I am declaring my candidacy for the office of U.S. Senator of California because I am zealous about the future. For over the past 7 years I have spent my time investing in the lives of students, who I believe to be the best return on any investment of time. Instead of seeing a generation optimistic and looking up, I have watched as apathy has spread, due in large part to a rampant spread of hypocrisy and a complete deterioration of values in government. The result has been to rob and undermine the future before it ever even begins, and I can no longer just watch. I am declaring my candidacy for the office of U.S. Senator of California because I firmly believe the time has come to S.A.V.E. the future and encourage a response to look up once again.
Our state and nation must have a sense of SECURITY in order to prosper. Currently, our nation’s foreign policy is undermining security, and, most alarmingly, it is actively promoting instability throughout the world. It is just a matter of time until those failed foreign policies will result in insecurity and outright danger within our own borders. Instead, real foreign policy solutions are needed by strengthening our military, having trustworthy commitments to our allies, and an unwavering word in our diplomatic negotiations.
Economically, California is need of a senator who will hold individuals, corporations, and foreign nations ACCOUNTABLE for their actions with clear consequences enforced. These consequences should be compassionate when appropriate, retributive when in the best interest of justice, and decisive when necessary to ensure compliance. Personal responsibility for choices will promote a respect for the law that has recently been trampled by a variety of individuals, including many in high offices. Corporate responsibility will ensure that the American people are never again called upon to be responsible to bear the consequences for the grievous, unethical, and negligent decisions of institutions, but instead are held accountable for their own actions. In financial foreign policy, just as in security matters, our economic and trade agreements must reflect strength, commitment, and veracity.
At the heart of any expectation for greatness in the future are the VALUES upon which that future is to be built. The values that have been foundational to this nation since its conception, and that again need to be championed, are life, liberty, freedom, and opportunity. For over two decades I have watched these values be eroded by legislative action. I have watched abuse of power and laws passed that go completely contrary to those principles. I’ve watched as politician after politician has failed- failed to keep promises, failed to support these ideals, and failed to make California a better place. I believe that now is the time for the values which have made this state, and nation, great for so many years, and that have been forgotten for too long, to be once again represented by this state in the U.S. Senate.
Finally, it is imperative that the EDUCATION of the voters of the future be an education that upholds these same values, that promotes individual accountability, and that prepares individuals to be productive members of society. Our students must have the necessary skill set for the 21st century, a determined work ethic, and a “can do” attitude that has propelled America to greatness for over 200 years. The pursuit of such excellence in education requires local accountability, choice, and opportunities in all fields of study. Additionally, it requires involvement on the part of all of us as citizens to make our leaders in education (and politics) perform their duties in a responsible and informed manner, and to pattern our own lives in a way that upholds the ideals being taught.
Together we can all S.A.V.E. the future!
Karen Roseberry for U.S. Senate 
Stop wasting your’s and the voter’s time. You are so far out of your league you are making a joke out of a serious election. Maybe start out as volunteer for a school board candidate.
LikeLike
Thank you for your feedback. While I do not share your opinion, and rather believe that we are in need of more informed citizen-statesmen and women who value our Constitution to lead this nation, as opposed to career politicians who have not well-represented the people, I still very much appreciate you looking at my website.
LikeLike
All my support is yours
LikeLike
Thank you!
LikeLike
There is nothing here that make a joke of the election. Shame on you and your lack of respect for someone who seems very serious about restoring greatness to this county. You sound like a lurking liberal to me.
Thanks you for being a refreshing candidate, Karen. I just spent the afternoon reading the candidate information for everyone who is running. I certainly wish more people would educate themselves about the candidates before going to the polls instead of being sheeple. Anyway, you have my vote. I will tell others about you, as well.
LikeLike
Thank you so much, Kathryn!
LikeLike
Thanks for encouraging me to read on about Karen. Looks good, SHE’S GOT MY VOTE!
LikeLike
Thanks, James!
LikeLike
While I appreciate your stance on immigration reform, I would like to add a couple of things:
Any reform of this nature should also include the proviso that blanket amnesty will never be given again and that chain migration be illegal (i.e. extended family).
As for patrolling the border; there is no need for an expensive fence as you noted, but razor wire is fairly easy to overcome, one merely throws a heavy rug over it. I would like to avoid a wall and razor wire all together as it makes us look bad because it is often used for propaganda purposes by our enemies. So, in addition to what you propose I suggest that one also use drones. The optics on a single drone can see fine detail at about 5 miles but as the drone is that distant, it is too far away for anyone to monitor it.
