Over the past few weeks I’ve received e-mail notifications labeled “Urgent!” regarding pending antigun legislation in California. I’ve been requested to write, call, fax and email my state assembly representative and committee chairman, before it is too late, and tell them I do not support these measures. I’ve not noted the name of my local representative, or the titles of the measure because, in fact, for the state of California it may be too late to matter. We are on the verge of installing the most antigun leadership ever to preside over the most antigun state assembly in the history of California.
The legislative alerts were not all I received, there were also three requests from the NRA for contributions to help them “keep up the fight”, and a copy of the 2004 NRA Merchandise catalogue in case I wanted to purchase overpriced and unattractive T Shirts and other NRA paraphernalia. What I did not receive was a call to action in the election of a new governor, or an NRA endorsement of a candidate, or even an overview of the candidates. At a time when California is writing antigun legislation and executive administrative controls at a record rate, why would the NRA duck the most obvious fight they should be waging? The answer is, as always, money.
The NRA has become a wonderful money machine fueled by membership contributions, running for the benefit of its leadership, and fed by what the NRA believes to be a politically and socially a broad cross section of constituents. Therefore, if the NRA takes a position on the recall, or the election of a candidate, the action might alienate some people and cause a loss of membership revenue. So in a state where it is mandatory to purchase gun locks that don’t work, where we are required to tolerate long waiting periods for after purchase pickup, where there are tons of local bans and prohibitions, where special taxes on guns and ammunition are common place, where public schools teach antigun philosophy, and where city states that block the operation of gun stores and pressure the closure of firing ranges – the NRA can’t decide between a candidate who is a life long proven supporter of the Second Amendment and five openly and committed antigun candidates. Anyone who watched the California Recall debates only had to listen to the response to the specific question regarding gun ownership to arrive at a conclusion that seems to elude the NRA.
The candidates in general march lock step in support of: massive illegal immigration, unbudgeted and unfunded universal healthcare, increased discriminatory sales taxes, huge income tax increases for the folks who pay currently pay 40% of California’s tax bill, an increase in tuition at state schools to offset those attending classes free of charge, and an increase in property taxes and an end to Prop 13. Their collective slogan, “We need more money”. California’s population has increased by 22% while tax revenue has increased by 24%; almost perfect. Unfortunately, during the same period, spending increased by 40% and the rate is climbing. We are quickly approaching a point where more than half the population of California does not pay taxes at all, and that half gets to vote to decide how much more the other half will pay.
Cruz M. Bustamante has indicated his primary goal is to harness the power of minority groups to insure their will is expressed through legislation and policy, at the exclusion of all others. I find this goal offensive, racist and in violation of the oath of office he took as Lieutenant Governor. How would anyone consider voting for anyone this far to the left of even Gray Davis, especially when he is guilty of possessing the same major character flaws as Davis. Bustamante couldn’t even survive a campaign for office without being bought and paid for by special interest groups that have openly exchanged multi million dollar payments for future favor.
Bustamante is one of the growing number of politicians thriving on divisiveness and perpetuation of separatism, the type that are causing America to move from a “great melting pot” mentality to a collection of foreign settlements. In his vision, one part of our society deserves free education for their children at leading universities, while the other is left explaining to their children why they can’t attend a decent school. One part of our society deserves loan subsidies to assure the purchase of that American dream house, while another contingency gets to live in an apartment for the greater part of their adult life. One group gets preferential treatment in the award of government contracts and in employment, the other is left to try to figure out how to overcome the unfair bias. Mr. Bustamante doesn’t see the problem.
Not only is Schwarzenegger an antigun candidate, the body of work he has produced as an actor is one of the worst misrepresentation of firearms that could be burned into the collective consciousness of the public. Stupid stories, ridiculous settings, vigilante themes that cause the uninformed to believe this is the purpose and use of firearms. He supports continued bands on firearms carrying the invented term “assault weapons” and he wants further legislation to control gun show “loop holes”, an expression I am sure he could not further define outside of that sound bite, in fact, I am quite certain the depth of his knowledge ends with his public statements. Is he a bad person? Probably not, I think he has made a sincere effort to help children and I think he is deservedly proud of this work. But I also believe he is a social liberal who wants to be all things to all people he believes are in need, while abandoning fair treatment for those who wish to be independent and take care of themselves and family. He has addressed his lack of understanding of government by surrounding himself with people of exceptional wealth who have agendas very similar to the current governor.
