Maximillian Southworth-Beckwith

Strongly Agree

Planned Parenthood and other programs like this should be funded through private donations. We should not give federal funds to an institution and program that more than half of Americans disagree with, while at the same time respecting the rights of those who do agree. Hence private funding. Let the free market decide if these facilities should remain open.

Strongly Agree

I know this is a touchy subject for some people. I believe that 'aid in dying' laws should only apply to terminally ill individuals and those who choose to end their life must do it with assistance from a medical practitioner. This is to make sure the individual mentally and emotionally understands what they are requesting and making sure that the procedure is carried out safely. No one wants their loved ones to suffer, and those suffering should be allowed to decide when it s their time to die.

In my personal opinion, only in extreme cases such as rape, incest, or because of a medical issue or condition which threatens the life of the mother. However, I believe that, as a Constitutional Libertarian, the States should set their policy/legislation so long as it does not go against set legal precedent. That being said, on the federal level we should pass legislation which makes abortions illegal after 'fetal viability' which currently is at 24 weeks. The reason I use 'fetal viability' as the deciding factor is because it would requires States who currently have policy which allows for abortions past 24 weeks to end such practice and fall in line with federal law. Another reason I use 'fetal viability' and not a set time to cap abortion is because of the possibility of medical advances that could potentially bring 'fetal viability' down from 24 weeks to maybe 18 weeks. If such a case happened, then those States who had to come down to 24 week cap on abortion would now once again come down to 18 week cap on abortion. For those States already under the 'fetal viability' cap it then becomes an issue of States' Rights. So long as the States do not go against set judicial decisions, then the States have full authority to regulate abortion via the 9th &10th Amendment of the US Constitution. Any challenges to a State's law on abortion should go through the proper procedures to challenge said law in court. It is not within the Federal Government's responsibility to bilaterally legislate to change a State's law, that is called Government overreach.

Strongly Disagree

Redistribution of personal wealth is a communist method to reduce the economic power of individuals and allow for government control. The free market system is the greatest economic method ever created. It is also the only one that works. Government controlling the economy is not only anti-American, it has a proven track record of total failure. Independent free market capitalism built the world, and rebuilt it after WW II, and lifted billions of people out of poverty by creating opportunities.

Strongly Agree

Common economic sense applies here. never spend more than you have. Businesses go bankrupt if they do not follow this model. Government should be run like a business, with fiscal responsibility and accountability. No nation can tax itself out of poverty, and part of the cuts should be the $43-54 billion per year we send overseas to foreign governments that yield no financial or economic benefit to our taxpayers. This includes addressing gov't contractor overruns. I will push to stop all of this.

Abolish the IRS, repeal the 16th Amendment go back to states collecting taxes, then submitting to the U.S. Treasury. President Woodrow Wilson pushed this into law in 1913 to collect as much revenue for the federal government as possible. Also eliminate the tax on Social Security which was already taxed income. Democrats passed this law under Johnson in the 1960s, and they have allowed the government to steal that money (federally mandated as a tax) to pay for their other programs, which is a violation of the law. Let states establish their own tax codes by allowing for their citizens to vote for them. Remove the power of the IRS which had no oversight and operates as an independent law enforcement arm of the federal government. The IRS is the best example of a socialist entity within the federal government, and is often use by many presidents as a weapon against their political opposition.

Strongly Agree

Religious liberty should be protected as vigorously as we defend our Freedom of Speech and our Right to Bear Arms. This is nonnegotiable.

Disagree

It is illegal to discriminate based on a persons races, sexual preference, gender, ext. That does not mean someone must kowtow for fear of losing their livelihood. Let's say someone wants a shop owner to provide a service and that shop owner cannot preform said service because of moral or religious reasons. If that happens, that person can take their business elsewhere and the Free Market will decide if that shop owner stays in business. It will come down to if the shop owner was polite or not.

