that Schwarzenegger is an improbable GOP candidate because of his liberal stance on key issues. ‘He supports…a ban on semiautomatic weapons,’ he said. ‘Except in the cinema, that is.’"
When asked by Sean Hannity if he supports "the Brady Bill or the 'assault weapons' ban or both," Schwarzennegger replied "Yes, I do [unintelligible] support that, and also I would like to close the loophole of the gun shows." He repeated that stance on "The Larry Elder Show," and added that he would also like to see laws for trigger locks.
Team Arnold
“Veteran director-producer Bud Yorkin, a liberal Democrat, said he wouldn't hesitate to vote for Schwarzenegger…â€â€”Claudia Eller, The Los Angeles Times
A man is known by the company he keeps, and a look at Arnold’s fellow travelers should quash any hope that they might provide counsel to moderate his unconstitutional anti-defense opinions.
· Warren Buffet: Billionaire socialist—just the guy to identify with the concerns of we, the little people, so naturally, he’s a rabid Democrat and Hillary supporter who doesn’t think you and I are taxed enough. He has also “donated heavily to unilateral nuclear disarmament,†demonstrating his rejection of armed defense as a principle.
· Pete Wilson: Former “moderate†Republican governor, which means he ignored his oath and approved edicts restricting CCW approvals, requiring guns imported into the state to be registered, banning certain ammunition sales to gun owners under 21, and criminalizing storage procedures which, when obeyed, resulted in horrible multiple pitchfork murders of children. Gun owners must never forget that it was on this Republican’s watch that gun confiscation began in California enforced by his attorney general.
· Maria Shriver: A Kennedy. A network talking head. Host of a biased, anti-gun documentary the same night Arnold’s “Eraser†(a movie featuring “good†federal agent Arnold saving the day through gun control) made its debut on network television. “The hard line of the NRA,†she told Charlton Heston, “is a complete loser."
· Rob Lowe: The self-designated “Raw Blow†of video-taped sex-with-minors notoriety, Lowe is another Democrat activist who signed a Handgun Control, Inc. “Open Letter to the NRA†published in USA Today, demanding, among other things: Preventing “minors†(presumably including those old enough to bed down) “unsupervised access to a firearmâ€; requiring locks to be sold with all handguns, taking the choice away from purchasers, and giving tactical advantage to attackers; requiring government permission to exercise your right to obtain firearms; requiring a “cooling off†period to purchase a handgun—even though an attacker or stalker may be all fired up right now; advocating “No one should be able to buy more than one handgun per month. The only people who need to buy more than twelve handguns per year are the professional gun traffickers who make a living reselling guns to children and criminalsâ€; and demanding “No more semi-automatic assault weapons. No more ammunition clips holding more than 10 rounds. We don’t need more killing power on our streets.â€
Arnold and the Constitutional militia
“I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers ... To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.â€â€”George Mason
Clearly, Schwarzenegger doesn’t have a clue about the meaning and nature of the Second Amendment. That, alone, should disqualify him from public office—or at least from getting one vote from gun owners who claim they believe in the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. Bottom line—he believes in gun control, and surrounds himself with people who validate his beliefs.
This from a candidate who, if elected, will be “commander in chief of a militia that shall be provided by statute. The Governor may call it forth to execute the law.†After he has used the force of edicts to disarm “the whole people†of the very arms suitable and necessary for militia service.
This from a candidate who, if elected, will take a solemn oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; [and to] bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California;â€
Speaking of foreign and domestic…
“I find it very interesting that an Austrian can influence American politics.†—Joerg Haider, Austrian politician.
There’s another oath Arnold took, back in 1983, when he became an American citizen:
"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."
But there’s a problem: Arnold apparently never really meant it (any more than he would the governor’s oath) and pulled strings with the Austrian government to retain his citizenship there, as well. This despite the fact that the government of Austria “n general… does not allow dual citizenship…Thus, if a person acquires US citizenship, he/she usually has to renounce the actual citizenship he/she is holding.â€
The problem reaches beyond Austrian law. According to Kurzban's Immigration Law Sourcebook, “The U.S. government has generally looked with disfavor on United States Citizens maintaining dual nationality.†Indeed, the US Department of State cautions that “dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country.â€
Furthermore, the State Department warns of “security clearance implications†when people in its employ hold dual citizenships, and while Arnold won’t be working for that agency, as governor he would be privy to classified information as it relates to coordinating “homeland security†in California. Among State’s concerns:
· “The evaluation element presented by dual citizenship is that it could raise an issue of possible divided loyalty to the United States.â€
· “If there is any doubt about unquestioned preference for and allegiance to the United States, unencumbered by any undue foreign influence, DS must render a determination in favor of the national security and determine that individual ineligible for access.â€
· “Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include:…the exercise of dual citizenship…military service or a willingness to bear arms for a foreign country [a requirement for all Austrian males] …using foreign citizenship to protect financial or business interests in another country…seeking or holding political office in the foreign country;â€
As columnist Phyllis Schlafly reminds us, “Dual citizenship is an oxymoron…One cannot truly be a citizen of two countries because ultimately loyalty cannot be divided.â€
Can any of Arnold’s apologists really guarantee that conflicts between his competing loyalties will not arise? And remember, according to the State Department, “dual nationals…are required to obey the laws of both countries.†Anyone who says this is a non-issue had better be able to reconcile Arnold’s own admission: “Without going into details, I can say that being half-Austrian and half-American, I don’t like the idea that these two countries that mean so much to me are in such a disagreement.â€
Why not go “into the details� Arnold wants us to give him tremendous political power—with such an apparent conflict, don’t “we the people†granting it to him deserve to know, including whose side he’d take?
But the more important question is: Why did Arnold hedge his bets and not renounce his native citizenship? That he could have things both ways, while the same dispensation would not be granted to less “important†Austrians is a given—the privileged operate by a different set of rules than we mortals. Why did he leave the option of being an Austrian—instead of an American—open? Hasn’t he been in this country long enough to make up his mind? Hasn’t he prospered here more han he could have anywhere else in the world? Doesn’t he want to govern Americans? Why hasn’t he made his commitment to this nation complete? Why hasn’t he honored the OATH he SWORE to “absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen�
What advantage does retaining the Austrian option give him?
------------------cont'd in next post