2016 Election

An Interview with David Whitley – Republican Candidate for Office in California

GOP
Paul Dowling
Written by Paul Dowling

“Nothing astonishes men so much as common sense and plain dealing.”  —Ralph Waldo Emerson, who could have been describing David Whitley, of Orange County, California

 

Who Is David Whitley? 

David Whitley is running for a partisan seat on the Orange County Republican Party Central Committee in the 74th Assembly District of California.  Due to his hectic schedule, interview questions for Mr. Whitley were submitted by email and responded to in the same manner.

 

The Interview 

Paul: David Whitley, how do you want voters to see you?

David: I’d like them to see someone like them: a real person, an American, a husband, a father, a brother, a son.  Someone of high integrity who understands his job is to be a voice of the people—not an echo of the establishment—and one who finds the public purse something to be guarded, not raided.

 

California’s Biggest Issue 

Paul: What is the biggest issue facing California today, and how does it impact the nation?

David: California faces huge challenges.  The biggest has to do with national security.  No nation is secure if its borders are not secure.  No country is really a country if its borders are not respected.  With the daily threat of terrorism and terrorists crossing into the American Southwest, the safety and security of the people of California and the nation must be our greatest cause.

 

A Three-Legged Platform

Paul: If your platform had a three-legged stool holding it up, what would be the names of those legs?

David: National Security—terrorism, illegal immigration, and refugee resettlement prevention—would be one leg; Fiscal Responsibility would be the second—lower taxes, balanced budgets, zero benefits for non-citizens, and the slashing public pensions—and [third], of course, [is] the idea of Limited Government—reduced regulations, transparent government, and pro-growth policies towards business.

 

Free Speech

Paul: Explain your thoughts on the First Amendment and the development on our university campuses of “safe spaces”?

David: The universities were once a place where free speech was truly free, where young minds could speak freely on issues of importance to them, where the light of truth, through debate, took care of the nonsense.  Today, the university is a place where the mind has not only closed, it has slammed shut; and it is the result of years of indoctrination by the very professors who benefited by the principles behind the First Amendment when they were students.  The “safe spaces” movement is no more than a playpen for premature young adults and professors who refuse [to allow a grown-up debate about] American Exceptionalism.

 

The Second Amendment

Paul: Should California pass legislation—now under consideration—that will force gun shops to shut down?

David: My answer might surprise some conservatives and libertarians, because I am both a 100% supporter of the Second Amendment but I’m also a 100% supporter of the 10th Amendment regarding States Rights.  So, while I completely oppose legislation on barring Gun Shows or limiting magazine capacity or ammunition sales, I don’t find they violate the Second Amendment.  What this tells me is that “We the People” need to wake up and be vigilant and informed on what is happening at the local level.  The voter holds the cards, in the sense that every election is about term limits, and the people themselves can reverse the laws of tyranny at the ballot box.  The question is [this]: Do they have the vigilance to remain free?  Attempting to make every issue a federal issue only weakens the states and empowers the federal government.  I hope to reverse that trend.

 

The Constitution

Paul: Are you a strict Constitutional constructionist, like Clarence Thomas?

David: Absolutely, I’m an original-intent guy.  Either you are for the Constitution, as written, or you are for a transformative document that only means what those on the bench say it means.  I believe in the plain language of the Constitution over all the collective intellect of lawyers and professors.  Clarence Thomas is perhaps the greatest justice (other than perhaps Justice Scalia) the court has seen in my lifetime. The passing of Justice Scalia, for me, was a 9-11 moment, in the sense that I envisioned, upon hearing that sad and tragic news, that a 5th liberal on the court that would literally have the consequence of shredding that sacred document, fully allowing progressive socialists to circumvent the power of Congress and the will of the people for the next 50 years, by ignoring the Constitution.  Our three branches of government were to be a hedge against corruption and absolute power.  But, as they each have become corrupted, we see how each, in its own way, threatens the rights of the American people.

 

Islam

Paul: Was Trump right to say that “Islam hates us”?  Should there be a pause on Muslim immigration?

David: As a Christian, I can say Islam is a false religion.  It’s a 7th-century political ideology that masquerades as religion.  And that is how an otherwise barbaric and totalitarian ideology gets respect.  It deserves no respect, in my view.  I’ve actually studied the Quran, the Hadith, [and] the Sunnah; and I can tell you that Trump is absolutely correct: Islam hates the Kafir, the non-Muslim.  Now, let me say [that] there is a distinction to be made here between Islam and Muslims.  Many of us have Muslim friends, neighbors, and associates; and they are as good and kind and patriotic as you or I.  But I would attribute that not to their being Muslims but rather to not being devout in their religious life.  They were born into Islam, they did not choose it.  I have yet to hear of someone leaving Islam and becoming violent because of that change in their life.  However, the number of jihad-driven terrorists is legion, [especially] for those who converted to Islam or who became more devout through study.  Islam and Islamic law (Sharia) are no friends of Western culture or the American Constitution, [and], knowing this, we must always be on guard.

 

Government Spying

Paul: Where do you stand on government spying, with regard to the citizenry?