The Church does not dictate policy to the State; The State does not mandate policy to the Church. This idea simply means that when drafting or voting on legislation, when it comes to using religion as a guide, you need look no further then the Bill of Rights. God's law and the unalienable rights given to us are protected in the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is not to remind the people of their rights, it is there to remind government of its limited authority to legislate and govern. So if a proposed bill does not prohibit, alter, change or violate the Bill of Rights and the Constitution as a whole, then there is no need for any influence from religion in order to decide if it is constitutional or not. Now just because something is constitutional does not mean it is good for the people. This is when one's morality, conscience and ethics comes into play. We gain most of our morals and ethics from our upbringing, a lot of which comes from religion. Once a bill passes the constitutional threshold, the it needs to be viewed through the moral and ethical lenses of ones political ideology. I personally lean towards the libertarian spectrum. What this means is if a bill is constitutional, then it begs the question "Is this bill limiting government or expanding government? Is this bill limiting person freedoms or expanding personal freedoms?" If the proposed bill is constitutional and it is limiting government and/or expanding civil liberties and personal freedom, then its a good bill. My morality is based in Judeo-Christianity, much like our Founding Fathers. My ethics comes from Lockean political ideology in which one believes in the limiting of government and the expansion of personal freedoms while upholding personal accountability as the pinnacle of social accountability.

Only when vaccines have been fully vetted, approved, and had ample time for research to be gathered on potential side effects. After this has happened, the only vaccines that should be allowed or mandated are those that have already been voluntarily taken over a set period of time, combined with a required set percentage of the population be vaccinated. This is because once it has been properly vetted, a majority has voluntarily taken it over a period of time, and no permanent or harmful side effects have been reported, only then can a vaccine be deemed able to be mandated. As the flu vaccine is not mandatory, nor should be a Covid 19 inoculation or booster be mandated. Individual people have their own health issues and limitations, just as not all persons can take penicillin due to allergic reactions. The other issue is this: if a certain segment of the population voluntarily takes a vaccine, and are deemed "immune" then why would they be concerned if others are not vaccinated? That being said, even vaccines like small pox, whooping cough, etc.. (vaccines with little to no long term side effects) should still be voluntary. I am a believer in vaccines but I don't believe anyone should be able to make you or your child take something you don't want or your doctor has discouraged you from taking. Now, these institutions can not require it but they can also turn you away if you do not want to comply with their policies. Once again, the Free Market will determine if that institution stays open or not.

Some where between C and D. I believe in a Free Market approach to health care, while it is important to help and sustain Medicaid and Medicare for those who worked hard all their life and deserve what was promised, since they pay into it. As to the expansion of Medicaid and Medicare, I am not opposed to it so long as it is a state by state decision and the funds come from revenue derived from other sources without increasing taxes on the citizenry. Healthcare is a personal choice, like car insurance. The public should have a wide marketplace from which to shop for rates and coverage. I would like to see policy that allowed individuals to opt out of Medicaid and Medicare in favor of a self paid or employer paid Heath Savings Account (HSA). This gives authority over your health care to you, and not the 20% of what you paid into your whole life given to you as if it is a reward. It is your money and the sooner we get government out of our pockets, the sooner we can start fixing this broken system. With a Free Market health insurance, competition would drive costs down. I would also like to see policy that encouraged companies to include better (if they had any at all) Out-of-State coverage, not just Out-of-Network. If you get in a car crash in another state, your insurance is still good and your deductible is that same, though the deductible will go up if you are at fault for the accident. Health insurance does not guarantee the same coverage if you are in another state when you get injured. Currently only around 10% of hospitals are complying with President Trump's Executive Order for price transparency. All these hospitals should fall in compliance. I also believe that Senate bill S.1524 'Health Care PRICE Transparency Act' sponsored by Sen. Mike Braun (R-IN) needs to be passed and if I am elected to the US House, I will support Sen. Braun's bill with a 'Yes' vote.

Both B and C would apply selectively. We should help any allies under threat of foreign dominance within reason, if they are a strategic partner and we derive some benefit from our support. I also believe that we should focus upon our own security concerns first, and only become involved when it is evident that one of our mutually agreed upon allies needs that assistance. Such assistance should be well thought out and measured, but we should also be consistent in the application of support. American boots on the ground should be the last resort at all times, as we should not be the world's police force. The United Nations, which is a failed organization and should be disbanded (at least the USA withdraw) should be responsible for global peace. That is the theory, but in practice it will never work without US involvement, hence the inherent weakness of the UN. In addition, we should only intervene at the request of a friendly foreign government, and ensure that we have coalition allies on board to present a mutual show of strength.