Good luck on your campaign.
LikeLike
Thank you so much for the added suggestions! I do agree that border security should employ the latest advantages in technology, though, simultaneously I believe it very important that those resources are used for their intended purpose of securing the border. There have been some disturbing reports of technology being misused in ways that have violated our citizens 4th amendment rights to be secure in their effects. While this has little bearing on the use of such technology to monitor non-citizens, the ease at which it can be turned on citizens needs serious accountability in its use.
LikeLike
I would like to add more to it, Karen.
While you’re at it,
Propose a plan to deport all of you back to Europe and then come the legal, right way–asking all indigenous peoples of this land if they still want your racists, xenophobic, murderous selves here.
Btw, you’re a joke if think you can compete against Kamala or the indigenous woman, Loretta Sanchez in this race.
Stop wasting your time
LikeLike
With what part of the proposed immigration plan do you take issue?
I stand by the 14th amendment which states “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” If an individual is born or naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then under the 14th amendment they are citizens. If they have not been born or naturalized in the United States, then they are not citizens. As both Loretta and I were born in the United States we would have equal claims to being indigenous citizens.
In regards to competition, that is why we have elections, so the ideas of different candidates can compete. I firmly believe that my ideas can easily compete with the failed policies put forth by the politicians currently in office and am certainly willing to engage in any discussion of ideas in order to create better solutions. It is far more productive than slanderous name calling and comments without substance.
LikeLike
I do not see anything on the second amendment. Please provide a position comment on this issue of gun control.
LikeLike
Thank you so much for asking about my position on the extraordinarily important Constitutional issue of 2nd amendment rights.
The subject of rights is one that has been hotly contested in recent years. In an effort to simplify matters the first concept that should be understood is that Constitutional rights work together and complement one another, they do not counteract and contradict- one’s freedom to exercise their right does not, nor must not, deny another person of their rights.
Certain rights, were so decidedly important that the Constitution clearly articulated and identified those particular rights. The most notable include the free exercise of religion; freedom of speech, the press, to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government; the right to bear arms; security in one’s homes from unreasonable search and seizure; protections in judicial matters; that the people still retain all other rights (beyond those named) which clearly included life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (more commonly known as opportunity) that had been previously identified in the Declaration of Independence; and that those powers not delegated to the United States (federal government) were reserved to the States, or to the people.
As such, the language of the 2nd amendment is clear- A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Within that amendment the Constitutional position is also very clear- the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed (and those who keep and bear arms are to do so in a well-regulated manner which ensures the security of a free state.)
LikeLike
Sorry, but you didn’t answer the question. You reiterated the constitution; which should be standard study for everyone. What is your personal stance. This week we are facing 10 new laws against honest gun owners; potentially making honest people felons. What are your thoughts?
LikeLike
Hello David,
The “question” asked for a position comment on the issue of gun control. I believe the Constitution speaks clearly to the question of gun rights, and hence the reason why it is cited. Based on your post, you ask what is my personal stance, when I stated that the 2nd amendment clearly states that the “right is specified as belonging to the people, for the necessity of a free State (meaning one in which freedom could not be taken from the people, because they were responsibly armed, in other words a well-regulated militia)” that means all legislative action, and most certainly mine, must work to uphold that right and not contradict it- “Constitutional rights work together and complement one another, they do not counteract and contradict- one’s freedom to exercise their right does not, nor must not, deny another person of their rights.”
As to the 10 new laws against the 2nd amendment, these are state laws being put forth, and as a federally elected official my ability to enact change to these laws would be limited. The correct course of action is bring these unconstitutional laws to the Supreme Court to be overturned, which requires Justices who interpret the Constitution literally and as written, and that begins with a proper replacement for Justice Scalia, on which the next U.S. Senator will have a vote. Furthermore, what I can and would do is to promote a constitutional reading of the 2nd amendment, to ensure that all federal laws are written with that understanding, and to ensure that appointed judges interpret by that same standard.
LikeLike
Enjoyed riding the elevator and meeting you at the “wrong” meeting site! Thanks for the card and I visited your web site as you requested. I am slightly to the right of Rush so I doubt anyone with my leanings will ever serve in the US Senate from California. Best of luck.
LikeLike
Thank you so much for visiting the site! If you have any specific issues on which you’d like to know a position, please just let me know. My hope is to be able to well represent all the citizens of California well and to best do so requires being available to them, as such, please know you have that accessibility. Thanks again!
