Mark W Christie
Republican | Washington
Candidate Profile
Conservative (Conditional)
BIOGRAPHY
Name
Mark W Christie
Party
Republican
Election Year
2022
Election
Primary & Secretary of State Special
Race
State Senator, Dist. 30
Incumbent
No
Links
EDUCATION
Bates Vocational Institute, Tacoma,Wa, Surveyor, 1977
WORK & MILITARY
Candidate did not provide
AFFILIATIONS
Washington Policy Institute, Contributor, We Must Unite
POLITICAL OFFICES HELD
Candidate did not provide
POLITICAL OFFICES SOUGHT
Candidate did not provide
Race
SELECTED CONTRIBUTIONS
CONSERVATIVE
GIVEN BY CANDIDATE (1)
WinRed (2021)
RECEIVED BY CANDIDATE (0)
OTHER INFORMATION
QUESTIONNAIRE
RIGHT TO LIFE
Under what circumstances should abortion be allowed?
First priority: the people decide it for themselves in the ballot box (by State referendum) Second priority: there is a genuine Free Speech discussion held on the topic first (as in a two way one) Third priority: I will advocate for pro-life with exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother
Abortion providers, including Planned Parenthood, should not receive funds from federal, state, or local governments (including Title X grants).
Strongly Agree
Was anyone ever interested in letting the Moral Majority be entitled to federal funding? It is flat hypocrisy: they should get their funding only from willing contributors and nowhere else. Just like every one else. I am sick of special standards for the special folks and lesser standards for the rest of us lesser folks. Enough is enough.
I support 'aid in dying' laws which legalize assisted suicide and euthanasia.
Strongly Disagree
Science is so much more evolved at handling depression and pain management. Aid in dying is wrong in any event - but it is even more wrong now. But we do need to allay people's fears about the medical costs involved: many people feel bullied into do an assisted suicide because of fears about being a burden on their families. We have not been the type of effective advocates that we need to be.
ECONOMY
What changes, if any, should be made to the tax code?
I wish we had stayed with the Ronald Reagan income tax simplification plan. It had only two low rates, higher personal deductions and less exemptions. We have consistently backslid since then with a return to more rates, more exemptions and less simplification. It had 28% and 15% rates while I would prefer 25% and 10% rates on my 'comeback' version. On the business tax side, I favor the same type of thing: the first $500,000 of income is exempt and there should only be a single low rate of 15% for any money made above that threshold. It should be made as close to revenue neutral as possible by getting rid of deductions. There should be no other business taxes except for the simplified business income tax.
What government spending would you reduce in order to balance the budget?
Our medical and retirement programs could pay better benefits at much less cost if they were more Free Market oriented and ran like a business. There is spending (at the Fed level) that we can not escape: Defense, Federal law enforcement, interest on the national debt, etc. and there are two other benefit programs that the Federal government is involved in: food stamps and it does provide back up for unemployment benefits. My main contribution would be the 100% abolition of all other federal spending once the immediate items above have been dealt with. No fed spending for education, public works, aid to States, etc. Any other program except for it's income maintenance programs and the have-tos of defense, law enforcement, national debt would be drop kicked to State and Local governments along with the revenue sources to pay for them. Reagan tried to organize a New Federalism program with these types of objectives in mind. I would do it - along with taking it to the fullest degree possible.
Taxpayer-funded public education should be guaranteed through college.
Strongly Disagree
Why not give all parents a Federal and State assisted savings plan to build their children's college funds? It could be done at much less cost, would be more Free Market oriented - and it would help support good moral values (saving for the future, etc.) without excessive government entanglements.
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
Individuals and businesses should be required to provide services even if it would violate their moral and/or religious beliefs.
Strongly Disagree
No details needed; it is a total never for me and full stop.
Under what circumstances can government close churches?
None
HEALTHCARE
What most closely matches your view on healthcare: A) Healthcare for all should be guaranteed and funded by the government with no private healthcare option. (includes "universal healthcare," "medicare for all," etc.) B) Healthcare insurance funded by the government should be available for all who want it, along with private healthcare options. C) Medicaid and Medicare should remain available, but no other taxpayer-funded programs are necessary. D)Tax-payer funded health care should be abolished in all forms, and Medicaid and Medicare should be de-funded.
There should be only Medicaid with a much more Free Market orientation. It has to be critical care only with no subsidies for non life saving care. All can qualify but you must first pay 10% of your own income into your medical bills. A provider (chosen by a competitive bidding process) will pay for the remainder. A last caveat is that well off people (who will never have any need for a subsidy) should not be getting one - as they can now under Medicare. The general concept that I am using is that no one should have to pay more than they are able for life saving care - but they should not be allowed to pay less than they are able for it also. Or it will take on a welfarism mentality.
Under what circumstances (if any) should a government, school, or employer be allowed to require vaccinations?
