Carly Fiorina gave her opening statement first, describing herself as someone who has “lived the American dream” before opening up on Boxer, questioning her record as a United States Senator and referencing the high unemployment rates that have lingered despite Democrats’ best efforts. Boxer returned fire by questioning Fiorina’s record at HP, asserting that the former CEO was directly responsible for shifting American business to foreign countries. It would be a recurring theme for the Senator throughout the night.

In response to the first question of the night, which questioned extending the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, Fiorina rightly corrected the common misconception that the Bush tax cuts were only for “the wealthiest Americans”. In point of fact, the Bush tax cuts were for all Americans, removing many low-income earners from the tax rolls entirely and giving middle class families a break that was proportionally larger than the cuts for the wealthy. Using a Tax Foundation study as his basis, Wall Street Journal contributor John D. McKinnon notes the positive impact on the middle class of extending the Bush tax cuts, writing, “the typical savings for middle-income families from extending the Bush breaks would be $1,540”. [1]While Boxer reaffirmed her stance against extending the tax cuts for the “wealthiest Americans”, Fiorina questioned the wisdom of raising taxes on anyone in a severe recession, particularly the numerous job-creating small business that fall into Boxer’s “wealthiest” category. It should be noted that according to a recent survey of economists conducted by the National Association for Business Economics, “fifty-four percent of those surveyed… favored extending the current [individual income tax] rates”, while 60% also “said lower tax rates on capital gains and dividends should not be allowed to expire as provided under current law”. [2]It would seem that on the question of taxation, the economists are on Carly’s side.

Next came Iraq, at which time Boxer defended her record on National Defense, saying she voted for the troops “85% of the time” and calling for timetables in Afghanistan. Fiorina shot back that Boxer’s argument was a case of “rhetoric versus reality”, and that Boxer had voted against body armor for the troops, extended family leave, and other necessities for our fighting men and women. The Republican challenger seemed to suggest the novel idea that a United States Senator should be behind the United States Military 100% of the time.

On the question of illegal immigration, there was a rare moment of agreement on the DREAM Act, a bipartisan item of legislation by Senator Orin Hatch (R-UT) and Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) that would provide for a “six-year long conditional path to citizenship” [3]for undocumented children. Fiorina voiced her opposition to amnesty for illegal immigrants, her support of a secure border, and her strong support for a viable guest worker program that would allow a streamlined process for working in the United States without becoming a citizen. Boxer focused her response on comprehensive immigration reform, but was unable to explain away an action that may hurt her in Hispanic constituencies. Boxer had cast the vote that killed a previous attempt at a guest worker program.

While Boxer attacked Fiorina for a Wall Street mentality, Fiorina shot back that it was Boxer who voted for the Wall Street bailout and had received vast sums of money in campaign contributions from Wall Street executives. The incumbent returned fire over Fiorina’s lack of support for Wall Street Reform, who responded that the way to fix a situation where 20 agencies were “asleep at the switch” is not to “create a new agency”.

In response to repeated attacks on her record at HP, Fiorina responded that during her time as CEO the company doubled its size, tripled its innovation, and quintupled its cash flow, while the company stock outperformed its index. Undeterred, Boxer continued to slam the former exec for “sending 30,000 jobs overseas”.

The intensity did not lessen in the slightest as the debate moved to social issues, and the candidates traded blows first over gay marriage, with Barbara Boxer advocating marriage rights for gays and Fiorina stopping short of the same, calling instead for civil unions. Both candidates support the repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.

It was abortion, however, that drew the line of the night. Describing Fiorina’s pro-life views, Boxer took fear-mongering to new heights (excuse me, new lows) by charging that “women would die” if Fiorina’s views were enacted, meaning if the abortion issue went to the states.

Late in the debate, a viewer-originated question shifted the focus to Boxer’s recent refusal to help farmers in California’s central valley. Environmental regulations designed to protect a small fish generated an artificial drought in the central valley, adversely affecting many of the large and family farms that rely on the water supply for their livelihoods. Even in her position as chairwoman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Boxer refused to turn the water back on, and in fact voted against a measure that would have gotten the ball rolling for California’s hard-hit farmers.

On the whole, both candidates approached Wednesday night’s debate with a sort of cool hostility. While it led to more personal attacks than in-depth discussion, it did allow for valuable comparisons of the candidates’ records and a broad back and forth on the most important issues facing the state and the nation.