LikeLike
Are you for COMMON CORE? Are you against Illegal immigration? Are you against undocumented Workers Program? How will you bring back jobs to California? Will you fight “the establishment” to secure our constitutional rights which are being striped away? How will you secure our borders against the flood of drugs coming into our country? Will you fight against the free-bees now given to illegal aliens,that is bankrupting our state?
LikeLike
Thank you so much for your questions.
I oppose Common Core for three primary reasons. First, educational decisions should be being made at the local level by parents, teachers, and local school boards- not by the federal government; constitutionally the federal government has no place in educations. Secondly, from a curriculum standpoint it teaches math backwards in requiring students to provide an explanation as to “why” an answer is correct, often times prompting for students to “justify” incorrect answers because they have never first developed the necessary skill set. Thirdly, because the language arts content (history and science being eliminated from grades K-8 and instead taught in the language arts articles) teaches revisionist history, in that America is not a great country and that certain theories are being put forth as fact, when in reality much of the science remains in dispute. What we really need is an educator who can better represent the people on these issues of tremendous importance.
I most certainly do oppose illegal immigration, and in fact, we cannot have a rule of law when illegal action is actually being promoted by the executive branch, who is supposed to be enforcing the laws we have.
Jobs are best brought back when the market is allowed to more freely operate without government regulations burdening business. To bring jobs back the excessive involvement by the government must be eliminated.
In the same way that government involvement in crippling business our rights as individuals are also being stripped and we must ensure that those representing us in Washington D.C. are working to truly limit the power of government, and promote the rights of the individual as safe guarded in our Bill of Rights.
One of the areas in which the federal government should actually be taking stronger action, though, is in the securing of our national borders. Specifically, the protection of our country from any form of invasion is the one of the primary reasons for the establishment of a national government- to protect national sovereignty which includes ensuring that our borders are secure and capable of controlling who and what comes into our country.
As with all unconstitutional spending, it needs to come to and end (if our debt issues are ever to be addressed) but especially so in the case of tax- payer monies being spent on those who are not citizens- absolutely no entitlement services should be given to non-citizens.
If you should have any additional questions in the future, please don’t hesitate to be in contact. Thanks again!
LikeLike
I’m voting for you. I just posted a little not on my Facebook for my republican friends to take a look at you.
LikeLike
Thank you so very much!!
LikeLike
I read through your position statements and the rest of your site. I was despairing of finding anyone worth voting for in this election. I can finally cast a ballot without having to choose the lesser of evils. Your chances are a long shot in this once great state, but then again all things are possible.
LikeLike
Thanks, Leo! If we can get voters to rally then perhaps that long shot can be narrowed, and I share with you the sentiment that all things are, indeed, possible!
LikeLike
im voting for whoever watches alex jones regularly. it’s like finding out the Bible is in hebrew, but to politics.
LikeLike
I am familiar with Infowars and do stay current on many of the stories they cover, but I do not regularly watch it. I hope, though, that I might be able to still earn your vote with a response to any particular issue you may desire to have covered.
LikeLike
Please answer yes or no. Are you a supporter of pro life?
LikeLike
Yes, I am pro-life. Plessy v. Ferguson, which for nearly 60 years held “separate but equal” as the “law of the land” was eventually overturned and demonstrated one of several cases where the Supreme Court has decided matters in error. In a similar manner, it is time to re-evaluate the poorly decided case law of Roe v. Wade, especially in light of the amazing and incredible scientific discoveries of the past decades. In the over 40 years since the Supreme Court made their decree, the blueprint for human life within DNA has become far more understood, the human genome has been mapped, and advancements in cellular biology have advanced exponentially so that embryonic development can no longer just be called a “clump of cells”, but rather clearly can be seen as stages of human development, of a human being, who is entitled to their human rights, especially the right to life.
LikeLike
As a pro-life supporter, do you support a rape victim that was impregnated by her attacker to be forced to carry a child that she did not willingly conceive? Pro-life supporters tend to look at the narrow point of view versus it as a whole. A woman should have the right to terminate something that might remind her daily of her attack; of which can cause psychological issues for that woman for the rest of her life. Also a woman whose life is at risk may have to terminate, a typical pro-life supporter tends to tell her to “deal” with it. Do you agree with that? Whether you are pro-life or not, it should be a choice that the government should not impede on. You speak about freedoms, pro-life regulations would take away a freedom.
