When you vote for Schwarzenegger you are his bitch, and this is why. A vote for Schwarzenegger is not a vote for an actor, or a politician, or a Republican, it is a vote for an ego. The ego pumped with steroids of a man that once boasted of receiving bj's while pumping iron to become "Mr. Olympia" in 1972. Yes, your vote is a bj to his ego while he pumps politics to become "Mr. Gobernator" 32 years later.

When You Vote For Schwarzenegger, You Vote for an Egomaniac

The reality is that Schwarzenegger doesn't care about you or me or California. He cares about power. Schwarzenegger thinks YOU are stupid: In Wendy Leigh's Arnold:TheUnauthorized Biography, Leigh says that Schwarzenegger sees himself as a "superman standing contemptuously above the stupid, dull herd that makes up the majority of the population."

This is what Schwarzenegger had to say on this subject: "I wanted to be part of the small percentage of people who were leaders, not the large mass of followers. I think it is because I saw leaders use 100 percent of their potential."…"I was always fascinated by people in control of other people."
http://www.ergogenics.org/arnold4.html

In other words, Arnold wants to be in control of YOUR life. If you vote for him, get ready to be his bitch.

When You Vote For Schwarzenegger, You Vote for a Racist

However, the man has serious problems that go beyond his ego. By now everybody knows that he is the son of a Nazi; both conservatives and liberals for their own reasons dismissed this piece of information saying that "the son is not responsible for his father’s behavior". But what if the son inherits the racist ideology of the Nazi father?

By now there is enough evidence to affirm that Schwarzenegger is, if not a Nazi sympathizer, a racist.

Former Mr. Universe, Rick Wayne said in a recent interview with ABC that Schwarzenegger defended the apartheid system and argued that white South Africans could not turn power over to black South Africans without ruining the nation. According to Wayne, this is what Schwarzenegger said on the subject:
"If you gave these blacks a country to run, they would run it down the tubes."
(http://www.drudgereport.com/matt1.htm)

But the son of a Nazi officer has not only spoken against blacks but also against Latinos as well. Saul Landau reports:
"A Mexican American friend told me she had watched a Spanish language reporter ask Arnold in early August if his vote for Prop 187 would hurt his electoral chances. She recalls his reply as: You Latins make great music. Keep making great music and leave the politics to me." (http://www.counterpunch.org/landau08302003.html)

In other words, according to Schwarzenegger blacks are inferior and Latinos are only good to play music, but he, the superior human being from the Aryan race was born to be above the masses and be the master of the subhuman races.

Although Schwarzenegger denies being a Nazi sympathizer, a March 1992 Spy Magazine article mentions a story confirmed by "a businessman and longtime friend of Schwarzenegger's" -- that in the '70s Arnold "enjoyed playing and giving away records of Hitler's speeches."

The same article said:
"There is also the allegation of Arnold's having said on-camera, during the filming of "Pumping Iron" (1977) by director George Butler, that he "admired" Hitler. (http://www.s-t.com/daily/12-96/12-25-96/c06ae100.htm)

And although pumping iron is not a crime, in "Gender and Race in Media" professor Robin Larsen has seen the connection between bodybuilding and racism. Larsen says:
"By making them heavily muscled, the new white male is explained as superior biologically, and as transcendent in the sense of having a large spirit. What do these muscled images in media texts do?
1. Encourage white politics, like the Aryan Nation prison gang, neo- Nazism, militias.
2. Encourage bodybuilding as a means of white males combating increasing multiraciality in the U.S. population, fostering consumption relating to the body, and countering "exotic barbarians."
3. Foster admiration of the white male body as statue with an armored surface that is separate, classic, protected, disciplined, un-aging."