David: I am 100% for the use of government surveillance of criminal activity that is done through a Constitutional process of [issuing a] warrant based upon [probable] cause.  I believe a major function of government is to keep its citizens safe.  Surveillance is one necessary tool.  However, the use of wide-net data collection—forcing telecommunications companies to hand over bulk records of phone, Internet, and wireless users—is not only dangerous, it is un-Constitutional and unpatriotic.

 

Deficit Spending

Paul: What is your philosophy about budgeting and spending?

David: I believe, as Jefferson did, that no generation should leave a deficit to the next [generation].  The Bible teaches that the debtor is the slave to the lender.  Our 19-trillion-dollar national debt is a travesty.  It’s criminal and will be the cause of our next great depression, when the day comes that we can no longer afford to pay interest on that debt.  Our federal liabilities are even more staggering than out national debt.  We are in deep fiscal trouble as a nation.

 

Tax Burdens

Paul: Should California’s tax burden be lightened?  And, if so, for individuals or businesses, or both?

David:  The tax rates in California are some of the highest—if not the highest—in the nation.  Both personal and business taxes must be lowered if we are to stop the flow of people and businesses out of the state and stop the black market [being] created by people working for wages under the table who are, de facto, not subject to taxation.

 

Trade

Paul: Trump wants free trade, but fair trade; what are your thoughts?

David: I’m a free trader.  However, trade can, and is, used as an economic weapon by many foreign companies and governments.  So, I agree with Trump that trade must be, first and foremost, free; but, if it is not, it must be fair.  In other words, it must be reciprocal.  It must be negotiated as a win-win business deal, where America does everything in its power to make sure it gets a fair deal for the United States, rather than the capitulation of the last 30 years that has given away billions of tax dollars to corrupt regimes.  NAFTA [North American Free Trade Agreement], GATT [General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade], and the WTO [World Trade Organization] have been absolute disasters for the American worker.  A nation lives or dies based on production and growth, not consumption and spending.  We are becoming a nation of software programmers, number crunchers, and data analyzers; and [we are] losing our manufacturing preeminence.  We are in decline, and it appears no one in Sacramento, California, or Washington, DC, cares or understands why the ship of state is taking on water.

 

Education

Paul: If Trump gets rid of the Department of Education, how should California and other states be responsive to students?

David: California would immediately be in a position to do more for her students.  Without a DOE, California would keep more education dollars.  Imagine that!  California could immediately go back to its superior standards and mothball the underperforming Common Core Standards that are causing student achievement to digress.  Common Core is a disaster.

 

Sanctuary Cities

Paul: In California sanctuary cities—such as Police Chief Charlie Beck’s L.A.—illegal aliens’ cars are not impounded, nor are their driver licenses typically suspended, for driving behavior that usually results in those consequences for US citizens.   What should be California public policy, with regard to illegal aliens?

David: First, justice is never served by having a two-tier system [that is] tilted in favor of the criminal.  Second, illegals should not only have their cars impounded, and their licenses revoked, they should be incarcerated until they can be deported.  This idea that the non-citizen is treated better, [and] with more grace than the American taxpayer, is an outrage and a key component in the success of non-establishment candidates like Donald Trump in 2016.

 

Voters of Faith

Paul: I know you have supported Cruz, and are now supporting Trump, for president.  Explain why people of faith (Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, etc.) should vote for Trump?  And what is your message to the “Never Trump” crowd?

David: Donald Trump has expressed strong opinions in support for the First Amendment, free speech, freedom of religion; [he is] a Christian, a pro-life candidate who strongly supports the 10th Amendment and [has] a disdain for debt, deficits, and over-regulation.  We owe Donald Trump a debt of gratitude for what he has done to political correctness.  He put a knife in it, and it will eventually die, thanks to Donald Trump.  That alone makes him worthy of our votes.  His position on strictly limiting refugee resettlement into America, a border wall, stopping illegal immigration, forcing the current 11 million undocumented aliens to go home and return through the front door are all reasons to cast a vote for Donald Trump.  He wants to end the senseless nation-building wars, but will crush any enemy we face on the battlefield.  Engage [in warfare with] the United States, [and] prepare for your demise; that is his message.  Hillary had better leather up, because this fall the Republicans are bringing a flamethrower to the Democrats’ “gun-free safe zone.”

 

A Republican Big Tent

Paul: What question did I not ask that you wish I had asked?

David: [Question:] What do you make of the Republican Party, and where does it go from here?  [Answer:] The party must embark on a bold path that leads to raising the IQ of the American electorate, rather than trying to placate the demands of various groups.  We need to stand on principle and articulate why right is right and [why] wrong is wrong, no matter what the polls say.  The party must work to lower the median age of its membership, but [it must] also remake the GOP into a big tent, based upon the fact that limited government, fiscal responsibility, and national security are not just better for Republicans; they’re better for everyone.  The litmus test must be about limitations on government, not limitations on “We the People.”

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by EagleRising.com


About the author

Paul Dowling

Paul Dowling

Paul Dowling is an American patriot whose mission in life is to educate and enlighten his fellow citizens about the correct principles for facilitating a life of freedom and a culture based upon the Golden Rule, as well as to do whatever is in his power to help protect his countrymen from their government.

Don't Miss Out!!

Get your daily dose of Eagle Rising by entering your email address below.

STAY IN THE LOOP
Don't miss a thing. Sign up for our email newsletter to become an insider.

Send this to friend