I am not supportive of abortions by no means, but I do understand when there are unforeseen circumstances that warrant that choice for a woman. Now if a woman is constantly getting pregnant and electing to have abortions each time, then yes that should not be allowed.
LikeLike
Thank you for your question seeking further clarification.
My pro-life stance has two primary components the legal and the
scientific (which was most referenced above), especially as the legal decision references the science. In regards to the legal component, first, there is a constitutional issue regarding the branch of government that should be making law, as this is a question of
legislative action it must come from the legislative branch (not the
judicial or executive.) As such, Roe v. Wade cannot be the “law of the
land” because the Supreme Court can only uphold or overturn various
laws upon which it rules. In regards to your specific question of exceptions for rape, incest, and to save the life of the mother, in a rather twisted interpretation of the law Roe v. Wade overturned the Texas state law banning abortion (EXCEPT in cases of rape, incest, and to save the life of the mother) meaning that those exceptions were already in place. If Roe vs. Wade were to be overturned it would require state legislatures (or a U.S. constitutional amendment) to make those determinations on the law that should be coming from the correct branch and division of government.
Generally speaking, I think you raise a very valid point, quite likely held by a number of Americans which is that a majority indicate having varying degrees of objection to abortion, and hence the need for this matter to be addressed in the public forum and through legislative action to address such objections.
If you should have any additional questions or desire any further clarification, please do not hesitate to continue to be in contact. Thanks again!
All the best!
Karen Roseberry
LikeLike
What will you do as a US Senator to get the Federal run-away spending under control?
LikeLike
My planned first piece of legislation would be a bill for zero-base budgeting requiring budgeted monies to be justified (not just automatically populated from last years budget plus 3-4% for inflation) and constitutional in their nature. In conjunction with this bill would be to see to it that for those justifiable budget items that the spending be reduced by one penny for every dollar budgeted from last year.
LikeLike
How do you feel about term limits for the Senate and Congress?
LikeLike
I support them and I am committed to serving no more than 2 terms in the U.S. Senate.
LikeLike
Perfect answer. You’ve received my vote in the primary.
LikeLike
Thank you so very much!
LikeLike
Pro Life= pro VOTE!
LikeLike
Yes, and thanks! I believe the example seen in the overturning of the exceptionally poor case law decided in Plessy v. Ferguson, that for nearly 60 years had been held as the “law of the land” demonstrates how the Supreme Court can rule in error. In a similar manner, it is time to re-evaluate the poorly decided case law of Roe v. Wade, especially in light of the amazing and incredible scientific discoveries of the past decades. In the over 40 years since the Supreme Court made their decree, the blueprint for human life within DNA has become far more understood, the human genome has been mapped, and advancements in cellular biology have advanced exponentially so that embryonic development can no longer just be called a “clump of cells”, but rather clearly can be seen as stages of human development, of a human being, who is entitled to their human rights, especially the right to life.
LikeLike
Hello Karen,
I’ve taken the following quote from your issue section on “values”.
In practice this means life, meaning all lives, must again be valued and any action that has been taken to diminish the value of life needs to be immediately addressed. To inconsistently apply this principle undermines the authority by which we the people value life and claim the value as a rallying call. Liberty, that ability to be able to act and speak freely, even if unpopular, to accept the consequences for such actions, but without fear of government retribution or retaliation, must be restored.
Does this mean that you support those people in the transgender community and their fight for equality?
LikeLike
Hello Renee,
I appreciate you seeking clarification on the quote from the values section of my platform.
I support the right to life for all human beings.
As to equality, I believe that an emphasis should focus on equality under the law, as it pertains to rights and to ensure that the rights of all are protected, which is best accomplished by the passage of laws that apply to all people without a need to identify specific people groups in any particular law as that has a tendency to establish “protected people groups” receiving “special privileges” rather than rights applying to all human beings without distinction. When government attempts to craft laws specific to people groups rather than law equitably applied to all people, there is a potential to create animosity by those not receiving the special treatment, with a recoil effect to oppose the new action by government.Generally speaking the government that governs least governs best, and in terms of federal law any legislative action must be within a constitutional scope.