Without a doubt, both women proved themselves to be effective debaters. On the issues, however, it is the admittedly biased opinion of this observer that the Republican won the night. Quoting the challenger, “we can turn our nation around”. Here’s hoping Ms. Fiorina is a part of doing so.

[2] http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2010/08/30/nabe-survey-most-economists-favor-extending-bush-tax-cuts/?KEYWORDS=bush+tax+cuts

[3] http://dreamact.info/

Co-editor in Chief Andrew Soluk recently sat down with Mr. LaBonge to discuss local issues, particularly those affecting teens in Los Angeles.

The Bush Debacle

Our Senator began her mission to stand up to the war-mongering and interventionist policies of the Bush regime almost entirely alone.  When her party still cow-towed to the demands of the increasingly irresponsible Republican-controlled Senate in the early years of George Bush’s presidency, Boxer reminded the Senate that it was not they who would pay the price for war, but the American people. [1] Even in 2008, when Bush’s lies had long since been exposed, many Senate democrats betrayed their loyalty to the rights and liberties of the American people by authorizing the FISA amendments act of 2008, which not only expanded the means in which the federal government could search and seize the records of citizens, but also functioned as a vote of confidence in the intrusive and police-statist policies of Bush and Cheney. [2] Not even California’s other Senator, Dianne Feinstein, would risk the political backlash to do what was right. [2]  Yet as soon as she became informed, Senator Boxer has been an advocate for the rights and freedoms of the people of California, and of the United States, and has opposed acts like FISA.  Senator Boxer has stood up to Presidents, Senators, Secretaries of State and everyone in between, and has done so without hesitation.  When it comes to peaceful ends to the Bush administrations’ numerous wars, there is nobody California can trust more than Senator Boxer. [1,2]

Supporting a Green Energy Economy, and no Carly, not in India

I think the fact that the people of California are (at least to a certain degree) falling for Fiorina’s framing of this election as one about jobs is tragically comedic.  Senator Boxer’s voting record gives testament to her continued fight for economic recovery, whether it be  tax subsidies to small businesses, the Jobs bill, or the extension of unemployment benefits, something that Republicans like Fiorina are taking aim at, Boxer has consistently fought to mend the hole in the economy ripped by the irresponsible wars and policies of the Bush administration [3]  Fiorina, it seems, would advocate the policies that left so many unemployed, and then while they sank into the depths of unemployment, simultaneously end the aid that previously would’ve kept the search for a job one step farther away from an utter fight for survival.  While Boxer has fought to pass the economic stimulus, as well as the Jobs bill, Fiorina during her time at HP literally outsourced OVER 60,000 jobs.[4]  She laid off an additional 18,000, calling it “corporate restructuring”, and her only regret at the end of it all was that she “should have moved more quickly in ejecting certain people”. [4]  Jobs?  The economic stimulus supported by Senator Boxer has already created 150,000 jobs in the state of California, which is, admittedly, not enough to undo the damage of the CNMC’s 19th Worst CEO of All Time. [5]  While thousands of her workers sank into depression, Fiorina awarded herself for destorying her company with “millions in bonuses” [6].  In fact, much of the funding for Fiorina’s campaign comes from the multi-million dollar golden parachute she was “awarded” after being fired from HP.

A Brief End Note

These two issues are brief spots on both candidates list of issues, and believe me, this article has not even touched on A Women’s Right to Choose, Global Climate Change, or Marriage Equality, all very important issues, all of which will be touched upon in the follow up to this sometime soon.  In closing, a vote for Senator Boxer is a vote for a woman who has championed Progressive politics since she began, has survived waves of Conservative revival, and has never backed down from what she knew was right.  The people of California, and indeed the people of the U.S, cannot afford to lose one of the most liberal democrats in the Senate during such a tumultous time.  When the corporate interests behind the GOP’s resurgence show their true colors once more, we can count on one woman to stand without a second thought for the people of this country, and not the Industrial giants who are growing ever-closer to retaking and reversing the Progress of the last 2 years.  That woman is Senator Boxer.

