Jason Mrochek

Strongly Agree

Strongly Agree

Strongly Disagree

There are no circumstances where abortion should be allowed. In question #17 above, the Born Alive bill (S. 311, Sec. 3(a) 116th Congress) allows mothers to murder their children without consequence and also implies that since the bill only applies to babies who have been delivered, that the murder of babies in utero is acceptable. The truth is that Title 18 USC Chapter 51 already contains language making murdering babies illegal after they are born (and in utero). We simply need to enforce this statute to prevent the murder of babies.

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

We have made promises to seniors and those enrolled in Social Security and we should do whatever is within our authority to keep those promises. However, we must reform the system or it will be insolvent. I would not, and could not, guarantee these benefits for future generations from the federal government. The enumerated powers (Article I, Section 8) of the Constitution do not allow the federal government the authority to provide income security for its citizens. In accordance with the 10th amendment, this power should be reserved for the states if they choose to exercise it.

In short, I would reduce any spending that was not in strict compliance with the enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. Many of the appropriations bills enacted by Congress are well-outside the scope of these powers of the federal government, and should only be exercised by the states at their discretion. This unconstitutional spending includes areas such as education, environment, housing, health care, agriculture, and labor to name a few.

Under no circumstances should taxpayers help pay off existing student loans. These loans are optional and if the students did not intend to honor their legal obligation to pay them, they should not have taken the money. The idea of a bailout of individual loans is contrary to the foundational value in America of personal responsibility.

Strongly Agree

Strongly Agree

Yes

The phrase “separation of church and state” means to me what its author, Thomas Jefferson, meant in his letter to the Danbury Baptists Association on Jan. 1st, 1802. In the letter, President Jefferson was responding to concerns from the association because they had been forced to rely on the state to grant them the "privilege" of worshiping rather than enjoying it as an "inalienable right". The concern was not the influence of religion upon government, but the other way around. In his response, President Jefferson, replied to this specific concern and assured the Baptists that the establishment and free-exercise clauses of the 1st amendment build a "wall of separation between [c]hurch & [s]tate" so as to protect the Baptists from an intrusive government who might establish the official religion for their state as well as interfere with their right to worship as they please. This was the clear intent of the phrase according to historical documents.

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Disagree

The key to quality healthcare coverage is letting the free market reign. The less government is involved in our healthcare, the better it is for us as patients. No one should come between us and our doctors; not to determine what level of care is best, nor to tell us what the value of the services should be. These decisions should be made only through consultation and negotiation with our doctors. Additionally, the enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8 of our U.S. Constitution do not include healthcare. Therefore, any legislation surrounding this subject is left for the states to decide in accordance with the 10th amendment. I will promote the full repeal of health care legislation including MACRA and Obamacare.

Strongly Agree

The United States, through a joint resolution of Congress, should publicly affirm that radical Islam is a political doctrine intent on world domination and is not compatible with our constitutional republic. As such, those individuals and associations holding to and advocating for this doctrine in America are guilty of sedition at a minimum and should be prosecuted for the same. Additionally, the individuals and associations around the world who overtly state that their goal is the destruction of America should be taken at their word, be labeled an enemy of the United States, and be hunted down and destroyed in accordance with an act of Congress. When an imminent threat is discovered, the President through his authority as the Commander-in-Chief, should respond swiftly and decisively to protect American lives.

Strongly Agree

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

Strongly Disagree

In keeping with my America First principle, only those foreign nationals who will be a net benefit to our country and its citizens should be allowed to immigrate to the United States. Generally, individuals who will make a positive economic contribution in the form of new investments, starting new businesses, or who will work in unique/highly-skilled employment situations will meet this criteria. However, foreign nationals who meet this criteria must also demonstrate a genuine desire to assimilate to our national culture and societal values including (among others): individual liberty, personal responsibility, the rule of law, and a republican form of government, etc. Immigrants should not have access to welfare benefits and should be conversant in English before applying. Living in America is a privilege and should be treated as such. If these standards are too high for some, the solution is to choose another country that may accommodate their situation.

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

Strongly Disagree

I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and was born of the virgin Mary to die for our sins so that we may have eternal life and a renewed relationship with our Creator. I believe that Jesus was crucified, buried, and rose again on the 3rd day. I know that I am a sinner and that the only path to eternal life is through my faith in Jesus Christ as my savior. I believe that the Bible is the only inspired Word of God and is infallible and without error. I believe that true faith in, and love for, Jesus Christ results in a renewed spirit and renewed desire to love one another here on Earth.

Very Conservative

In 2004, I founded what is today known as the Patriot Coalition (www.PatriotCoalition.org) whose mission is to "restore Constitutional governance to the United States of American and preserve it for our descendants". This mission is consistent with my very conservative values that America was founded on the Judeo-Christian ethic found in the Holy Bible--something that is considered "very conservative"--even radical--today. The idea was epitomized by John Adams when he said "our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people" and that "it is wholly inadequate for the government of any other". The concept of ordered liberty, that of individual liberty guided by the Judeo-Christian ethic, is the cornerstone of our nation. The defense of this liberty mandates a very conservative view of social norms, economics, foreign relations, immigration, and many other aspects of our lives.

No.

On the day that I graduated from West Point, I took an oath "to support and defend the Constitution...against all enemies foreign and domestic". It is the same oath every Member of Congress takes upon entering office. Unfortunately, very few of them are honoring this oath. Whether through malice or negligence, the effect is the same: unsecured borders, out-of-control debt, and an ever-expanding and intrusive federal government. This is unacceptable considering the price that has been paid by our Founders and the generations of service members since then who have made enormous sacrifices. I am running to help restore Constitutional governance to the United States and preserve it for our descendants. I am running to exert principled leadership in Congress; the kind that demonstrates on a daily basis that principles only mean something if you stick to them when it is inconvenient. My principles are to defend individual liberty, strictly adhere to the Constitution, and place America first.

Neutral

Less restrictions on gun ownership are needed to protect public safety. The only restriction authorized by our U.S. Constitution under the 5th and 14th amendments is based on due process. Law enforcement (and the military) are a last line of defense to protect individuals and families. Individuals are the first line of defense for themselves and their families. They can respond to a threat much quicker than law enforcement in order to neutralize a threat to themselves or the public’s safety.

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Disagree

1. Ending the Illegal Alien Invasion 2. Repealing Obamacare/MACRA and the federal government's role in Health Care 3. Ending the federal government's involvement in matters not delegated by the U.S. Constitution (e.g. Gun Control, Dept. of Education, EPA, etc)

Racism is not a threat to domestic security in the United States. Depending on which of the various contemporary definitions is used, racism is a completely marginalized problem in America. The fringe sub-cultures who attempt to make their hatred of other races mainstream through violence are so few and far between that they are addressed adequately by local and state law enforcement. However, there is one social uprising evolving from racial animosity that has the capability to become a domestic security threat in the United States if it gains traction and followers. The anti-law enforcement movement is a threat to the rule of law and must be confronted with severe prejudice.