In regards to a general discussion on rights my stance can be found in the discussion on rights, and begins by explaining that constitutional rights work together and complement one another, they do not counteract and contradict- one’s freedom to exercise their right does not, nor must not, deny another person of their rights. Secondly, it is important to understand the difference between rights and choices. People have the ability to make numerous choices in their lives (an implied right of self-determinism), but just because one can make a choice doesn’t mean that the choice they have made is a right (as to be protected by law to be without infringement.) Furthermore, there is a need in discussions on rights to address the fact that choices (far too often misidentified or redefined as rights) have consequences, and the consequences for those choices cannot be nullified by attempts to merely rename choices as rights.
If you should have any additional questions or desire any further clarification, please do not hesitate to continue to be in contact. Thanks again!
LikeLike
Wow, that was certainly a politician’s version of an answer. A simple ‘no’ would have worked and it would have saved you a lot of time. Thanks anyway.
LikeLike
It was definitely worth the time to define the words in the question in order to give an accurate answer- to which a simple ‘no’ would not be that answer, and hence the reason for seeking a better understanding of terms now often times used to mean very different things from their defined meanings. Thanks again for visiting the campaign webpage!
LikeLike
What is your position on the death penalty? You said that you are pro life but could you tell me about your position in case of rape, incest or if the life of the mother is endangered?
Thank you for clarifying your opinion.
LikeLike
Hello Karine,
Thank you so much for your questions.
My stance on the death penalty is that constitutionally it is an area
that is left to be legislated by the states. Currently, in California,
I believe that the majority of voters still support the death penalty
in certain capital cases, though I do believe that reform is needed to
deal with legal, judicial, and time frame abuses within the current
system. Both the death penalty and death penalty reform will be on the
November ballot for voters to have their voice heard.
My pro-life stance has two primary components the legal and the
scientific, especially as the legal decision references the science.
First, there is a constitutional issue regarding the branch of
government that should be making law, as this is a question of
legislative action it must come from the legislative branch (not the
judicial or executive.) As such, Roe v. Wade cannot be the “law of the
land” because the Supreme Court can only uphold or overturn various
laws upon which it rules. In regards to your specific question of
exceptions for rape, incest, and to save the life of the mother, in a
rather twisted interpretation of the law Roe v. Wade overturned the
Texas state law banning abortion (EXCEPT in cases of rape, incest, and
to save the life of the mother) meaning that those exceptions were
already in place.
Scientifically, the ruling referenced confusion about the “difficult
questions as to when life begins”, extensive discussions on viability,
and trimester timelines. amendment correlation of abortion being
non-enumerated right, especially when the ruling itself left such
uncertainty over the right of a mother and the right of potentiality
for life. Now, in the over 40 years since the Supreme Court made their
decree, the blueprint for human life within DNA has become far more
understood, the human genome has been mapped, and advancements in
cellular biology have advanced exponentially so that embryonic
development can no longer just be called a “clump of cells”, but
rather clearly can be seen as stages of human development, with a vast
expansion in the potentiality of life of a human being, who is
entitled to their human rights, especially the right to life.
If you should have any additional questions, or desire any further
clarification, please don’t hesitate to continue to be in contact.
LikeLike
Hello Karen,
Your answers are very structured and show your trend of thoughts clearly. I am very grateful that you are taking the interest and finding the time to seek the opportunity to serve others as you are a gifted person. May God continue to enlighten you as you provide leadership to others.
LikeLike
Thank you so very much for the kind words!
LikeLike
Karen:
I have read your issue subjects and I am aligned with almost everything you uphold. My question is regarding runaway government agencies and their disdain for the American people who pay their salaries. Senator Cruz has campaigned on the abolishment of the IRS and a flat tax. Can you please give your thoughts on this subject.
LikeLike
Hello Jim,
Thank you so much for your inquiry.
After doing a good bit of research on tax policy (not a subject on which I am passionate, but certainly a subject one needs to be knowledgeable if to run for the U.S. Senate) I have found the Fair tax to the best tax reform policy, and for which I am in favor. Essentially, under the current income tax model we have two possible methods for income taxation (both of which penalize labor- by definition as that is what is taxed, income); the two methods are a progressive and flat tax. Historically reforms to income tax have attempted to flatten taxes to some degree, yet almost invariably devolve in to the progressive form taxation we currently face, and which brings with it the problems we now face with the 77,000 page tax code. Additionally, income tax (especially with the deductions/credits and subsidies created in the process, increase governmental involvement into the most personal decisions of citizens- healthcare, home ownership, family planning/# of child deductions, etc.) While a flat tax might work temporarily to alleviate many of the problems faced, notably in the form of loopholes, disparity, and inequality in the tax code and tax policies, primarily in practice, it will do little to create a permanent solution to the problem (as the tax code continues to be modified back into what we now have, or worse) nor does it deal with the fundamental intrusion of government caused by such types of taxation into the lives of Americans. Additionally, I believe that flat taxes have a tendency to affect lower-middle class voters a bit harder than those in higher tax brackets. While the dollar amount paid is of course higher for higher income has a flat percentage, a home with a $60,000 income facing a flat tax of even 15% (which many flat tax plans believe would be too low) would see their income reduced by $9,000 and to go from $60,000 to $51,000 is felt more than by those who make, for example, $300,000 and despite being taxed $45,000, still have $255,000.