SOURCES:

[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LfZypqW2to&feature=related

[2] http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2008-437

[3] http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-07-07/bay-area/21940402_1_doyle-drive-sen-barbara-boxer-san-diego

[4] http://politicalcorrection.org/factcheck/200908200003

[5] http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE61K1GD20100221

[6] http://www.cnbc.com/id/30502091/Portfolio_s_Worst_American_CEOs_of_All_Time?slide=3

Since its creation, the death penalty has been a controversial issue in America. Supporters of capital punishment  claim that it is the best form of justice and that it makes society safer. However, the death penalty is detrimental to society. It does exactly what it tries to prevent: murder. It is inhumane and cruel; for these reasons all of the other civilized, democratic countries in the world have banned the use of capital punishment in their legal system (Simon). The United States stands alone in its support and legalization of capital punishment for good reason; the death penalty is not an effective or appropriate form of punishment. Morally, the death penalty is wrong and makes the state as guilty of crime as the criminal. It does not deter crime in any way, but actually increase the number of murders. Lastly, innocent humans have been executed in the past and will continue to be wrongly murdered with the continued legalization of the death penalty. For these reasons, the death penalty is wrong and should be abolished in America.

There is no question that the death penalty is a moral issue. Is it right for the state to murder someone who killed another person? Advocates for the use of capital punishment believe that “the punishment [should] fit the crime,” which is usually murder (Otis). They believe that murder is the best way to right the wrong committed by the criminal. These advocates for capital punishment state that it is the only fair punishment for murder. Justice is meant to put the victim back where he was before a particular incident. For this reason, the person responsible for a vehicular accident pays to repair the other vehicle, putting it in the position it was before the incident. Unfortunately, there is no way to compensate the victim of murder, so death is viewed as the best solution for society. Other supporters point to Christianity, the Bible, and other religions, claiming that the moral code of most people allows for the execution of criminals. The most famous biblical quote regarding justice, “an eye for an eye,” has been interpreted many different ways over the years, mainly to say that the Christian Bible supports capital punishment. This approach does, after all, remove the threat of evil from that particular criminal, increasing the safety of those who do good. However, these advocates conveniently overlook the fact that supporting the death penalty is comparable to them supporting the murder of a person. Supporters claim that killing is punishable by murder simply because there is no other equivalent to death, but how does this make killing right? All murder is a serious crime in this country and other civilized, democratic countries, thus murder by the state should also be a crime. Thomas Jefferson desired for America to be founded and built on the idea that “all men are created equal” in the eyes of the law. The state is not above the morals of the people within it, therefore it cannot act in a way that its citizens cannot also act. It is immoral for the state to murder anyone. Christianity, which helped create American law, also opposes the use of capital punishment. Jesus could have easily condemned his Roman executioners and even asked God to kill them, but he did not because that would have just made him a murderer as well. Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict the XVI, the former and current leaders of the Catholic Church respectively, both oppose the use of Capital Punishment in the world today. The Church has since changed its official view on capital punishment to oppose the murder of criminals as well. All murder is wrong and can never be justified. Capital punishment is just as immoral as murder by a criminal.

There is also the question as to whether or not the death penalty deters crime. Supporters aggressively point to a drop in crime rate as a result of capital punishment. Amnesty International, a leading organization for the protection of human rights, found in a survey that the death penalty does not deter “murder to a marginally greater extent than does the threat and application of the supposedly lesser punishment of life imprisonment.” Additionally, DeathPenaltyinfo.org (DPI.org), the leading nonbiased web site for information on the capital punishment, shows that “states without the death penalty have had consistently lower murder rates” than those that support it. Thus, the death penalty does not deter crime in any way, but on the contrary, its use increases the number of murders in America.

How certain is the death penalty? Advocates for the death penalty state that it saves lives in the long term. Others even argue that the ends justify the means; the deaths of a few innocent people are simply the price to pay to have a supposedly “safer” society. This is absolutely wrong. It is unacceptable for anyone, the state or a criminal, to kill even one innocent person. Killing innocent citizens deprives Americans of the “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” that all people are “endowed by their creator” with (Jefferson). America was built on the idea that all people have the right to their own lives, thus the murder resulting from capital punishment is unconstitutional, especially the murder of innocent people. The sad reality is that “states will continue to execute people who are later found innocent” if capital punishment is allowed (Amnesty International). According to DPI.org, there have been five innocent people freed on death row per year from 2000- 2007. This is forty innocent citizens that would have been unjustly murdered due to capital punishment. Look at the image below, every number is one person who was sentenced to death, but found innocent just in time. Purely the fact that anyone on death row was found innocent is evidence enough that many innocent people have died in the past and more will continue to die solely because of capital punishment.

The death penalty is barbaric and unconstitutional. The Eight Amendment in the Bill of Right states that “excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted,” which capital punishment advocates. Murdering someone for a crime is cruel and unusual, which is why all of the other civilized, democratic countries in the world, except America, chose to abolish the death penalty (Simon). Benjamin Franklin, the most influential and arguably the most important of America’s founding fathers, once said that “it is better [that one hundred] guilty persons should escape than that one innocent person should suffer” in prison; this idea has become the foundation of the American justice system. Franklin would abhor the use and implications of the death penalty in America today. Because of capital punishment, America cannot consider itself among the great, civilized nations of the world.