When You Vote For Schwarzenegger, You Vote for a Sexist and a Sexual Abuser

Schwarzenegger is a serial harasser and his disrespect for women is recounted in an article by Los Angeles Times. Here is a summary of the article:
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2003-10/02/content_1109690.htm

When You Vote For Schwarzenegger, You Vote for Apartheid

Finally, the question that nobody dares to ask. How is it possible that in a state like California where non white immigrants are now the MAJORITY a white Austrian-American can become a governor of the state while Asian-Americans, Latinos, Native Americans, and African-Americans cannot rule their own destiny?

How many Austrian-Americans are there in California?
84,959, or 0.3% of the population of California.

How many Latinos are there in California?
10.8 million, or 32% of the population of California.

For every Austrian-American in California, there are 127 Latinos!

If Schwarzenegger is elected governor of California, WELCOME TO SOUTH AFRICA under the regime of apartheid ruled by a white master!

On September 15th, Robbie Robinson, an African American former bodybuilder, was interviewed on the radio program Democracy Now! about how Schwarzenegger used the N word repeatedly in a racist harrangue that was specifically aimed at humiliating him, the only African American in the room. That story can be listened to in the DN! archives at:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/09/15/1450243&mode=thread&tid=26

This is the same Robbie Robinson whose former wife has come forward recently to describe how Schwarzenegger sexually assaulted her on the day following her wedding to Robinson, in full view of Robinson and a roomful of other bodybuilders.

In the 12 years of the Reagan/Bush administrations, the United States went from being the world's largest creditor nation to the world's largest debtor. Many of those nations which had enjoyed huge trade surpluses started loaning that profit back to the United States with the stipulation that we work on our manufacturing, clean up our infrastructure, raise taxes, in short, clean up our act, so that investment in America makes sense!

However, we didn't quite do that.
There has been some shuffling around to try to conceal the real scope of the problem. Over the last several years, the Federal Government has been sending less tax money back to the states than it takes in in taxes. This means that the states have to borrow MORE money to cover their obligations. The net result is that the debt is being transferred to the states, to conceal its true size. The government will easily admit to a $3 trillion "publicly held" debt, grudgingly concede that it's "unfunded liability" brings that number to almost $7 trillion, but the real hard truth is that total government debt, state and federal, is now over $14 trillion dollars, or about 50,000 for every man, woman, and child inside the United States. Since 1960, the taxpayers have shelled out $15 trillion in interest payments alone, while the principal continues to rise.

Yet another stunt the government has pulled is to "borrow" from the various trust funds under its control. Some $2 billion has vanished from the trust accounts of Native Americans (presently suing the Departments of the Interior and Treasury), and nearly ¾ of a TRILLION dollars has been removed from your Social Security retirement trust fund and spent in the last 8 years.

If the government has to borrow your retirement money when things are supposed to be so good, under what conditions can it repay the money? Or is that government IOU in your retirement account merely a promise to either tax you a second time or stiff you on the benefits you thought you were paying for?

In the last 8 years, during what are supposed to be record setting good times, the Federal government has nearly DOUBLED its debt load. The estimated interest on the debt equals all the personal income tax paid by all Americans. Our government is so deep in debt that it cannot get out.
This brings us to the issue of collateral. We've borrowed so much money the lenders are getting nervous. Back during the Johnson administration Charles DeGaulle demanded the United States collateralize the loans owed to France in gold and started carting out the bullion from the treasury. This caused several other nations to demand the same and President Nixon had to slam the gold window closed or the treasury would have been emptied, since the United States was even then in debt for more money than the treasury could cover in gold.

In the 12 years of the Reagan/Bush administrations, the United States went from being the world's largest creditor nation to the world's largest debtor. Many of those nations which had enjoyed huge trade surpluses started loaning that profit back to the United States with the stipulation that we work on our manufacturing, clean up our infrastructure, raise taxes, in short, clean up our act, so that investment in America makes sense!