The Fair tax, as seen in an already drafted bill HR 25 and S 155, would work to abolish the 16th amendment and drastically reduce the IRS, as the burdensome tax code would be gone and no longer requiring an agency of such vast size to ensure compliance with so many regulations. There are many other reasons why the Fair Tax is the best of the three possible tax policies (progressive, flat, or fair) and if you have any additional questions, or should desire any further clarification, please don’t hesitate to continue to be in contact. Thanks again!
All the best!
Karen Roseberry
LikeLike
Karen:
You’re opponent George Yang is running on a platform of providing logical solutions to our government created water shortage. How would you address our water issues in California?
LikeLike
Hello Jim,
Thank you so much for asking about water solutions for the state of California.
The majority of water shortage issues come from poor planning and policy decisions that are preventing access of water by people. The poor planning comes from delays in reservoir creation and water collection facilities for recycled water use (where applicable) while population has drastically grown in size, failure to promote development of desalination technology (especially as such technology is being well utilized in places like Israel and with continued improvements comes a reduction in costs), and various water boards scrambling to find water supplies without having proper contingency plans in place to meet water needs, especially by better utilization of water supplies in more abundant years. Most of those issues to be addressed at state and local levels, though reservoir construction and the building of desalination plants can often be met with obstacles that result from poor federal environmental policy which can be addressed by limiting the power of the federal EPA to prevent them from acting unconstitutionally and by reducing funds to such organizations as a means to reduce their power. Such action will also work to address the issue in policy decisions, most of them environmentally motivated as well, such as increasing water levels for fish preservation, rather than to provide it to people. Instead we need policies such as reducing water needs in the environment by managing forestry decisions to ensure enough water is in our rivers and lakes, and then to supply our aquifers. Additionally, it also requires limiting government when intruding upon private property rights, especially the water rights of the owners of that private property.
If you should have any additional questions on this subject or desire any further clarification, please just let me know. Thanks again!
All the best!
Karen Roseberry
LikeLike
Karen, you sound very well oriented in most of the sibjects you talked about exept one,
This is the only subject we disagree on.
This is a land of Imigrants, from the beggining people have come here looking for the Promised Land and is been this way ever since. Why then are we now criminalizing Imigrants when very heroically they risk their lives coming to un unknown new land looking for a better life. Most law aviding Imigrants, all they want is a safe and permanent Nation to allow them to strugle and work in search for their dreams. Most become good contributing members of America the great and many of them have layed down their lives defending this nation. Why then, do we criminalize them? This goes against what America stands for.
I wish, that with the same conviction that you stand for other issues, you would lead and not follow, that you would be a uniting leader and not a devisive one like Trump. I wish you would set a good example on building bridges not walls, and lead by example by not giving in to hate due to pier pressure, but to actually stand for what America is, just like the Statue of liverty stands for us all against all that threatens a good moral society. There are things that have been, are and should be as they always should remain. America was, is and should continue to be the promised land and the land of opportunity for all without prejudist.
LikeLike
Hello Jesus,
Thank you so much for your post. I appreciate you taking the time to communicate the concerns you have, especially related to the way in which immigrants are perceived in the United States.
Based off your reply I am not seeing any sharp points of disagreement, and would ask what is it, specifically, that concerns you in my stance on immigration as seen when visiting:
https://karenroseberryforsenate.com/immigration/
I would also point out the distinct difference between immigrants who come to this country legally, as opposed to those who violate one of America’s most defining values, which is a respect for rule of law. and enter the country illegally, there by becoming an illegal immigrant. In almost all cases the perception issues you describe, center around this issue of the rule of law, which most immigrants that you reference do adhere. If you mean to suggest that an overall reform in the the process by which any immigrant may legally enter the country, that can be a valid discussion to be held, but one not specifically related to dealing with those are already here, and those who came illegally.