Sources

Amnesty International. “The Death Penalty Should Be Abolished.” Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale Cengage Learning, 2009. Web. 27 Oct. 2009.

Death Penalty Information Center. Web. 27 Oct. 2009. <http://deathpenaltyinfo.org/>.

Otis, William. “The Death Penalty Saves Lives.” Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale Cengage Learning, 2008. Web. 27 Oct. 2009.

Simon, Paul. “Capital Punishment Does Not Make Nations Safer.” Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale Cengage Learning, 2008. Web. 27 Oct. 2009.

]]> http://www.newpolity.com/2010/08/12/death-to-capital-punishment/feed/ 0 http://www.newpolity.com/2010/08/02/alvaro-day-standing-on-principle/ http://www.newpolity.com/2010/08/02/alvaro-day-standing-on-principle/#comments Mon, 02 Aug 2010 18:06:58 +0000 Andrew J. Murcia http://newpolity.com/?p=162 The 2010 elections come at a crucial time for California. As the state grapples with its still-troubled economy and its government’s record budget deficits, the majority of Californians are dissatisfied with Sacramento’s solutions. Take, for example, the resounding defeat of Proposition 1A (May 2009), when nearly two-thirds of voters rejected billions of dollars in tax increases. It is abundantly clear that the state needs a new direction.

One candidate offering a bold new set of solutions is Arcadia’s Alvaro Day, the Republican running to represent California’s 44th District in the State Assembly. Alvaro was born in Lima, Peru, during a time of incredible unrest, and came to the United States at age 11. He worked hard to learn the English language, and as he learned more and more about his new country fell in love with America. After graduating from Temple City High and completing his general education courses at Pasadena City College, Alvaro went on to earn a B.A. in both Political Science and History at UCLA. His own history includes numerous examples of involvement with worthwhile causes; including the non-profit group Live Action, the Republican Club at PCC (of which he is the co-founder), and both the pro-life group and Christians United for Israel at UCLA. I recently interviewed Mr. Day. I found him to be, and I believe his responses show him to be, an articulate and sincere young man with the experience and common sense to lead in the state legislature.

Andrew Murcia: One of the first things I noticed while preparing for our interview was your engaging personal story. What is your background and how has it affected the way you see the world?

Alvaro Day: My background has been an important factor in my life. Growing up without a father for most of my preteen years and seeing my mother’s dedication and hard work supporting the family taught me to be grateful, responsible, and wise with money. The fact that I was born in Peru has also given me an advantage in the way I see the world. For instance, I experienced terrorism first-hand and the struggles of a debilitated country trying to get rid of communist/Marxist terrorists that killed almost 70,000 Peruvians.
In the 80s, Peru witnessed the catastrophic consequences of adopting policies similar to the ones some politicians are trying to implement in California. Increasing debt, massive expansion of government, printing of money, nationalization of industries, and a never-ending “production” of corrupted politicians created a financial disaster in Peru and sent the country into bankruptcy. I cannot help but see some parallels between failed policies in Peru and the ones in California. In some ways, as sad as it sounds, I already know what can happen to California if irresponsible politicians continue with the massive expansion of government, reckless spending, record debt, and the insidious encroachment on our personal freedoms. Outrageously, while there is a general uncertainty about the future of California, some politicians seem oblivious to these problems and continue passing absurd legislations that only make special interests happy. However, there is still hope if we act swiftly electing principled representatives willing to stand up against these wrongful policies. Even Peru made a drastic change in the right direction by reversing these policies. I do not want California to endure what Peruvians did in the past.

AM: Right, left, or center, Californians want to see better leadership in Sacramento. What makes you confident that you can lead in the state legislature?

AD: There are a few reasons. First, I am deeply committed to uphold the values and principles—liberty, personal responsibility, hard work, and economic freedom, among others— that have made this country great. Second, I despise corruption and ideologies that limit individual freedom and restrict people’s capacity to succeed in this country. Statism, socialism, communism, progressivism, for example, create dependency on government and have repeatedly been proven to bring only misery and poverty throughout history. Third, there is a lot to lose if we remain silent and do nothing. We cannot afford to play politics with the future of this generation and the next ones. We must take charge and I am ready to do it.

