Robert Lowry

Strongly Agree

Life begins at conception --- period

Strongly Disagree

We the People have not consented to government any "powers" to legislate in this area our people's lives. Therefore, any such laws (pro or con) in this area would be unconstitutional.

When nature happens to bring it about - not humans. As a physician, I know that there is never a situation where, even if the life of the mother is in danger, medical efforts cannot also be applied to try and rescue the child as well.

Strongly Disagree

Redistribution of income is theft; theft is sin; sin can never be made a legitimate act, no matter what the legal system and the politicians may try to otherwise claim.

Strongly Agree

Completely rescind the existence of the income tax, and the IRS. The Federal government should only be capable of obtaining tax revenues via import duties and from taxing the states. Never should it be consented an authority to tax the individual citizens or businesses. The individual citizen is not directly represented in the Congress, and so should not be taxed as if so. States are, and so states can justly be taxed. In this way, the power of the states can act as a legitimate force to push back against the overreach of the federal government via the power of the purse - which under the present taxing system, does not exist. Presently, the individual citizens are destroyed for lack of power to truly defend themselves against the IRS - and that is unjust. Such a simple system would save billions of dollars as well.

Strongly Agree

Our American Social Contract is founded upon Christian Ethics. That ethos includes a right to one's own faith - even if that person's faith rejects the very God who gave it to him. But note that the question, as posed here, presumes it ought to be the role of the civil government to protect this right. And it is! But the problem today is that it is that very same government (at all levels now), which has become the greatest violator of that right.

Strongly Disagree

The whole idea of the American Revolution is antithetical to the idea that the government could have the authority to tell any person who he can or or cannot (must or must not) deal with in the marketplace - irrespective of it is is a moral or religious belief --- for the right is a right - it is a natural right of all people, and a right that exists irrespective of if the person has a moral or religious belief behind his decision.

I lay this out in my book: Recovering American Liberty: Rediscovering the Principles of Just Government. The problem this generation of Americans has, is that too many have been taught a lie in our public schools. They are taught that the two institutions are in conflict with one another and that ultimately the state (the civil authority) is the "sovereign" - and thus "above" the church. They are taught that the public square is the realm of the civil authority and not the church. But such teaching is completely wrong. The "church" and the "state" do not exist as independent isolated bodies. The civil government is not an entity unto itself - as if its sovereignty exists by the fact it is a civil government. By definition, no civil government can actually be the sovereign, for it has no powers natural to itself. It requires and is completely dependent upon the powers given it from the people: "...deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed." In the realm of the church, however, the sovereign is God. And it is by His sovereign power that God gave man authority to "rule over all the earth." It is therefore man's natural right to rule over the earth - but not his fellow man. The American Founders understood this and the founding generation set their social contract upon this ethos - this philosophical foundation. Accordingly, both these institutions only exist in the fact that "we the people" exist, and have elected in our individual sovereign authority, to come together as a community - a society - to an agreed upon form of civil government. And that submission is only in the particular areas of the limited and specific consented-to powers that were actually, positively consented to the civil government. In America, there was no consent given to this civil government to demand anyone hold to any particular faith. To move now to consider the church authority, one must consider that for the theist, God has all sovereign power. This power is above any power claimed by any civil authority. For the atheist, this power does not exist. And here now is where the mistake is made by the present-day Americans. They fail to realize that atheism is actually a faith (a church). In this mistake, they allow the atheist to apply to the civil government, an authority over them that the universal society did not consent to. The result of that mistake is that the atheist may press for civil government powers that were never actually justly consented to the civil government. But because those powers "sounded" nice or even "Christian," the majority of the people allowed the power to be taken by the civil authorities - and away from their own individual rights. But the proper way this was to work in the American social contract, was that each person is recognized his right to establish for himself two governments of which to submit - neither one of them overlapping in authority. Hence why Jefferson would say a wall of separation exists between the two - each had its area of authority. Both civil and church governments, therefore, would "serve" the people, not rule over them. God alone is the true Sovereign. When this is understood by the people of a state or nation, their eyes will be open to the fact that when a person is standing in the public square, he is standing there not just as a civilian member of the state, but he is also standing there as a member of his faith - of his religion - of the church. Neither the state, nor the religious authorities therefore have full authority over the public square. But where the "state" has been consented the authority to ensure the tranquility of the public square, so too does it fall upon the officials AND members of the state (i.e. the citizens), to act, when the peace is disturbed, to secure the peace. This is the case in the US, because it is to the state government that this power to secure the physical peace has been consented. But too, this is why bringing one's faith to, and declaring one's faith in the public square is a right of all people - for such authority to quell or limit it, has not been consented to the civil authorities. But it is in our acquiescence to the atheists' pressing their form of church "of no_God" into the powers of the civil government, that the town square has become thought to be the place of "no-God" and not all faiths. This is why I argue that "we the people" need to Rediscover the Principles of Just Government, if we are going to ever Recover American Liberty.

none - we have never consented to our civil government any such power to do so. And nor can we. This is not a question of safety, but of liberty - of natural God-given unalienable rights. We have never given such consent, because not only would it be unethical to do so, but it is not a power existent within our individual natural rights to demand such - and therefore, as we cannot justly consent to anything we do not have within ourselves to demand of another, nor can we consent such a power to a civil government....even for the claim of safety.

D - but as many have already been unjustly forced to give into those programs, those who put in should be given back what they are owed. Then stop them and let the free-market work. We have all experienced the past two years, what corruption is brought into healthcare when bureaucrats are allowed to instill their ideas and desires into it. Healthcare IS NOT A RIGHT. But that does not mean its availability cannot be in part organized by a community. As a frontline doctor in these COVID times - I do see the danger of government controlled healthcare, and I know how it needs to be fixed.

C

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

Stop trying to interfere in other nations' internal affairs. And then focus on the actual true threats and take them out.

Strongly Agree

Strongly Agree

There should not have been federal funds going to them in the first place.

Those with a proven record of being like-minded to our principles - those who know and believe in the the principles laid out in the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. We hold these truths to be self-evident...

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Disagree

I believe that Christ is my Lord and Savior. I believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God, and my worldview - my "values" come from what is taught us in His Word.

Strongly Disagree

1. Must be a citizen 2. Must be registered to vote 3. Must show a legit photo ID 4. Only the military gets to vote by absentee ballot 5. All ballots must be on paper -

Strongly Disagree

No. Americans are not racists. Thus, racism cannot be an issue for our security.

Strongly Agree

Neither: appropriate environmental laws in the light of private property rights are the laws we ought to have.

Very Conservative

Read my book and find out for sure where I stand: Recovering American Liberty

Read "Recovering American Liberty" --- I wrote it. Look up the FLCCC website or America's Frontline Doctors, and you will find I am there standing up for truth against vile lies from the DC elite about COVID.

no

term limits

Disagree

Qualified immunity has been taken way too much advantage of in many cases.

Strongly Disagree

The main purpose of government is to "secure our rights" - that is fire, police and defense... Not healthcare. (And yes, I am a physician.)

Restricting the government is ok --- not we the people. ALL prior gun laws from Congress are Unconstitutional and need to be rescinded.

Strongly Disagree

Victims have only the perpetrator to look to, for redress.