I will look forward to hearing back regarding the specific concerns and to have the opportunity to address those issues directly. If you should have any other questions, or desire any further clarification, please don’t hesitate to communicate those as well. Thanks again for taking the time to communicate on the issues of greatest concern to you.
LikeLike
My family immigrated here from Europe to avoid starvation. But they did it legally. Immigration built our country. But some people want to visit the extremes, either by letting everyone come without restrictions, or by stopping all immigration. Extremes never work for long, nor they support the American way of life. We need to prevent wholesale swamping of our borders so that we can absorb newcomers without overwhelming our assets. We need to keep “undesirable” groups from coming, not by choosing races or religions, but by looking for honest, hard working and non-violent people of any color. If we don’t think the current laws are working, then people should work to change them, not ignore them. That only perpetuates the problem. I think Ms. Roseberry is looking for a solution, not a patch.
LikeLike
Thank you, Joan!
LikeLike
I have been going over your platform and your answers to questions from voters like me. I think you have an excellent grasp of the issues that concern us all. Your answers are well thought of, logical and clearly explained. You have my vote.
LikeLike
Thank you so much, Aurora!
LikeLike
Karen, I believe you would have had much better luck running for the House of Representatives where you would have represented a fairly conservative district. Your experience would have served your district well in Congress. The person who suggested running for the head of the local PTA was full of hot air. You’re a thoughtful, principled person, and Congress needs more like you. it’s just this state is so blasted Progressives and ill-informed on the issues no one as thoughtful and conservative as you are has a snowball in hell of a chance of winning a statewide election. it’s not your loss – it’s ours.
LikeLike
Thanks, Michael- I understand your suggestion. At this time, my district is represented by a pretty decent congressman. While I disagree with a few of his votes I, personally, don’t feel the need to challenge him for his seat. You are absolutely correct, though, about the challenge of trying to get statewide name recognition, and on that issue I will just keep working all the harder to do so! Thanks again!
LikeLike
Thirty-four senatorial candidates–wow! I confess I’m considering you because you look to be an honest person. Having read the blog on the issues, your answers tend to reinforce that idea. I am a native Californian and feel strongly our state. As voters, we cannot hope to know all that goes on “the hill,” but if elected, I’m sure you will. You’re young enough to withstand the onslaught of bureaucratic wickets you’ll have to surmount. Given your honestly, and grit, you can do it.
LikeLike
Thanks, Richard!
LikeLike
Best of everything to you. You are what this country needs.
LikeLike
Thank you so much!
LikeLike
Hi Karen-
Nice positions.. Just wanted to add to the immigration issue. I’m a first generation American from a family that left Europe, legally, for a better life in the U.S. I believe all immigrants should be legal, as my family was. Its not easy and you have to wait, but you need to respect the laws of the country you plan to make your home.
I hope you do well in the election. I”m filling out my ballot now as I’m a mail voter. Also I’m an engineer in the Silicon Valley. If you come out our way, please let the valley know, i bet you will have a very well attended event!
Best Wishes.
-deg
LikeLike
Thanks, deg!! I really appreciate your comments and your participation in the voting process!
LikeLike
Hello Miss Roseberry,
I like your beliefs and stance on almost all issues. But there is one thing that troubles me, you were asked twice and did not give a clear and strait forward answer on your stance on whether it is ok or right or a right for someone to kill a child in the womb in cases of rape, incest, or mother’s life endangered (of which there are no known such cases), I would very much like to know what you personally believe, so please give me a strait forward answer a yes or no on if you are for or against it. This is the only thing keeping me from voting for you.
I mean no disrespect and i know its a tough issue but I have to know where YOU stand on this, so please do not restate what you said to others I have read it all and almost everything on your website, thank you.
Thank you for your time and desire to uphold the constitution and American values.
LikeLike
Hello Sarah,
Thank you so very much for your question. I thought I had more clearly answered this question and I appreciate you following up to get further clarity.
Personally, I believe all human life should be protected, including human lives conceived as the result of vile actions such as rape or incest. Meaning, in direct answer to your question, I do not believe killing an innocent individual for someone else’s crime to be right, or that because the mother’s rights were heinously violated that entitles the taking away of another individual’s right to life. As to the protection of the mother’s life, I do believe there are recorded cases where there is an overwhelming likelihood that a mother’s life could be lost if carrying the pregnancy to full term. Such a case is a much more difficult ethical dilemma where one is faced with the question of taking a life to save a life and in that case I don’t think there is an easy answer as to what is “right.” Personally, I would encourage prayer, family discussion, and medical counsel to arrive at a conclusion for the individual situation.