None. If the vaccination actually works then you can not be threatened by a non vaccinated person in the first place. If the vaccination does not work then forcing it on to everyone will not make it work any better. Therefore, there can never be any legitimate logics reason to mandate a vaccine.
NATIONAL SECURITY
What should the United States do to help eradicate the threat of Islamic terrorism?
Whatever is necessary. If Islamic terrorism ever gets a nuclear capacity the world as we know it ends. We must eradicate Islamic terrorism before this event happens. Failure to do so is not an option.
I support the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement to pressure Israel to withdraw from occupied territories, remove the separation barrier in the West Bank, allow full equality for Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel, and promote the rights of Palestinian refugees.
Strongly Disagree
No details needed. Like most evangelical believers I am pro-Israel, period. "Out of thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed. Therefore, whomsoever blesses Israel shall be blessed and whomsoever curses Israel shall will be cursed." Pro-Israel is even Biblically required.
IMMIGRATION
The U.S. should do more to physically secure the southern border.
Strongly Agree
Build the wall along with all other possible security measures. But we do have to make one acknowledgment: we do not make it easy enough for people to immigrate legally. It is understaffed, it takes way too long and it undermines securing the border if the legal process becomes so cumbersome that people simply give up trying to do it that way. Helping the people who are willing to do it the right way is also a part of stopping the people who do it the wrong way.
Who should be allowed to immigrate to the U.S. and under what circumstances?
It is simply a question of what they have to offer for first being allowed in. After that, they must learn to speak our language, they must be self sufficient and use no domestic assistance benefits. I would change the rule of being allowed to become a citizen after 5 years: after the five year mark you should be required to become a U.S. citizen. The United States should never, under any circumstances, be used simply as some type of a flop house. Or be open to people who do not fully assimilate.
EDUCATION
I support school choice, including voucher programs, tax credits, charter schools, private schools, and home schools.
Strongly Agree
There is some recent disturbing evidence, however, about some charter schools (and even some private ones) going 'woke' like their public school counterparts. This situation must be carefully monitored.
VALUES
Judeo-Christian values established a framework of morality which is necessary for our system of limited government.
Strongly Agree
"Men's behavior will be restrained either by the Bible or by the bayonet." This quote is from a Supreme Court decision of yesteryear. Now we have idiots like Sotomayer who stated that religion does nothing to help anyone except for its own members.
I support adding gender identity as a specially protected class in non-discrimination laws.
Strongly Disagree
There is no such thing as transgender in any event. Gender dysphoria, left strictly to nature, is also an incredibly rare event that only affects 1 person out of many thousands. So why is it suddenly having 1 in 10 underage children seeming to believe in it? Thus, it is a degenerate fad political issue only - and is being used to abuse children.
Marriage is a God-ordained, sacred and legal union of one man and one woman. No government has the authority to alter this definition
Strongly Agree
Marriage Equality is an ideology induced fairy tale. A homosexual relationship is neither marriage nor equal. 1) A relationship where children are strictly optional will never be the same type of a relationship as one that has to deal with children as a central issue. 2) The dynamics between, say, two men and a man and a woman are not the same or even particularly similar. 3) As to equal: how much does,say, a lesbian relationship do to reduce crime and poverty in the inner cities?
I agree with Critical Race Theory (CRT) which asserts that the institutions in the United States are fundamentally racist.
Strongly Disagree
No need to qualify my answer.
Briefly describe your spiritual beliefs and values.
I have always known the Lord Jesus Christ as my Savior since a young age. And even though I have always been a deep and critical thinker (and widely read in both sides of every issue), I have never seen any reason to doubt my Biblical beliefs or question the reality of Jesus Christ in my life. I have unwavering moral values and will not live differently than what the Bible says: my wife and I dated Biblically because we claim to be Biblical believers. It is not Biblical to get divorced so we will never get divorced. I claim to be a Biblical believer therefore I have not, I do not and I will not live in any way that is contradictory to it. If you don't live it then don't even advocate it. If you advocate it then get off of your butt and live it. There is nothing complicated about the matter in my view.
ELECTIONS AND VOTING
People should be able to vote without photo identification.
Strongly Disagree
What laws would you propose to change present voting practices?
Go Canadian: One day of in person voting under strict chain of custody, no electronics, one day to vote, one day to tabulate, no cheating. No absentee ballots but you can file a provisional ballot at an out of town location - if you really have to be out of town.
EQUALITY
Is racism a threat to domestic security in the United States? Why or why not?
No; there are too few racists to make it possible. Also, most real White Supremacist types are people with a loser, malcontent attitude. They are simply not the stuff of which successful revolutions are made. As to why I am sure that nothing like it is actually happening: there are virtually no newspaper accounts of White Supremacist terrorism attacks (they would certainly cover them if they were happening). I have been reading the daily newspaper for many years - and I can not even remember any significant such stories. Even the latest alleged White Supremacist in Buffalo is actually a leftist who hates minorities because of a tree hugging philosophy - thus, there is nothing that fits the narrative there either.
