Clint Eastwood: I'm A Libertarian

NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY 2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100 Washington DC 20037 ----------------------------------------- For release: February 18, 1997 ----------------------------------------- For additional information: George Getz, Deputy Director of Communications Phone: (202) 333-0008 Ext. 222 -----------------------------------------

WASHINGTON, DC -- Watch out liberals and conservatives -- Dirty Harry is a libertarian.

In an interview in the March issue, the Oscar-winning actor and director candidly affiliated himself with the growing libertarian movement when he was asked: "How would you characterize yourself poli- tically?"

The laconic Eastwood answered, "Libertarian" -- and then went on to explain the philosophy in simple terms: "Everyone leaves everyone else alone."

He also took a swipe at the Republicans and Democrats, noting that neither of those political parties "seems to have the ability to embrace that sort of thing."

"Talk about making my day," said the Libertarian Party's National Director, Perry Willis. "Having Clint Eastwood declare him- self a libertarian is better than a fistful of dollars. We hope his announcement will have a sudden impact on the public's awareness of the libertarian philosophy -- and the Libertarian Party, too."

However, voters shouldn't expect to see "Dirty Harry For President" bumperstickers appearing soon; Eastwood flatly rejected a career in politics. "Being a politician is about the last thing I'd want to do," he said. "It's a lot of work and a lot of frustra- tion."

But if the star of the new movie "Absolute Power" ever changes his mind, Willis says he'd love to sit down and talk to him.

"If Mr. Eastwood ever decides to join the Libertarian Party or seek public office on our ticket, we'd be happy to discuss with him how that could advance the cause of liberty in America," he said. "Until that time, however, we're delighted that he's on our side philosophi- cally."

The 66-year-old Eastwood has been an increasingly outspoken critic of government abuse in recent months -- echoing the Libertarian Party's criticisms of the federal government's role in the bloodbath at Waco, Texas, and the shooting of Randy Weaver's family at Ruby Ridge, Idaho.

In an essay he wrote for the January 12, 1997 issue of Parade Magazine, Eastwood noted: "Abuse of power isn't limited to bad guys in other nations. It happens in our own country if we're not vigilant."

For example, he wrote: "At Waco, was there really an urgency to get those people out of the compound at that particular time? Was the press going to make it look heroic for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms? At Ruby Ridge, there was one guy in a cabin at the top of the mountain. Was it necessary for federal agents to go up there and shoot a 14-year-old in the back and shoot a woman with a child in her arms? What kind of mentality does that?"

And Eastwood displayed a keen cynicism about the lure of political power. "Those in power get jaded, deluded, and seduced by power itself," he wrote. "The hunger for absolute power and, more to the point, the abuse of power, are part of human nature."

Eastwood joins a growing number of individuals in the entertainment industry who have identified themselves as libertarians. Included on that list are TV star John Laroquette, humorist Dave Barry, author P.J. O'Rourke, movie actor Russell Means, magician Jillette Penn, author Camille Paglia, TV reporter John Stossell, and comedian Dennis Miller.

Since 1954, Eastwood has appeared in dozens of movies and become one of the leading box office draws in the world. His films include "A Fistful of Dollars" (1964), "Dirty Harry" (1971),"Any Which Way You Can" (1980), "In the Line of Fire" (1993), and "The Bridges of Madison County" (1995). His 1992 Wester"n Unforgiven" earned him Oscars for Best Picture and Best Director. His one foray into politics was as mayor of Carmel, California, from 1986-1988.

George Soros: Anti-Gunner Who Would Remake America

George Soros has made an immense fortune manipulating international stock and currency markets. Over the past few years the Hungarian-born billionaire has used that fortune to become a preeminent funding source for global gun control. Directly and through his organization Open Society Institute (OSI), he has funneled cash to various anti-gun groups, such as the Tides Foundation, the HELP Network and SAFE Colorado. He and seven rich friends founded their own political committee--Campaign for a Progressive Future--and spent $2 million on political activities in 2000, including providing the prime financial backing for the Million Mom March. OSI has supported UN efforts to create international gun control regulations and has singled out the United States for failing to go along with the international gun-prohibitionists.

Soros has worked to combine with other wealthy activists and foundations to provide funding for numerous anti-gun projects. Soros and the Irene Diamond Foundation made equal $5 million contributions to form the Funders` Collaborative for Gun Violence Prevention. This organization has provided funding to the anti-gun Harvard Injury Control Center and has helped bankroll reckless lawsuits designed to cripple the firearms industry. OSI and the Funders` Collaborative (using money largely supplied by Soros) was the primary funding source for the plaintiffs in Hamilton v. Accu-tek and in NAACP v. ACUSPORT Inc. OSI provided $300,000 to the plaintiffs` lawyers in the Hamilton case and provided a grant identified as between $100,000 and $499,000 in the NAACP case.

When Soros and OSI decided to start spending great sums of money on anti-gun research and advocacy, they went in search of an experienced activist to guide the effort. Soros came up with Rebecca Peters, a central figure in disarming the people of Australia, and a leader in the effort to ban all handguns and most long guns. Under Peters` direction, OSI soon released "Gun Control in The United States." This strikingly simplistic evaluation of gun laws in the 50 states purposefully ignored federal firearms laws and arbitrarily awarded various point values to each state that has imposed gun control restrictions favored by the group.

