Suzi Voyles

Strongly Agree

No taxpayer dollars in any form should go to ANY abortion provider and no aid should be given to foreign governments that will be or could be directed to provide abortions. Funding to the NIH for abortions for the purpose of fetal tissue procurement should not be allowed.

Strongly Disagree

As a Pro-life advocate, I recognize that all life is a gift from God and has value. That value spams from conception until natural, unassisted death.

None. Years ago, I used to include the life (not the "health"-too broad a term) of the mother. However, the instance of this is so very rare and medical technology has advance to help sustain the life of both the mother and the baby person. Life is a sacred God given blessing: we are created in His image. Since He is the creator and sustainer of life, it is not for man to extinguish. "Reproductive rights" are not what is in question, we all can choose to, or not to,reproduce. Once conception takes place, it is another issue since it involves another, separate life. One cannot choose to kill another innocent person. We are called to be defenders of innocent people and a voice for those who cannot speak for themselves. And Constitutionally, we are guaranteed Life...(On a personal note, my godly son-in-law was afforded life by his birth mother. He is a wonderful husband to our daughter and a father after God's own heart to his two daughters.)

Strongly Disagree

This is Communism. It leads to an unproductive society with no one being able to "elevate" themselves though disciplined hard work and innovation.Eventually you have "workers" and a smaller class of rulers. Goods produced usually do not exceed what is absolutely minimally necessary (food, shelter, clothing, etc).

Strongly Agree

Cutting spending and "Sunsetting" agencies that have outlived their purpose (ie. ATF) will begin to reduce the bureaucratic budget busters. Laws should be written so that these agencies and their departments are handled similar to how the Trump administration handled regulations to delete costly, unnecessary ones. All funding should come through the House (as designed in the Constitution) and "unfunded" mandates would no longer be allowed from any agency.

We need a massive overhaul of the tax code. We have tried the "flat tax" multiple times and it is not a permanent solution. We need to move to more of a Fair Tax system that will eliminate the IRS and federal taxes. It will jump-start the U.S. economy, bring back our American industries that have fled off-shore due to taxes burdens and thus create more American jobs. It will also capture billions of tax dollars that are currently untaxed by criminal "enterprises". It will completely revolutionize the way that America pays for itself and help Americans keep more money from their own paycheck (and cut the hassle and waste associated with April 15).

Strongly Agree

Our Founders realized that it was impossible to govern without the Bible and therefore deserves to be protected as stated in the First Amendment.

Strongly Disagree

In recent years, the rulings of the SCOTUS has placed the First Amendment's Establishment Clause and The Free Exercise of Religion Clauses in tension. This was not so for the Framers. None of the Framers believed that a public role for religion was evil in itself. Most opposed and established Anglican church in England because they saw it as a threat to the free exercise of religion That was the many thrust of Madison in 1785 when he argued that the state of Virginia ought not to pay the salaries of the clergy. Chief Justice Requist argued that the original meaning of the establishment clause only "forbade preference among religious sects and denominations". He also offered several other pieces of evidence to contradict the notion that the "wall of separation" metaphor accurately represents First Amendment principles including Thanksgiving Proclamations and other actions by the presidents including the Northwest Ordinance that permitted grants to religious schools. In the last few years, we have seen government overreach in multiple areas regarding the Church. Take for example the case of the County of Los Angeles v Grace Community Church during the COVID lockdowns. This famous case ended with the church being able to conduct services of worship (with the County paying all legal costs of nearly 1MM). This is a discussion that could take the majority of the 5000 words citing multiple cases heard by the Courts. To simplify, my opinion lies in the simplicity of the Amendment: the state cannot require the church to conform or coerce to any secular principles or practices and cannot institute a state religion. The church is free government coercion but the state is free to display religious symbols in public places and public proclamations of Thanksgiving to God (Lee v Weismann 1992). We are free to practice our faith without fear of government reprisal. The state may not interfere.

None

C until Medicaid and Medicare can be phased out as much as possible. The less control that the Federal or State governments have over our personal health choices, the better. At this point, it would be impossible to unravel, but going back to a free market medical practice would provide better care at less cost to the individual. We should eventually abolish all forms of government healthcare including Medicare and Medicaid incrementally and deliberately for future. since the inception of Medicare, people have not taken as good of care of themselves defaulting to having the government care for them and the quality of care has deminished. we need to get back to doctor/patient rather than "provider" patient.