AM: According to the Employment Development Department, California’s unemployment rate stands at 12.4 percent. What should the state government be doing to put people back to work?

AD: We need to cut taxes and support the entrepreneurial spirit in California, the same spirit that has been the source of economic growth in America throughout the centuries. We need to encourage investments and the elimination of all useless regulations that overburden small businesses, the creators of jobs. It is necessary to create a friendly environment for investments and a high consumer confidence in order to stimulate the economy.

AM: You’re a proponent of the school voucher system. In your view, why is the kind of choice that vouchers offer an important step forward for our education system?

AD: Since I came to America, I have been witnessing the academic “death sentence” given to students in not only my district, but the entire nation. The present education system is monolithic and condemns especially low income students to failing schools primarily because they live in the wrong neighborhood. I propose to empower parents and not interest groups to choose among schools that best suit their children’s needs. By giving each pupil a scholarship, parents have the freedom to shop around and enroll their children in schools of their choosing. This creates competition and innovation among schools, which in turn elevates academic standards. Our students are the future leaders of this country. I want to make sure they have the tools to excel and compete in the world. An added benefit is also the fact that this system will save billions of dollars for the state.

AM: How would you resolve California’s budget issues?

AD: Since money was not abundant while I was living in Peru, one of the things I learned at an early age was to be wise concerning money matters. The rule at home was to “Never spend beyond our means.” This is the rule I will apply in Sacramento. We must reduce spending by cutting useless programs, reduce the size of government, and most importantly, learn the good habit of saving money for rainy days and emergencies.

AM: What is AB-32 and why do you feel it is harmful for California?

AD: My main concern with AB-32 or Cap and Trade, is the cost and unaccountability associated with the implementation of this legislation. This bill delegates the responsibility to regulate the reduction of carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions to CARB (California Air Resources Board), an unelected board that will have no true oversight or accountability. Moreover, cap and trade is a massive energy tax against families and businesses. By overburdening businesses with regulations and taxation, many businesses will either leave the state because they are incapable to continue operating in California, or cut back their operations and expenses. Either way, we lose with higher unemployment, less investments, and more damage to our already fragile economy. Cap and Trade only exacerbates the problems in California. We cannot afford this type of legislation.

AM: On your website, you propose a privatization of prison functions. Under your plan, to what extent would prisons be privatized and how would the system work generally?

AD: The general idea behind reforming the prison system in California is to make it more efficient and less expensive. For example, if we start out privatizing the management of prisons in California, contractors will be allowed to make bids to offer this service. Price and efficiency would be the criteria to select the winner bidder. At the same time, competition would drive prices down as seen already in the state of Florida where a great deal of the prison system is currently run by private contractors. The state of Florida, for example spends around $20,000 annual per inmate while California doubles that price to around $50,000. The savings could be in the billions if we reform the prison system in the state.

AM: In recent years, California’s 44th Assembly District has voted solidly Democratic. How do you intend to turn the tables and win as a Republican?

AD: The most important thing is to maintain personal contact with the people. It is essential for voters to know the solutions I am offering to the problems affecting California and our district. It is equally important for people to know the truth about my opponent’s positions and voting record. Voters, for example, always get outraged when I mention that my opponent, Mr. Portantino, voted in favor of Prop. 1A that raises income taxes, sales taxes, and doubles car taxes. Likewise, people get angry when they find out that Mr. Portantino voted in favor of socializing health care and forcing quotas on private, corporate, and public foundations to hire, make charitable donations, and negotiate business contracts based on the color of one’s skin, gender, and sexual orientation. Young people are also very concerned with the fact that my opponent is pushing a legislation that will take over the administration of the UC system by the same legislators in Sacramento incapable of balancing the state budget, etc. His list of failed policies is very long and has only accomplished to put California to the brink of bankruptcy. Getting information to voters is the best way to change outcomes.

AM: On campus and in your community, you’ve been active in many organizations including Republican groups, pro-life groups, and pro-Israel groups. What is your message for young people who, like yourself, want to see a better world?

AD: My message is very simple. If we, young people, want to change the world, we need to improve ourselves first. Important things such as loving God, one’s country, respecting our parents, the elderly, authorities, and defending freedom can make a huge difference in the world. Then, we need to make a difference in our country. Value, defend, and embrace the principles which this country was founded on. Be proud to be an American! Get the good habit to question, research, and learn from history. Do not take everything you hear at face value. Do your own research, analysis, and comparison in order to draw your own conclusions. Do not let people tell you how and what to think. Learn to debate respectfully with your classmates, professors, and anybody without fear. Learn to love the truth. Be responsible for your actions. Most importantly, never be afraid to stand for these principles. The world will always appreciate young people living up to these values.

