Al Lemmo

Strongly Agree

Strongly Agree

Strongly Agree

Abortion should be allowed to save the life of the mother or prevent serious harm to her health. Unfortunately, Birthist Abortionites (see http://cul.detmich.com/essentials_of_abortionism.html) have been so dishonest that they have even claimed that prenatal child-slaying (euphemistically known as abortion) is statistically safer than giving birth and that therefore EVERY prenatal child-killing is a matter of preserving the life of the mother. Clearly, any law to allow for this exception must be very carefully drawn to prevent the morally depraved from attempting this kind of subterfuge.

Disagree

Strongly Agree

Social Security was fiscally sound when life expectancy was 65, but we are now living about twenty years longer than that. Additional benefits and raids on Social Security funding have also been a problem and need to stop or be reduced. Increasing the retirement age much more is unlikely to find support but increasing the maximum income which is taxed for Social Security may still be politically possible. Any change is going to cost some people more and benefit others at their expense. Means testing to receive benefits seems unjust for a program which requires paid participation, but we must remember that the program is primarily for low-income workers who have no other old-age income.

I would reduce or eliminate all spending not authorized under the enumerated powers of Congress found in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution. While there are some gray areas, much of federal spending is clearly unconstitutional but still very popular. This poses a problem for those like me who wish to be true to the Constitution but also want to get elected. Alternative principles meriting recognition could include respecting support systems our people have become dependent upon.

Few, if any. Taxpayers often paid off their own student loans and it would be morally offensive to stick them with the bill for those who did not plan for their educational expenses wisely. The corruption of our currency, by which the unelected and unaccountable Federal Reserve effectively imposes an illegal tax on us, especially the more prudent among us, will allow paydown of student loans with cheaper dollars, just as it allows the government to discharge its debts more easily, if immorally

Strongly Agree

Strongly Agree

Yes

It means that no one church or religion should have special privileges, especially with respect to access to the public treasury or seeing its doctrines written into law. It does not mean separation of morality from state. And morality, in general, comes to us from religion. The "wall of separation" between church and state is to protect the church from the unbridled power of the state, not vice versa. This becomes more obvious if we postulate a wall of separation between the state and any of the other rights mentioned in the First Amendment, such as the freedom of the press. The free press needs to be protected from the government, not the government from a free press. Finally, as George Washington, the father of our country, put it, "Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Increased competition, especially across state lines, and elimination of one-size-fits-all government-mandated benefits would be a good start. The biggest problem is how to cover the high risk, essentially uninsurable people who have potentially or already very expensive pre-existing conditions. It would be fiscally possible to cover these people by opening up Medicare, not for all but just for the difficult to insure, and charge premiums on a sliding scale based on income. The private insurance market would still be the best option for most and would protect the hard-won benefits many enjoy, rather than reducing them to some government-run monopoly on what is covered, who provides it, how much is paid, etc., with few or any choices other than what a faceless bureaucracy allows.

Strongly Agree

President Trump's attempt to limit immigration from some Islamic countries would have been a good start but for the rabid hatred of his enemies. Islamic doctrines in their "holy" texts cannot be changed so this will always remain a problem unless reasonable vetting procedures can be adopted. But the hate-America-first crowd will never be satisfied with anything less than complete acceptance and assumption of innocence for every person of Islamic background. I have met many Muslims of excellent character here in Dearborn and surrounding areas, and the vast majority are no threat, even those who are immigrants from other cultures. Hopefully, we can expose the Islamic doctrines, and Muslims will knowingly reject their worst aspects just as Christians ignore a call in the Old Testament to kill those who work on the sabbath. Most Muslims in this country are culturally Americans and many around the world have adopted western values. Weeding out the fanatical few is the problem.

Agree

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

Agree

Anyone who has a justifiable fear for their life or liberty, or that of their family, who is of good character, has a marketable skill and will not be a burden on American taxpayers, is not carrying a serious communicable disease and has the best interests of the United States at heart.