C

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

1. Pray without ceasing. 2. Be prepared with a strong military defense 3. n Islamist terrorism, the United States and the West face a foe of the same ideological mold as the Soviet Union. Both communism and Islamist terrorism are threats grounded in principles deeper than geo-political or social considerations. In the 14 years since 9/11 there have been 65 separate Islamist terrorist plots or attacks on U.S. soil. Thanks to the diligence of American intelligence and security operations, few of these plots have come to fruition. However, Islamist terrorism will only be defeated when we see it is as far more than mindless violence and “extremism". Islamist terrorism is grounded in a rigid theocratic-political view of the world and we must begin to view it as it espouses who it is. There is no need for America to declare its own “fatwa” against all Muslims. Rather, we must recognize that ISIS and Al-Qaeda represent a clear and present transnational danger that calls for precise definition and decisive action. We must be willing to understand our enemy as he is, not as we might wish him to be. There is no need for America to declare its own “fatwa” against all Muslims. Rather, we must recognize that ISIS and Al-Qaeda represent a clear and present transnational danger that calls for precise definition and decisive action. We must be willing to understand our enemy as he is, not as we might wish him to be.

Strongly Agree

We must complete the Wall. It is a matter of national security.

Strongly Agree

absolutely

Congress should establish a merit-based immigration system, in which America selects the majority of future immigrants based on skills, as opposed to the current majority family-based system in which immigrants select future immigrants based on relations. We should end chain migration and end universal birthright citizenship. Establish a merit-based immigration system. Congress should modify the family preference system and move to a new merit-based system of visas. A shift from family-based immigration to merit-based immigration would prioritize economically and fiscally beneficial immigration and better serve our national interest. Such a system should be designed in a way that recognizes that the market is the best and most objective way to identify those who will benefit the economy. This starts with requiring immigrants to have an offer of employment (an objective market signal) or financial means of self-support before entering the country. The government would not be picking winners and losers among industries, job categories, or immigrants. If there are more requests than available green cards, Congress could consider a limited points system or an auction that again would place emphasis on the market. For example, a company’s offered compensation to the immigrant would have significant priority, as compensation provides objective evidence of market demand. Other heavily weighted factors could include financial resources and assets, educational achievement, professional credentials, job experience, and fluency in English. These factors, while not perfect or completely objective measures, would focus on reasonable measures of economic and fiscal impact, avoiding both government micromanagement and burdening American taxpayers with higher levels of government welfare assistance. One way to ensure that merit-based green card candidates are indeed working or otherwise providing significant benefit to the U.S. would be to make their legal permanent residence conditional for the first several years. To transition from a conditional lawful permanent resident (LPR) to full LPR status, immigrants should be required to maintain employment for most of the conditional period, although they would be allowed to switch jobs. The total period of time required to hold a green card before becoming a citizen—five years—would remain unchanged, but a requirement that the holder not be a public charge before becoming a U.S. citizen could be added. Congress should allow the number of immediate relatives granted residency to remain uncapped while restricting the definition of immediate relatives to spouses and minor children. Congress should cut all or almost all of the current family preferences for extended family, thus ending chain migration. U.S. citizens could continue to sponsor their parents, but only for a renewable temporary visa that would not make them eligible for welfare benefits and that would require the citizens to provide proof of health insurance and financial support of their parents. It is also worth noting that extended family members may have other legal avenues for immigrating to the U.S. Congress should eliminate the Diversity Immigrant Visa (DV) Program, which provides 50,000 immigrant visas annually to random individuals from countries with low rates of immigration to the United States. The United States should evaluate potential citizens individually. Rather than leave to chance the question of who gets an immigrant visa, Congress should decide based on the qualifications of potential citizens, taking into consideration experience, professional credentials, and education. The Diversity lottery treats people not as individuals, but as the means to artificially create representation from various countries. Congress should end this system because it does not serve the national interest and discriminates based on national origin. The granting of birthright citizenship to all children born in the United States regardless of the parents’ immigration status is the result of a misinterpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment and is inconsistent with the intent of the amendment’s framers. The legislative history of the amendment makes clear that its purpose was to bestow citizenship only on those who owed their permanent, undivided allegiance to the United States and were subject to the fullest extent of its jurisdiction. In particular, this meant the newly freed slaves, who were lawful & permanent U.S. residents and not subject to any foreign power. Congress should clarify the federal definition of “citizenship” in a manner that conveys its consistency with the original understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment by explicitly stating that only the U.S.-born children of individuals subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States are citizens by virtue of birth on U.S. soil. This would include the children of lawful permanent resident aliens referred to in United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Disagree