Thanks to Mr. Day for taking the time to share his ideas with New Polity. Find out more at alvaroday2010.com.

I recently met with 4 very interesting people from Texas at an art camp, and over the course of 2 weeks got to know them very well. As an icebreaker when we first met, I asked about the typical Texan/conservative stereotypes. To my surprise, one of them told me that he never traveled anywhere without his gun. I do not remember what kind of gun he had other than that it was a shotgun. So here was a 19 year old, with a gun, at a camp filled with 60 other teens and college students; a disaster just waiting to happen. Luckily, there was no reason for him to use his gun, but the thought of it is scary.

When I asked him why he brought his gun everywhere, he said that he needed to protect himself from the other people with guns. Did he expect there to be other teens with guns at the camp? I do not know, but he had his gun. Technically, it is not illegal, but where is the common sense in bringing a shotgun to camp?

The problem with ultra conservatives is that they think that they can do whatever they want because they know best. They only care about themselves and their personal happiness. They lack the foresight to see the future consequences of their actions. It might seem like a good idea to drill for oil now, but 5 years from now, that area might turn into a wasteland. It might seem like a good idea right now to carry a gun, until it accidentally fires. Where is the common sense? Where is the foresight?

Ultra conservatives do not have an accurate sense of their place in the community either. As an example, my Texan friend thought that he would need to protect himself from others with guns. Most teenagers do NOT own guns because they are dangerous and unnecessary, but he thought that he would need protection. There was a disconnect between him and the community outside of Texas. I mean who brings a gun to summer camp? –Someone who lives in his own world where only he matters.

I do not want to pick on this one guy from Texas, because he was actually a really nice person. The fact of the matter is that things like this happen all of the time; when conservatives lack common sense. My Texan friend told me that a law was written in the Lone Star state that allowed you to shoot any trespassers. All that you would have to do is post a sign on the border of your property that says “trespassers will be shot” and then if anyone comes towards you, you have the right to shoot to kill. Again, there is no common sense here. I cannot count the number of times that I have taken shortcuts across someone else’s property to get where I needed to go, but the thought of being shot for it is ridiculous. If someone is breaking into your house or threatening your family, that is one thing, but I highly doubt that someone walking along the outskirts of a ranch is a threat to the people living there. But ultra conservatives like to do their own thing. And they are “damned proud of it” (Harding).

Finally, the best of all is that in conservative areas you can walk into the local Walmart and buy guns and ammunition. Guns are so readily available that almost anyone can buy one at a very low price. Lets do a math equation. What do you get when you add trigger happy conservatives and cheap/easily accessible guns? A recipe for disaster. There is no foresight of the consequences and no common sense. So the next time a conservative tries to tell you that liberals lack common sense, think twice about his claim.

Today we celebrate our independence from Great Britain. We take time to reflect on the value of our rights and liberties and give thanks that we live in this, the freest nation on Earth. We also remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our country, and pray for the troops who continue to defend our rights and interests around the world. At least, we hope that today’s celebrations are focused on such considerations.

However, on this July 4, at this time in American history, I’d like to suggest we reflect on something beyond the usual causes for celebration. Perhaps, we can take some time to consider the value of the holiday’s namesake, to truly appreciate independence.

A free people, by definition, must be independent. It is a fallacy to assert one’s liberty while accepting one’s dependency. And independence doesn’t just mean sticking it to the man, it doesn’t just mean teenage rebellion, or even national rebellion against a foreign oppressor. To be independent, one must be able to determine one’s own destiny, to chase one’s own dreams, and to do so without the license or support of another. This principle of self-determination is the true meaning of independence, the true meaning of liberty, and as a free people it is the singular value that every American ostensibly strives for.

I must qualify the preceding statement by saying that it is not the value every American actually strives for. To quote Calvin Coolidge, “self-government means self-reliance”. To a large extent, his sentiment may be dead in the modern political discourse. Since the progressive era of the early twentieth century, a segment of Americans has sought to trade our independence for the promise of material comfort. They have confused the question of how the government should best protect us, and now ask how the government should best provide for us. Moreover, they have rejected self-government as a goal, laughed at the idea that the “ignorant masses” can make the right decisions, and have, whenever possible, given power over our decisions to bureaucrats. They have placed their faith in government by “experts”, and their hope for the future of our country is entirely dependent upon how much power these “specialists” can exert.