Such restrictions include, for example, compact handgun prohibitions, gun registration and gun owner licensing, various gun sale regulations and gun storage requirements. States that do not allow local jurisdictions to impose gun laws more restrictive than state law are penalized in the Society`s point system. States that prohibit the filing of junk lawsuits against the firearm industry are also penalized, as are states that do not duplicate the federal age requirement for possessing a handgun.

Out of a maximum of 100 points possible in OSI`s point system, only seven states received scores above 30%. The other 43 states, OSI claims, "lack even `basic gun control laws` [and therefore] fall below minimum standards for public safety." Twenty-three of the supposedly sub-standard states got scores of zero or below. You would never know this is a country with more than 20,000 gun laws.

The plain truth, of course, is that the "particular regulatory measures" we know as "gun control" are absolute failures in the war on crime. Case in point: the average violent crime rate of the seven states whose gun laws OSI believes best is 21% higher than the average rate for the 43 states OSI believes are "below minimum standards for public safety." Of the 10 states that have the lowest violent crime rates in America, eight received scores of zero or below, and the Society`s favorite state, Massachusetts, has a violent crime rate five times higher than its least favorite state, Maine.

In addition to his efforts to undermine the Second Amendment rights of Americans, Soros has spent over two decades trying to influence the political and social development in various parts of the world, particularly the nations of the former Soviet bloc. In the United States, Soros has given many millions of dollars to finance pro-marijuana initiative campaigns. He has been called "the Daddy Warbucks of drug legalization," by former Democratic Cabinet Member Joseph Califano.

Soros is now using his fortune to not only to unseat President George Bush, but also to challenge the United States` role in the world. The aging billionaire has decided to use his fortune to remake America as he thinks it should be. And he is spending loads of cash to do it. Soros has obscenely likened President Bush to Hitler and his administration to Nazi Germany and has described the United States as "a danger to the world." To promote such slanders, he has committed $5 million to the strongly anti-Bush group MoveOn, and has promised $10 million to a new liberal activist group America Coming Together (ACT). These groups are focused not only on defeating George Bush in 2004, but on achieving vast social change in America which would include the dismantling of Second Amendment rights. He has declared that he intends to raise and spend $75 million dollars to oust Bush and force a "regime change" in America.

Soros is intent on making American sovereignty subject to international will. He calls America`s actions to protect its citizens from terrorism as "supremacist." In its place he would have the U.S. adopt the "Soros doctrine." Under the Soros doctrine, U.S. interests would be replaced by international "collective action." His support for international gun bans fits hand in glove with his vision of an America subservient to an international collective will.

With his vast fortune to bankroll his activities, it is clear that Soros wants not only to be the king-maker, but to set American policies to his liking in a nation remade to suit his extremist vision.

Soros` decision to spend tens of millions of dollars to influence the 2004 election flies in the face of his earlier crusades against the use of "soft" money in political campaigns. Over the past seven years, Soros has donated close to $7 million dollars to efforts to reform campaign finance laws. Now he is spending tens of millions in "soft" money political ads to influence the 2004 election. This hypocrisy has drawn the condemnation not only of political foes, but of former ally Fred Werthiemer, the former Common Cause director, who now says "we`ll be watch-dogging him closely."

Soros sees the defeat of George Bush as "a matter of life and death," and is as dedicated to that goal as he has been to eliminating our Second Amendment rights. He has already spent $15.5 million in this new quest and has stated "If necessary, I would give more money."

nraila.org

2) Open borders (no visas, no passports, come one, come all)

I personally disagree with this and think many other libs do to.

3) No abortion laws

This is the most hotly debated topic among libertarians. Abortion is the symptom, not the problem. You need a constitutional amendment to define who a person is. Personally, I am pro-life and as libertarian as they come.

4) No war on terrorism

I don't believe in fighting other country's wars for them but if someone wants to go to war with the US, I would prefer the fighting take place on a foreign land.

5) Same sex / any sex unions

I don't care who sleeps with who. I see marriage as more of a civil issue, but I think in keeping with legal tradition, we should stick to the marriage, as legally defined, being kept to 1 man and 1 woman. I support legal constructs in civil courts to accommodate other arrangements.

6) The right of a child to declare adulthood

This more or less already happens and I support that states have a process for emancipating minors. When kids get to the age where you can't physically control them, then I would just as soon be able to make them responsible for themselves. In short, libertarians seem to be supporting the status quo here.

So cinFLA, am I to assume you are someone who subscribes to the faux political philosophy termed conservative? Are you a member of the hypocritical RP? You know, the one that says we believe in states rights but threatens to withhold funds if they don't tow the federal line? The one that says it's for smaller govt yet grows it bigger than even the dems? Libertarians have honest disagreements among themselves but we always measure our policy statements in how much liberty they provide for the individual. At least we say what we mean and mean what we say. As for republicans, they'll sit back and light up a cigarette, crack open a can of Old Milwaukee and claim that drug users ought to be locked up for life. How does it feel to be such a pious hypocrite? Personally, I would not be able to look myself in the mirror.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.