Disagree

Agree

Strongly Disagree

I subscribe to the Christian faith as stated in the Apostles Creed which is proclaimed near the start of every Catholic Mass. I further accept the teachings of my Church, which was founded by Jesus, and try to live by these teachings which are based largely on the Bible and Christian tradition. I believe in live and let live and take a respectful and gentle approach to any discussion of religious beliefs with persons of other worldviews, including atheists, some of whom I count as friends. I defend my Church from any and all detractors and believe that the best defense is a good offense, an attitude I intend to take to Congress. Unfortunately, this can cause me to be critical of many who have given no offense. This is not my intent, although I would strongly prefer to see more Christian unity, which is called for in the Gospels.

Conservative

Much of my writing is at cul.detmich.com/#lemmo. While some of the articles posted there, especially guest editorials, were in draft form, my section of the Catholics United for Life website includes many letters to the editor which I mass faxed by computer to some 3,000 publications nationwide and occasionally in Canada. It also includes speeches I gave or outlined and a Political Strategy PowerPoint file near the center of the section which is a collection in one place of a number of pro-life and other political ideas intended to destroy the power of the so-called "Democratic" Party (the very name is an exercise in Orwellian doublethink). Many other articles are also posted such as http://cul.detmich.com/Satanic-Democratic_Agenda_3.html. I have additional material at my LinkedIn profile and personal Facebook page, plus my campaign website and Facebook page. In 1988 I led the effort in the city of Dearborn to pass the statewide referendum ending taxpayer-funded abortions.

No.

I have long believed in outreach, joining Braver Angels (originally Better Angels) an organization attempting to depolarize America. I have enjoyed interacting with people from other cultures here and in my travels (over 40 countries). I love my Democrat friends and they love me. They're all good people but good people can have bad ideas and they hold several, such as 1) the federal government is empowered to do anything we want 2) if we aren't addressing a problem at the federal level we're not doing anything about it at all 3) the Constitution is a living document which means anything we want it to mean in the present day, regardless of what its framers intended. Their party has embraced an Agenda from Hell which is based in idolatry, the worship of the human intellect and powers of reason. The idolaters masquerade as secularists, but this is a clever lie which pro-life "leadership" has bought hook, line and sinker. They are really the most destructive of religious fanatics.

Strongly Agree

A prospective gun owner must pass a background check to assure no criminal record with respect to guns and no other record of violence. Penalties for use of firearms in criminal offenses should be severe.

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Disagree

The first priority would be healthcare as addressed in question #29. The second would be jobs, job training and matching of jobs to the needs of local markets but not limited to blue-collar, factory oriented positions. This would include enhanced opportunities for higher education. In my district, I would want to expand the role of the technologies of tomorrow such as artificial intelligence, quantum computing, robotics and genetic engineering, taking advantage of our outstanding base of world-class research institutions. Finally, I see a number of problems with our justice system, in part stemming from my prison ministry, to include collateral forfeiture, national uniform police standards, treatment of prisoners, wrongful conviction, coerced cession of patent rights, job loss mitigation, definition of persons, American Indian lands liberation and the codification in federal law of the right to keep and bear arms.

No. Racism exists but at a very low level. The greatest threat to domestic security is the far-left effort to pound the twin shackles of fear and dependency into the hearts and minds of our people, characterizing our country as nothing but racist and bigoted in every way. They practice the politics of slash and burn, destroying the people's self-confidence, hopes, dreams and beliefs in ourselves, who we are, what is valuable about our country and our way of life. But they harvest the votes and will keep up their torrents of psychological poison for as long as they are rewarded for their destructiveness with more votes and the political power that comes with those votes. They are "levying war" against the United States, the very definition of treason in the Constitution (Article III, Section 3). The Party of Treason, the so-called "Democrats" must be kept out of our public offices at every level. It is the home of the worst racism in America.