However, we didn't quite do that.
There has been some shuffling around to try to conceal the real scope of the problem. Over the last several years, the Federal Government has been sending less tax money back to the states than it takes in in taxes. This means that the states have to borrow MORE money to cover their obligations. The net result is that the debt is being transferred to the states, to conceal its true size. The government will easily admit to a $3 trillion "publicly held" debt, grudgingly concede that it's "unfunded liability" brings that number to almost $7 trillion, but the real hard truth is that total government debt, state and federal, is now over $14 trillion dollars, or about 50,000 for every man, woman, and child inside the United States. Since 1960, the taxpayers have shelled out $15 trillion in interest payments alone, while the principal continues to rise.

Yet another stunt the government has pulled is to "borrow" from the various trust funds under its control. Some $2 billion has vanished from the trust accounts of Native Americans (presently suing the Departments of the Interior and Treasury), and nearly ¾ of a TRILLION dollars has been removed from your Social Security retirement trust fund and spent in the last 8 years.

If the government has to borrow your retirement money when things are supposed to be so good, under what conditions can it repay the money? Or is that government IOU in your retirement account merely a promise to either tax you a second time or stiff you on the benefits you thought you were paying for?

In the last 8 years, during what are supposed to be record setting good times, the Federal government has nearly DOUBLED its debt load. The estimated interest on the debt equals all the personal income tax paid by all Americans. Our government is so deep in debt that it cannot get out.
This brings us to the issue of collateral. We've borrowed so much money the lenders are getting nervous. Back during the Johnson administration Charles DeGaulle demanded the United States collateralize the loans owed to France in gold and started carting out the bullion from the treasury. This caused several other nations to demand the same and President Nixon had to slam the gold window closed or the treasury would have been emptied, since the United States was even then in debt for more money than the treasury could cover in gold.

In the 12 years of the Reagan/Bush administrations, the United States went from being the world's largest creditor nation to the world's largest debtor. Many of those nations which had enjoyed huge trade surpluses started loaning that profit back to the United States with the stipulation that we work on our manufacturing, clean up our infrastructure, raise taxes, in short, clean up our act, so that investment in America makes sense!

However, we didn't quite do that.
There has been some shuffling around to try to conceal the real scope of the problem. Over the last several years, the Federal Government has been sending less tax money back to the states than it takes in in taxes. This means that the states have to borrow MORE money to cover their obligations. The net result is that the debt is being transferred to the states, to conceal its true size. The government will easily admit to a $3 trillion "publicly held" debt, grudgingly concede that it's "unfunded liability" brings that number to almost $7 trillion, but the real hard truth is that total government debt, state and federal, is now over $14 trillion dollars, or about 50,000 for every man, woman, and child inside the United States. Since 1960, the taxpayers have shelled out $15 trillion in interest payments alone, while the principal continues to rise.

Yet another stunt the government has pulled is to "borrow" from the various trust funds under its control. Some $2 billion has vanished from the trust accounts of Native Americans (presently suing the Departments of the Interior and Treasury), and nearly ¾ of a TRILLION dollars has been removed from your Social Security retirement trust fund and spent in the last 8 years.

If the government has to borrow your retirement money when things are supposed to be so good, under what conditions can it repay the money? Or is that government IOU in your retirement account merely a promise to either tax you a second time or stiff you on the benefits you thought you were paying for?

In the last 8 years, during what are supposed to be record setting good times, the Federal government has nearly DOUBLED its debt load. The estimated interest on the debt equals all the personal income tax paid by all Americans. Our government is so deep in debt that it cannot get out.
This brings us to the issue of collateral. We've borrowed so much money the lenders are getting nervous. Back during the Johnson administration Charles DeGaulle demanded the United States collateralize the loans owed to France in gold and started carting out the bullion from the treasury. This caused several other nations to demand the same and President Nixon had to slam the gold window closed or the treasury would have been emptied, since the United States was even then in debt for more money than the treasury could cover in gold.

The REAL solution, Bush Admirer, is to GROW taxes and cut BUSH parasite government and all vampires around both REPUBLICANS and DEMOCRATS.

next...
put all these bastards in a cool jail eternally.
...and lost the key...

Yeah! Let's increase taxes and watch more industry leave the state.