CRT is based in Marxist, not Biblical thought. The Marxists knew in the lat 19 Century that they could not cause a revolution in the U.S. by "class because anyone could come from to the U.S. with nothing and through hard work and meeting a need of some sort, become a multi-millionaire. They did figure that they could split us by race. Hence, the Franklin School became to push the victim/oppressor mentality & soon CRT evolved. This view is not Biblical. We all were created by God, male & female.

Man was directly and immediately created by God in His image and likeness. Although we were created without sin, with a rational nature, intelligence, will and moral responsibility to God, Adam chose to sin and all men lost their innocence and the penalty became spiritual and physical death, we were now subject to God's wrath. But since by man came death, by Man came also the Resurrection! Salvation is wholly of God by grace through the redemption of Jesus' shedding of His blood, taking on my sin, it is not by merit or works. I am justified solely by His sovereign grace and mercy and that I should glorify Him, enjoy and fellowship with Him and live in His will. Knowing Him comes by the study of His Word. It is His words that best define my core values and world view and distinguishes how I conduct my life, view my "neighbors", teach my children, express charity and yes, even for whom I vote. I was created by God to glorify Him, serve Him and enjoy Him forever.

Strongly Disagree

I have been involved in elections in Fulton County, GA for over 20 years Insuring that a person is who they say they are protects every voter.

First, this is a state issue, not federal. I would advocate for: Requiring government-issued voter ID to vote Creating clean and accurate voter rolls Ensuring that ballots are returned to election officials by election day End mass mail-in ballots End no excuse absentee ballots Require all voting machines to be made in the USA Transparent and uniform ballots counting procedures Ban Ballot harvesting Ban the privatization of elections Litigation to protect voters and hold officials accountable Motor-voter should be "opt-in" rather than "opt-out"

Strongly Disagree

Reparations is another method of wealth redistribution based on arbitrary and often unverifiable information. This would be difficult since there were slave owners who were black, white, Indian, etc. The were approx 400,000 black slaves and over 7,000,000 white slaves. The plan would be to collect that from the government, but since it is we the people who actually pay into the treasury through taxes, this owuld require those who had no connection to slavery to be responsible without cause.

I do not believe that the U.S. is a "racist" nation. I see where we took God's Word seriously and abolished the economic system that had existed for centuries and worked to create a more perfect union. Are there racist people in the U.S.-unfortunately, yes. That is a sin problem and we need to pray that they would be reminded that God created man in His own image. We all started with the same "parentage" in Adam and Eve (or flash forward to Noah-the same). Recognizing that it is He who created us, how can I, a mere woman, hate someone else based upon the fact that we have different features? I believe that most people here reject the notion that is being pushed upon us that one is the "victim" and the other the "oppressor", in fact most people in the U.S. know that it is ridiculous to base hatred of a person on arbitrary features. However, those being persuaded that they are the victims of another race can be "rallied" into violent action as we saw in such cities like Portland. The months long violent devastation allowed to go unchecked is definitely a threat to our domestic security.

Strongly Agree

We have seen the devastating consequences since President Biden shut off our pipeline and curtailed further exploration. This is an issue of national security.

A) We should be good stewards of the environment, our oil and natural gas resources are abundant and we were totally energy independent until the current administration shut of our pipeline. In fact we were exporting to the entire world. We have the most environmentally safe methods of extraction and are among the cleanest nations of the world in air and water quality.

Very Conservative

I believe in the Constitution as it was written. I believe that America is a sovereign nation that should protect our citizens first and when possible serve to aid people who have suffered from a natural disaster (ie. earthquake, tsunami, etc). We should protect our borders and rewrite our immigration policy. I believe the rest of my views on this subject are clearly stated in other sections throughout this questionnaire.