Observe the “liberal” who decried the Patriot Act’s intrusions on privacy, who now supports Healthcare Reform’s requirements that insurers and employers open their books to public scrutiny as it relates health expenses. Some find this shocking, but it certainly cannot outdo the self-proclaimed free marketer who advocates welfare for a failing bank, or the enlightened mind that will fight for your rights in a private bedroom but deny them in a corporate boardroom.

The hundreds of agencies and thousands of laws that constitute our modern behemoth government all have their origins in the following flawed ideas: “I am owed a comfortable life. I am entitled to what others earn. I am not responsible for my actions, and when I fail, everyone else should pick up the tab”.

These sentiments have turned government from a protector and referee into a leech. But government is an odd parasite. Every time it takes, it promiseswellbeing. Every time it gives, it decrees new rules. “Government money” is a laughable concept, considering it took the money from us to begin with. Regardless, with every government dollar comes more government control; this is the real meaning behind Calvin Coolidge’s statement—we are free when we are independent, and we are independent only when we take direct responsibility over our lives and the consequences of our actions.

So, on this July 4, let us renew our commitment to freedom. Let us once again declare our independence, not from some foreign prince but this time from our own government.

So I am driving my ancient and behemoth 1993 Mercedes-Benz down a street that has a speed limit of 35 MPH. This is not exactly a NASCAR speedway, I know, but the speed we were going was enough to kill a decent-sized human being. It seemed that some people did not realize this or preferred to be oblivious. There was a nice, happy family walking four abreast in the middle of this two-way street; smack dab in the middle of it was their baby in a stroller. As I drove in their direction I assumed they would at the least move to the side of the road and walk in a single file. But what should I expect from people these days. OF COURSE, they continued to walk in my lane. This forced me into a near collision with an oncoming pickup. Do they care? No. They carry on walking in their blissful stupor, a daze in which everything will be just fine as long as they remain ignorant and indifferent.

In a world of common sense this would never happen; people would never think and carry on in this manner, putting their child in danger. In a world of people conscious of the consequences of their actions, this would never occur. But of course we are not graced with living in such a world. True conservatives are the only ones left with any inherent sense of accountability and are stranded in a world where most people believe everything should be served to them upon a silver platter (and yes, now you see my political leanings).

True conservatives are accountable for their possessions, their money, their actions and they are damned proud of it. They do not allow the Messiah (Mr. Obama) to tell them where their money should go and who should benefit from their work.

The problem is most people are sheep, followers. They do not have the will to act as true conservatives do. They basically lack the balls to be self-reliant. It is just easier to let someone else make all the big decisions for you; no need to be responsible for one’s self. This poses a major problem for our nation. This ability—or even desire—to make the government or any overarching force culpable for one’s own life in certain respects is just plain frightening. People are then oblivious to all of the threats that are thrust upon us, including Islamic terrorism, economic collapse, and war. This frightens me; how much the human mind can be corrupted into being so weak, so malleable. It almost seems like selling one’s own soul. It’s like having a bad dream but instead of fighting or crying for help one just sits there helpless like a child, just waiting and assuming they will wake up before they have their head cut off by Freddy Kruger.

Whether you think I am just some paranoid ultra-conservative or you actually try to wrap your head around my thoughts, please try and think for yourself when you are given the opportunity. Take every chance you can to make sure you decide your own fate and not leave it up to a suit in Washington to decide.

To read the Liberal Response click here.

I say this is fun to watch because of how dirty this campaign is getting. Meg Whitman and Steve Poizner are both on the same side, but trying to “out conservitize” each other. Pretty soon they will both start preaching fascist ideals to win the ever shrinking republican base. As of late, Poizner and Whitman have been calling each other liberals as if that is a bad thing. In all honesty, it is really quite entertaining to watch. They are hurting each other’s reputations so much that the Democratic candidate Jerry Brown has not needed to show one commercial or spend one penny yet. Whitman and Poizner are doing all of the hard work for liberals, so after the primaries, all Brown needs to do is tweak some of the commercials that already aired.

The best part is that neither Whitman nor Poizner seem to care much, especially going into the home stretch before the primaries. They are trashing each other with every last ounce of energy that they have. Let them do it I say because it will only make Jerry Brown look even better after June 8th. Neither republican has the foresight to think of the potential consequences in the future. I love it.

So for your viewing entertainment, here are some negative campaign ads from both Meg Whitman and Steve Poizner.  Enjoy!  ( I think that Poizner has better ads if you want my opinion).

America is a liberal nation.