Let them go.
There are others hungry to fill their place and even pay fair taxes to
support the local areas they do busness with. They can move to South Carolina. Lots of wealth there to exploit. Or maybe Ohio.

I couldn't have been more shocked to see the lurid stories about Arnold Schwarzenegger and the things several women allege he uttered or did to them. But it wasn't over the allegations, which I had read much of in a magazine before. I was most shocked at the Los Angeles Times.

Some politicos dub the Thursday before a big election "Dirty Tricks Thursday." That's the best day for an opponent to unload his bag of filth against another candidate, getting maximum headlines, while giving his stunned opponent no time to credibly investigate or respond to the charges.

It creates a Black Friday, where the candidate spends a precious business day right before the election desperately investigating the accusations, before facing a weekend in which reporters only care about further accusations that invariably spill out of the woodwork.

Dirty Tricks Thursday is not used by the media to sink a campaign.

Yet the Times managed to give every appearance of trying to do so. It's nothing short of journalistic malpractice when a paper mounts a last-minute attack that can make or break one of the most important elections in California history. The Times looked even more biased by giving two different reasons for publishing its gruesome article at the last minute.

Now, there's no time left before the election to separate fact from fiction regarding incidents that happened as long as 20 and 30 years ago.

I should disclose here that I know one of Schwarzenegger's accusers. She is a friendly acquaintance. I have no idea whether she was actually man-handled.

Is it possible that my acquaintance told friends a tall tale, after meeting Schwarzenegger, because back then it made a young woman terribly exotic if one of the hottest beefcakes in the world wouldn't keep his paws off you?

I have no idea.

Or, could she be telling the truth?

I have no idea.

And neither does the Los Angeles Times.

If the Times were a tabloid, this would hardly matter. But the newspaper is influential at times, and claims it has high standards. In this case, the paper gave in to its bias against Schwarzenegger:

Here's my proof:

Since at least 1997, the Times has been sitting on information that Gov. Gray Davis is an "office batterer" who has attacked female members of his staff, thrown objects at subservients and launched into red-faced fits, screaming the f-word until staffers cower.

I published a lengthy article on Davis and his bizarre dual personality at the now-defunct New Times Los Angeles on Nov. 27, 1997, as well as several articles with similar information later on.

The Times was onto the story, too, and we crossed paths. My article, headlined "Closet Wacko Vs. Mega Fibber," detailed how Davis flew into a rage one day because female staffers had rearranged framed artwork on the walls of his office.

He so violently shoved his loyal, 62-year-old secretary out of a doorway that she suffered a breakdown and refused to ever work in the same room with him. She worked at home, in an arrangement with state officials, then worked in a separate area where she was promised Davis would not go. She finally transferred to another job, desperate to avoid him.

He left a message on her phone machine. Not an apology. Just a request that she resume work, with the comment, "You know how I am."

Another woman, a policy analyst, had the unhappy chore in the mid-1990s of informing Davis that a fund-raising source had dried up. When she told Davis, she recounted, Davis began screaming the f-word at the top of his lungs.

The woman stood to demand that he stop speaking that way, and, she says, Davis grabbed her by her shoulders and "shook me until my teeth rattled. I was so stunned I said, 'Good God, Gray! Stop and look at what you are doing. Think what you are doing to me!"'

After my story ran, I waited for the Times to publish its story. It never did. When I spoke to a reporter involved, he said editors at the Times were against attacking a major political figure using anonymous sources.

Just what they did last week to Schwarzenegger.

Weeks ago, Times editors sent two teams of reporters to dig dirt on Schwarzenegger, one on his admitted use of steroids as a bodybuilder, one on the old charges of groping women from Premiere Magazine.

Who did the editors assign, weeks ago, to investigate Davis' violence against women who work for him?

Nobody.

The paper's protection of Davis is proof, on its face, of gross bias. If Schwarzenegger is elected governor, it should be no surprise if Times reporters judge him far more harshly than they ever judged Davis.