Peter Ueberroth is a good man, but he has a narrow focus. He is well equipped to deal with the obvious fiscal issues that are currently harming California, and he understand the dynamics of the role of business in the state’s ability to operate. He openly indicates he has no posture on some of the more controversial social issues, and I believe this is a sincere representation, but this is not a time for any leader of the state to not see these issues as having a great impact on the state. He stated he saw no immediate need for increased gun control legislation, but this wasn’t stated with conviction, so I am not sure how quickly that opinion would be dealt away in exchange for concessions to benefit business or tax reduction.
Arriana Huffington? Outside of ruining her husband’s political career by declaring her membership in the “Channeling Church of What’s Happening Now” and her penchant for having tea parties with pets during his campaign for office, what has this woman ever done? She indicates she has seen the needs of the children, the needs of the poor, the needs of the immigrant, the needs of education – and they will all be her first priority to address when she is governor. I would assume she saw these needs first hand by watching her Brentwood housekeeper’s family, or by looking through the window of her Fox network provided limo, on her way to her paid consulting gig with that network.
Tom McClintock was the only candidate in the debates who didn’t participate in name calling, spoke with specificity regarding problems, solutions and his positions on all. He was the only candidate that wasn’t an embarrassment, didn’t speak in slogans and didn’t pander to the trend posture of the day. In regard to firearms and second amendment issues, he believes everyone has a right to own a firearm and the right to self defense. He wants to repeal the glut of bad legislation that was put into place over the past 5 years or so. And if you look at his long political career and voting history, you’ll find a politician who hasn’t been changing his belief system for every election.
McClintock supports school vouchers, he supports a woman’s right to choose but is against partial birth abortion, he is against any new taxes and took a “no new tax” pledge. He is for legal immigration, he is staunchly against illegal immigration, he is against large government, he is against the use of public schools as systems of government indoctrination, he is for the reduction of business overhead costs mandated by universal health care, he is against the triple cost of California’s workmen’s compensation insurance, he is against overtime after 8 hour rather than overtime pay over 40 hours, he is for a repeal of almost every expenditure that was put in place after an outrageous budget based solely on a technology industry bubble that generated single year exaggerated tax revenue, and has long since gone away.
I have deep concerns with the NRA. What part of McClintock’s platform does the NRA find so objectionable that would cause them to not support the ONLY pro gun candidate running for office of Governor ? Is the NRA against school vouchers, for partial birth abortion or for illegal immigration? Do they think we should pay greater taxes or issue drivers licenses and voting privileges to non-citizens? I want to know because I want to understand who I am funding as a member of the NRA. I do not wish to support any organization that condones these things. In addition, the NRA’s posture reflects sheer stupidity, unless that have already written off gun ownership in a future California, and they are just collecting the last of the state’s membership payments. If anyone other than McClintock takes office there will be such a flurry of new antigun bills submitted, no group will be able to stem the tide.
The press wishes to narrow the race to Gray Davis, Bustamante and Schwarzenegger, because the political powers in California believe they will be able to easily discredit Schwarzenegger at the last minute, and insure the preservation of Davis as governor or the election of Bustamante. And if I vote for McClintock and he loses? At least I’ll know I didn’t install the man who ended gun ownership and personal freedom in the state of California. Please vote for McClintock if you wish to perpetuate gun ownership. Don’t let the other side cause you to back away from this fight. Don’t be afraid to stand up for what’s right, don’t become the NRA.
Am I suggesting abandoning the NRA and not responding to calls to action in regard to pending antigun legislation and city ordinances? Not at all. I hold both a personal and business NRA membership and the NRA need to be supported, but I also wouldn’t be shy about voicing disapproval and disappointment to NRA leadership. They need to take a leadership role in helping to get the correct vote out and getting the right person in office.
Thanks
Joe
Email Notification