Strongly Disagree

Ridiculous proposal. Israel provides citizenship and security for people, Muslim, Jew or Christian. Israel occupies land it gained in three major wars of aggression lost against it in 1948, 1967 and 1973. Starting and losing wars have consequences. The Palestinians need to abandon electing terrorists to power, and reign in Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists supported by Iran, and come to the table honestly. Israel has a right to exist and survive. Why do the Arab nations not help the refugees?

Strongly Agree

They are the greatest thieves of intellectual and technical property. Every Chinese student and worker in this country must become a spy or thief working for the Communist Party as part of their travel if so requested. Cyber security threats as well as aforementioned issues are not properly addressed. The weakness of democrats and some republicans in this area is the greatest problem. We have the means to fight back, but as long as we rely upon China economically there will be no relief.

Deny tax payer dollars to any nation that does not shut down radical Islamic schools and activities. Restrict travel visas from countries that do not follow that program. Sanction said nations and boycott their businesses and block them from entering the US marketplace, deny their students visas and also force them to adhere to basic human and women's rights. Finally, go after all the terrorists we can find who attack us or our allies, ruthlessly and without prejudice.

Strongly Agree

Yes, finish the wall, deport all the illegals who came across. Hunt down the cartels and traffickers. Impeach Biden and the democrats who failed to uphold their oaths of office, endangered our nation and its citizens. Make these same people be held accountable in both criminal and civil courts for the deaths and destruction they allowed to happen. If a business can be sued for unsafe conditions, government should be held to the same standard.

Strongly Agree

Absolutely. Sanctuary cities and states are the hotbed of domestic terrorism and high crime, as well as creating a national security risk with unknown illegal aliens operating without government oversight. If states wish to benefit from federal dollars, they must adhere to federal laws.

Those who go through the process legally. Also, we as a nation need to move away from quota driven immigration in favor of a merit based system of immigration. Get rid of Chain Immigration/Migration policy and end natural citizenship for those born on US soil without one parent being a US citizen. We need to reform our H1 and work visa programs to allow for those here on visa's who have proven to be law abiding, tax paying, and productive members of society to have easier access/means to becoming a US citizens. I am all for good quality candidates who want to immigrate to America legally with the goal of becoming a US Citizen. I feel for those who suffer in other nations due to gangs, warlords, genocide, and religious persecution. We as Americans want to help, but we can not allow our boarders and laws to be violated. It is not safe for our nation to do so, and it is not fair to those who have waited in line for years and sometimes decades to become US citizens.

Neutral

While I do not disagree that no one should be discriminated against for anything, there is this issue that I have with continually adding groups to the protected classes in non-discrimination laws. At what point will we have covered every possible group? What happens if a new group arises, are they not protected from discrimination simply and only because they are not yet added to that special list? How about we just set a standard of "treat everyone as you would want to be treated".

Strongly Disagree

CRT is despicable, racist trash that teaches kids they are either oppressors or oppressed. I will not budge on this topic. CRT must be eradicated from our education and social policy platforms. If you want to talk about it in a Political Theory class in college, have at it, but it is not appropriate for education and I would argue its not appropriate until college as an elective course. This is no different that Nazi Germany teaching racial eugenics as mandatory public education.

I was raised with a Judeo-Christian upbringing and that is were I learned my morals, the same as many people. I am a Christian but I believe in the idea of being good simply because its the right thing to do, not out of fear of damnation. I will always fight for the right of anyone wishing to practice their religion, even if it is not my own. A person's religious beliefs are there own, constitutionally protected, unless those beliefs come into conflict with the constitution. For example, Muslims have the right to practice their faith, but that does not extend to the desire to implement Shari'a Law and Islamic courts replacing state and federal courts as mandated by the constitution.

Strongly Disagree

Majority of Americans agree with voter ID, including a majority of African-Americans. What is more racist: Believing that conservatives hate black people so they want to prevent them from voting by requiring an ID to vote; or Believing that black people don't know how to get a photo ID in the first place? If you chose the latter, you would be correct. This is how the leftist and Democrat Party view black America: Too stupid to know how to get an ID; Just smart enough to know to vote Democrat.