Jefferson: 3rd President of the United States and Classical Liberal.

I know, now I’ve got some explaining to do. I do not mean to suggest that the majority of Americans embrace the statist tendencies of our present government, nor do I mean to say that the foundations of our system of government are rooted in a philosophy opposed to tradition, stifling to prosperity, and injurious to liberty. In fact, I mean the exact opposite. This is because what “liberal” means is very different from what “liberal” meant, as the result of a long process of redefinition—and outright misrepresentation.

Tracing its roots ultimately to the Latin word for free, “liberal” used to aptly describe the ideology of liberty that Enlightenment thinkers like John Locke and American Founding Fathers like Thomas Jefferson propounded. This Classical Liberalism is at our nation’s core, and can be found throughout our most precious documents. From the recognition of certain natural and inalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence to the construction of our Constitution according to the principle of limited government, truly liberal principles have shaped the United States of America.

Many of the policies described today as “liberal” have nothing to do with liberty. So why the shift? Why would a politician be considered liberal if, for example, he or she supported broader government control over the economy? Why would a politician be considered liberal if he or she supported centralizing power in the hands of the federal government? Why would a politician be considered liberal if he or she supported policies like the Fairness Doctrine that unreasonably restrict rights like the freedom of speech? These tendencies in governance are all erroneously described as liberal in the modern discourse, yet in reality they all take power away from the individual citizen, regulating and restricting nearly every aspect of life until all decision-making power belongs to Washington, D.C. politicians. Such policies restrict liberty; they do not expand or protect it.

Of course, leftists would respond that their policies are meant to protect the “common man” from those who would exploit him, to prevent others from taking away his freedoms. That’s an argument for another day, but let’s focus for a moment on the original liberal paradigm.

The U.S. Constitution reflects the values of Classical Liberalism.

The Framers of the Constitution intended our government to be limited in scope, with its powers and duties divided between a central government and the states, all for the purpose of securing our rights from tyranny. Such tyranny could be that of the minority over the majority (as in the case of monarchy or oligarchy) or that of the majority over a given minority group (as is the case in unrestricted direct democracies). Whatever its form, the Founders knew that the best instrument for realizing tyranny was—and remains—government. This is the whole principle behind the Founders’ attention to checks and balances and limitations of power. It is not to say that the Founders were anarchists; they recognized the proper function of government to be, in true liberal fashion, the defense of our rights. Referring back to the previous examples, a liberal in the tradition of the Founders would recognize the government’s role with regard to the economy to be the facilitation of the free market, through the enforcement of contracts, elimination of unnecessary barriers to free exchange, and protection of property. With regards to federal power, a liberal in the tradition of the Founders would recognize the American system of dual federalism and fight to preserve it, in order to keep power properly dispersed between state governments and the federal government, pitting “ambition against ambition”, to borrow a phrase from Madison. With regards to fundamental rights, a liberal in the tradition of the Founders would place the highest value on keeping government out of the areas of your life in which it has no place. You don’t need to look far for evidence of these sentiments; a cursory examination of the Constitution will do the job. The commerce clause instructs Congress to make trade regular among the states, the Bill of Rights lists many of the liberties government is designed to protect, and the Tenth Amendment, too often ignored in today’s politics, reserves for the states and the people those powers not explicitly enumerated for the federal (central) government.

It was with this proper understanding of liberalism that Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman and his wife, Rose Friedman, wrote of Adam Smith (classical liberal economist) and Thomas Jefferson, observing that

Smith and Jefferson alike had seen concentrated government power as a great danger to the ordinary man; they saw the protection of the citizen against the tyranny of government as the perpetual need. That was the aim of the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776) and the United States Bill of Rights (1791); the purpose of the separation of powers in the U.S. Constitution; the moving force behind the changes in the British legal structure from the issuance of the Magna Carta in the thirteenth century to the end of the nineteenth century. To Smith and Jefferson, government’s role was as an umpire, not a participant. Jefferson’s ideal, as he expressed it in his first inaugural address (1801), was “[a] wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement.”[1]

Our government was instituted to preserve our rights, not to violate them. It was designed to recognize and respect our rightful powers, not to usurp them.

Classical liberalism opposes modern liberalism, in that the activist nanny state modern liberals support means an abandonment of the very principles on which our Republic was founded. Dependence on government means submission to government, and government money means government control; both these facts are clearly evident in the aftermath of the bank bailouts. Classical liberals in the American tradition know we cannot surrender our rights to government if we intend to keep and enjoy them.