BallotPedia, John Fredricks's Radio Show, Hannity, Matha McCallum, OAN New, NTD News, Newsmax (Greg Kelly), Epoch Times

No

I have 3 main priorities: I : divesting Washington of the power that legitimately resides with the states. The people have the rights and we grant them to the government. Agencies such as the Dept. of Education should be disbanded and taken sent back for state or local control. Other agencies, such as the ATF should be sunset and agencies like the IRS should be minimized through the codifying of a simple Fair Tax code. II : The Economy and Inflation: First-reopen our own energy resources to Balancing the Budget with a new two-year cycle to reform the budgeting process and ending "emergency" provisions to create a CR. Stop the spending and reducing the size of government through all means readily available (not replacing retirees, eliminating outdated agencies, etc.) Not allowing any agency to receive funds EXCEPT through the House Budget process would eliminate our largest problem of unfunded mandates-the largest part of our debt. 2.Revamping the immigration process and eliminating certain visa programs that are no in the best interest of the citizens. 3. Election Integrity is a state issue, but using the bully pulpit to advocate for the items outlined to secure each person's vote and prosecute cheating earlier in this questionnaire. 3.I have a proven track record of experience advocating (at my own cost) for everything from the born alive petition 2x in DC, the Heartbeat Bill here in GA, getting back to sound academics and away from the current Marxist indoctrination of our children. The time has come for school choice to allow the money to follow the educational needs of the student. I have a solid background in policy and have the ability to build strong coalitions. There is much to be done quickly and there is no time for those with no experience to figure out the system of the U.S. House. I have the wisdom to see where the promises of 25 plus years ago have led to many of the "conservative" disasters that we are trying to unravel today--like NAFTA, that took good paying American jobs overseas, shuttered our industries

Strongly Agree

It is a legal doctrine that shields police performing discretionary duties from civil liability in cases involving the deprivation of statutory or constitutional rights. police are entitled to qualified immunity so long as their actions do not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Its broad protection is intended for “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law”.

Strongly Disagree

These are two separate issues and funding should not be taken from police who are sworn to "protect" a community. Some such programs are actually in violation of Constitutionally protected civil rights without due process.

The right to bear arms underscores the existence of a subordinate government. Convicted felons, could be banned, but felons do not obey the law in the first place. The right to bear arms underscores the existence of a subordinate government. At the framing of the Constitution, there was no restriction or regulation to the right. Within the last century, many new restrictions have been adopting legal restrictions preventing the misuse use firearms by irresponsible civilians or felons. I do not agree with any restriction that interferes with law abiding citizens to defend themselves or their property. Onerous conditions and qualifications should not apply. Originalism is championed for a number of fundamental reasons. FIrst, it comports with the nature of the Constitution, which binds & limits any particular generation from ruling according to the passions of times. Second, it supports limited popular government that is accountable-it understands that a form of government is accountable to the people leaving them fundamentally in charge of their own destinies, best protects human liberties. Third, it accords with the constitutional purpose of limiting government. It understands the federal government to to have no legitimate existence outside of the Constitution. Fourth, it limits the judiciary asserting its will over making policy that is unaccountable to the people. "The Second Amendment remains among the most hotly contested of rights laid out in the Bill of Rights, with widespread divergence in elite and popular opinion concerning its fundamental meaning. Some legal scholars have traditionally “marginalize[d] the Amendment,” describing it as a protection of a collective right to “bear arms” only in connection with service in a militia and having little application today (Levinson, 1989). Meanwhile, a recent poll shows that 73.4 percent of Americans believe the Second Amendment protects the rights of “law-abiding citizens . . . to legally own firearms for things like hunting, sport and personal protection” (McLaughlin, 2021). The tension between these two views, the collective and the individual rights model, came to a head in the District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), where a divided Supreme Court reviewed the text, history, and precedent of the Amendment and held in favor of individual rights." The Heller decision also turned on the drafters’ focus on the inherent nature of the right. The wording “shall not be infringed” meant that the Amendment implicitly “codified a preexisting right” rather than creating a new one (Heller, 554 U.S. at 592) (emphasis in original). Founding-era scholar St. George Tucker called the Amendment “the true palladium of liberty . . . The right of self defense is the first law of nature . . . Much has been made of “contemporary crime in poor Black neighborhoods” as a rationale for gun control. But another, perhaps stronger case can be made that a society with a dismal record of protecting a people has a dubious claim on the right to disarm them.

Strongly Disagree

It is not the weapon (of any kind) that harms a person, it is the criminal actions of a person using a particular weapon.