Reparations should be given to people on the basis of race.
Strongly Disagree
ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT
Which comes closest to your view? A) Stricter environmental laws and regulations cost too many jobs and hurt the economy. B) Stricter environmental laws and regulations are worth the cost.
A; not much detail needed. Our Free Enterprise system has reduced our carbon foot print with an endless new run of higher and cleaner technologies. None of this came through government activity but through free market activity. Even environmentalists admit that advancing technologies has reduced pollution more than the Regulatory State has.
I support the use of hydraulic fracking to extract oil and natural gas resources.
Strongly Agree
ABOUT YOU
What do you think is the general purpose of government?
It is strictly there for your physical protection against lawless people at home and abroad. And to uphold the laws that people choose to live under. It is not there to take care of you; to enforce "diversity, equity or inclusion" or because the world is not being fair enough. At the local level there is public works and education. But the government governs best that governs least.
When you consider your views on a wide range of issues from economic and social matters to foreign policy and religious liberty, which of the following best describes you overall?
Conservative
Please provide publicly available information, including interviews and media reports, validating your answer to the previous question (other than your website).
I have a two year blogging site at wemustunite.net, I am a contributor on several spaces at the Quora forum, I am a contributor for the conservative think tank of The Washington Policy Institute. However, I am also a political newcomer - I have not had a chance to build up a significant public record.
Have you ever been convicted of a felony or been penalized in either civil or criminal court for sexual misconduct? If so, please explain.
No.
What else would you like voters to know about you, including your legislative priorities?
Number One: Transgender = Pedophilia. If it was just about gender dysphoria it would involve about 1 in every several thousand adults (because of the actual extreme rareness of this medical condition), it would involve extensive and long term psychological counseling and from highly qualified experts. It would not involve totally unqualified school officials, instant acceptance of alleged trans tendencies and young children. I will strive to make transgender education practices a felony. Number Two: the end of a Governor's abilities to use Covid for an open ended dictatorship. In many States, a Governor can declare an emergency and then never end it at his own discretion. Representative government can not have 'loopholes'. Number three: the resurrection of ballot box democracy. The citizens must decide amongst themselves what type of a country we will be in regards to abortions, sexual behavior, the role of religion in society and what we need to have for our basic social norms. That it what defines the very nature of a society so it is the society at large that must make all of those calls.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE & PUBLIC SAFETY
Police officers should be personally immune from prosecution for conduct consistent with departmental policy (qualified immunity) while on duty.
Strongly Agree
Also, while the police do get it wrong sometimes they never get it racist. That is a made up issue. And most of the times that they get it wrong are exactly the times when most of the rest of us are more inclined to get things wrong: when there is a high adrenaline and stress. Genuinely rogue officers can exist but the best way to handle them is to get them removed from the force early - I am open minded about ways to improve this one item that probably should get more attention.
I support redirecting funds from police departments to mental health and community programs.
Strongly Disagree
Another case where "All of the above" is the answer - like it often is with most complicated issues. Unfortunately, our society is often more interested in "gimmes" than in truly necessary things: like having more resources for BOTH the police AND dealing with mental illness. We need to educate society about better priorities if we really want to get back to living in a normal society.
2ND AMENDMENT
What restrictions on gun ownership are needed to protect public safety?
The standard exceptions are right: the mentally ill and people with criminal records. Gun frisks and instant background checks are adequate to get the job done - if they are used properly. Whereas, none of the recent shootings would have been helped by any more "common sense gun reforms". At some point you have to accept the fact that we live in a country with over 300 million free citizens in it. if, numerically, you live in a very big size country then yes, numerically, there will be some big numbers of bad things happening. But it is all a distortion to hyperbolize about how bad the situation supposedly is. You need to look at the actual big picture. Also, you need to look at how small a part the active shooter phenomenon really plays in the overall level of violence. It is always the main (distorted) focus of attention but this level of attention is not justified. It is actually about the least likely thing that will kill you out of about all of the possibilities. But I have to talk about "Red Flag" laws - even if it is not strictly a gun control measure. I am in favor of local law enforcement having more Red Flag info in databases to work with. One that is missing is even fairly important: a sudden buying spree of ammunition. But I do not favor Red Flag laws - and there is a difference. Local law enforcement should make the call on how to deal with the Red Flag info that is out there. I do not want political hacks defining what a Red Flag is, what precisely should be done about them, etc. Instead, I want local law enforcement to have full access to any possible Red Flag concerns and to be in charge of handling it. Give them more resources (such as the capability to maintain surveillance on particularly disturbing instances) but I don't want politicians anywhere near the issue. They are a bunch of hacks that put politics first and safety actually last.
Victims of gun violence should be able to sue firearms dealers and manufacturers.
Strongly Disagree