I do also want to clarify, while I will always seek to answer personal questions honestly, my personal views do not directly translate into political views and actions. Politically speaking, I believe that such matters deserve discussion and informed debate in the public forum and in the legislature, not a decision that should have been “made law of the land” by judicial activism of the Supreme Court. I believe prior to Roe vs. Wade state legislatures addressed such possible exceptions, and while not always in agreement it was the constitutional method for addressing these issues. Personally, I would work to support personhood for the unborn, as evidenced by their individual blueprint of life they possess, and would give consideration for difficult medical decisions where there is high probability that life of the mother could be lost as a result of the pregnancy.
LikeLike
Hi Karen,
I’m very impressed with your answers to the questions here. You have my vote.
What is your position on Article 5 Convention of States? Would you (actively) support a Convention of States?
Much luck and best wishes,
Kim Bolte
LikeLike
Hello Kim,
Thank you so much for your encouraging words, support, and vote.
Article 5 and a Convention of States is an issue on which I believe good conservatives can respectfully disagree. I know that Mark Levin is one of the most well-respected and outspoken individuals in favor of a COS and I heard him speak on the matter at the API Liberty Summit in Fresno. While I appreciate the goals and aims intended by such a convention, and hear the arguments asserted to protect the Convention from creating a document and framework for government that would invite a liberal take-over, I am not convinced. In a day and age where words like male, female, and marriage are being redefined I believe it would be almost impossible to prevent such alternative definitions from making its way into the what would be created by the COS. I believe we need to restore a literal interpretation to one of the most well-crafted documents for the establishment of government ever written, the United States Constitution. If we are unable to do that task then I am gravely concerned to think what might take its place.
LikeLike
this government has tried many ways to keep illegal traffic out. we used wire ,walls, patrols nothing has worked. the drug cartels tunnel, this serious. at the least fences have been cut. may be a big wall has a chance. anyway if we don’t find a way we will be doomed/
LikeLike
Hi Gary,
Thank you for your post.
I think what is most needed is a vigilant citizenry and responsive government to properly staff the border and act on existing immigration law, because I agree that any border security infrastructure (walls, fences, technology, etc.) is futile without human enforcement of the law.
LikeLike
Since you claim to oppose “slanderous name calling and comments without substance,” can we assume you will oppose Trump and his racist agenda for President?
LikeLike
Here is my most recent post/response regarding the upcoming presidential election and concerns surrounding the RNC. You can visit my Facebook page to continue to see updates- a political strategy assessment will be posted later today.
There is just over a month until the Republican National Convention and I have extreme concerns. I am concerned that a quarter of a century of “politically correct” policies unconstitutionally pushed, even in some, though not all cases, with the best of intentions, has created animosity and divide within our nation that is “justifying” the use of racial bias to counter “political correctness.” Rather than having addressed this issue through a change of heart, mind, and ideas people were told what to think by forced government policies and the racial tension that has ensued in this country has never been more palatable. Rather than emphasizing humanity, human rights, and that there is one human race, we have written law after law that divides people into more and more “people groups” each claiming their own set of “protected rights” instead of remembering that law is to be applied equitably to all.
What is needed is not more laws to be abused, manipulated, or an attempt at legislating “everything” (including even pronoun use in the most extreme cases) all under the guise of political correctness. What is needed is to enforce rule of law and remember that lady justice wears a blindfold, but she is not deaf and dumb. We should be engaging in constructive debate and dialogue rather than making every discussion about race that only divides our nation. We need not be appeasing, condescending, or appealing to bribing polices of come to “our” side in order to be “given” more stuff, when in reality such policies only economically enslave the followers to be dependent on the stuff, rather than to follow the historical example of the ethic of hard work, individual accountability, acceptance of responsibility, and respect for rule of law that allows those in the country to make the most of the amazing opportunity this nation affords.
As it relates to the Republican National Convention, I would like to think that the party of Lincoln-the party who worked to free the slaves, the party of Teddy Roosevelt who rightly used the power of the federal government to keep big business in check and then resume laissez-faire policies to let the free market grow the economy, the party of Reagan who ended the Cold War to have the U.S. emerge as the world superpower, would ensure that their nominee for president understands these differences and address the people’s frustrations constructively rather than destructively and divisively.
LikeLike