Federal Mandatory Voter ID Legislation, signature verification. Any State currently allowing non-legal voters to vote in elections should have their votes voided until they come into compliance with federal law. That would also qualify them to lose federal funding, same with sanctuary cities/states. Ballot harvesting should be a federal crime. banning impartial or opposition observers from counting ballots qualifies as a federal crime. Voting machines should be terminated in favor of paper ballots with ID and signature and residence verification. Bulk mail in ballots should not be allowed unless the voter is an expatriate living abroad or active duty military serving overseas. States such as Pennsylvania, through the governor and attorney general broke their own commonwealth and federal voting laws by changing the voting methods. They did not go through the legal process of using the state legislature to change the voting laws. I would also hold wealthy individuals and corporations, such as Mark Zuckerberg criminally liable for interfering with voting laws and establishing their own unsupervised drop boxes.Illegal aliens and non citizens should never vote in our elections.

Strongly Disagree

Never. Reparations are a ridiculous idea. Our nation passed laws to free slaves, ensure that racial discrimination is illegal. Every race and ethnicity throughout history has been slaves at one time in history to another group. The Portuguese started African slavery in 1440, then the Spanish in the 1500s, then the British, French, etc. Slavery existed here before we were a nation. Africans sold Africans. Those who want reparations need to go to London, Madrid, Lisbon and Paris and ask them.

No. America does not have a racism problem. What America has is a corrupt media and establishment elites who look for every opportunity to gaslight this nation into believing it has a racism problem. They do this as a misdirect so they can get away with stealing elections, taking special interest and lobbyist money, stealing money from tax payer funded policies to pay for socialist programs, and just generally getting away with being corrupt career politicians.

Strongly Agree

I also support expanding research into nuclear and fusion reactors and expanding our nuclear energy program. I am also for green energy plans, but not at the cost of our economy. If someone can make green energy product cheaper and more efficient then traditional means, great! The Free Market will move us away from reliance on oil and gas. Until that time, these 'green' programs can't work without oil and gas because they use oil and gas byproducts in their own manufacturing! That's a Catch 22.

A. While I am fine with guidelines and regulations to make sure we protect our environment and conduct a safe working environment, excessive regulation and bureaucratic red tap hinders economic growth in a time were we need every edge to combat inflation, and potential downfalls that will come out of this Russia-Ukraine mess. We must once again become energy independent, which is national security as well as an economic benefit.

Conservative

I am a Constitutional Libertarian which means I am fiscally, militarily, economically, and diplomatically a staunch Conservative. When it comes to social issues, I take the stance of "keep government out of our business". What this means is so long as you do not: violate someone else's civil liberties; are a law abiding; and do not promote anti-American ideals, then the government should stay out of your daily life. It mean States' Rights and The Bill of Rights are sacrosanct for everyone.

Google "Max Beckwith for Congress" and all my social media, website, and interviews I have done will be readily available.

No

I am a blue color worker, Marine combat veteran, husband, and I am THE Anti-Corruption and term limits candidate running in this race. I will go to Washington with three primary goals: Curtail Congress' overspending and deficit spending, Fight the corruption in Congress to return The People's House back to The People, and Work to reduce the size of our federal government back pre-WWI size.

Agree

I agree, just as prosecutors are currently immune from misconduct when they present perjury or false witnesses and manufactured evidence into a trial. As long as the conduct was not overtly criminal in nature and in violation of established policy.

Strongly Disagree

This is perhaps the most insane liberal proposal on record. Do I need to say more? Look at the results in liberal cities that did this, and now look at how they back tracked.

None. It's honestly quite simple: Bad people do not care about laws, hence why they are bad people. All restrictions of gun rights does is allows for criminals to continue their crimes with little apprehension. Statistics show that the more armed a citizenry is (specifically concealed carry), you see a dramatic decrease of violent crimes compounded every year. Criminals don't traditionally break into nice homes in the rural areas for a reason.

Strongly Disagree

We don't sue the phone manufacture after a teenager dies from texting and driving. We don't sue the car manufacture when someone runs a red light and hits someone. We don't sue the stove manufacture when a child puts their hand on a hot burner. The only product that the left tries time and again to go after as the 'blame' for whatever the situation is firearms. How about we treat firearm incidents just like we do with everything else; hold the individual accountable, culpable and responsible?