John J. Magoola

If we are distinguishing between abortion, where a child is deliberately killed in utero versus miscarriages, such as situations like ectopic pregnancies, where the child dies as a secondary effect of treatment of the mother, I don't believe abortion should be allowed at all.

Strongly Agree

Strongly Disagree

Ideally, I believe the tax system should be wholly transformed. The system I believe would work better is one where taxes can only be directly imposed by, say, the municipal government. From there, the state government would have to negotiate with with the municipal to determine an appropriate amount, and the same with the federal to the state. I believe this would incentivize higher levels of government to be accountable for the uses of revenue and it would keep the power of taxation at a level most accountable to the taxpayer.

As far as the federal government, there is likely a lot of spending I don't even know about, but my first thought would be many of the so-called "alphabet agencies." In particular, the FBI should be abolished and the IRS should be greatly reduced. I believe proper changes in the tax code would also disincentivize profligate spending. In Michigan, I think some of the same ideas apply in that taxation should be simplified and, as aforementioned, changed completely, which also will have the same chilling effect on unnecessary spending. I believe that many social programs are run very inefficiently, and could be streamlined as well.

Strongly Disagree

The "public" school system has proven to be a complete failure, in my opinion. If there are to continue to be taxpayer funded schools, control over schools of that sort should, I believe ideally, returned to, at most, the municipal level and that parents should be given total freedom to determine how their children will be educated. I believe incentives, such as vouchers, are a means to provide education opportunities to those with lower incomes as well.

Strongly Disagree

I believe individuals and businesses should be able to do business as they choose, regardless of the reason.

I don't believe the government has the power to do this under any circumstances.

I fall closest to D. I might be temporarily open to C as there are so many problems with the healthcare markets (a good reference of what those problems are can be found at https://theobjectivestandard.com/2007/11/moral-vs-universal-health-care/) that it would probably be necessary to keep some taxpayer funded health insurance until the problems could be solved.

I don't think any circumstances would be acceptable for that. Vaccination should be entirely voluntary.

The most efficient way, in my opinion, is simply to protect ourselves and our allies, insofar as our allies do all they can to protect themselves. Also, the problem of Islamic terrorism is inextricable from border security and immigration.

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

The lack of security of the southern border not only increases the already massive number of illegal migrants into the nation and gives a free pass to drug cartels, but also allows corrupt officials in Mexico to reduce pressure to improve the country by shipping the people most likely to agitate for it to the US.

Immigration should be for the benefit of the nation. We can accept legitimate asylum seekers from neighboring countries, but outside of that, immigration should be those willing and able to support themselves.

Strongly Agree

Strongly Agree

Two quotes summarize this idea well: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” - John Adams “[Our Constitution requires] sufficient virtue among men for self-government,” otherwise, “nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another.” - James Madison

Strongly Disagree

I don't like the idea of protected classes generally. Gender identity is not a meaningful category. We have two sexes. There is a spectrum as to how men and women can behave, but there are still only the two sexes.

Strongly Agree

Ideally, government should not have a hand in marriage at all, but marriage is indeed a God-ordained institution of the union of one man and one woman. It's not a matter of government altering the definition. It simply is what it is no matter what attempts are made to claim otherwise.

Strongly Disagree

CRT is a cancerous idea that should not be taught to anyone, but I am very much for the idea of banning its teaching to minors. American institutions are not fundamentally racist and it is only through ignorance of history one can believe that they are.

I am a member of the Unification Church. I believe strongly in Christian values as understood through the Divine Principle (the main text of Unificationism).

Strongly Disagree

No voting should be allowed without proper ability to identify the voter. Also, no person who cannot prove American citizenship should be allowed to vote.

In addition to laws requiring photo ID, the census should also include questions on citizenship. Also, state level, things like signature verification should be employed and ceasing the use of electronic voting machines whose manufacturers are not completely transparent and are American-owned. Also, regardless of the use of electronic voting, there should be a paper tally that the electronic result should be checked against.

It is only a threat in the sense that the claims from the left about racism are themselves racist and a domestic threat. Groups like BLM and Antifa, I believe, are the greatest domestic terrorist threats and should be treated as such. But the idea that racism is widely practiced in the US or is a threat to anyone is patently ridiculous.

Strongly Disagree

This idea makes no sense whatsoever. No one today is a slave nor slave owner. Additionally, to whom reparations should be paid is not at all clear. Merely having black skin does not tell us anything. Some, like my father, are African immigrants. In fact, my father's ancestors were slave catchers and traders. I am descended from both slave catchers *and* slaves. Would I pay reparations or receive them? There is no way to know.

I am completely on the A side. That's not to say that there can be no environmental regulations at all, but they should be minimized and it should be understood what the economic impact is.

Strongly Agree

This technique is one of the reasons why the United States was able to become a net energy exporter. We have the reserves to power the US without foreign supplies for centuries. The only thing standing in the way is the idea that supposedly the use of fossil fuels is somehow harmful to the environment. This is simply not true. We should have an "all of the above" approach to energy. All viable energy sources should be tapped.

The first and foremost purpose of government is to recognize and protect the rights of individual citizens.

Very Conservative

Did not answer

No.

Overall, I am very much the conservative. I am not a moderate and do not purport to be one. That said, I can also recognize political reality as well. My priorities are very much about election integrity, education, gun ownership, and abortion; but I also prize highly reform of family courts.

Agree

This same concept is at play in both private and public sectors already. If we are to remove qualified immunity from police, shall we remove similar protections for, say, IRS agents? Or teachers? Perhaps we should remove these protections from companies that produce vaccines? Qualified immunity is necessary for police and other entities to function.

Strongly Disagree

This idea is based on an assumption that crime is caused largely by problems with mental health. While there are certainly ideas to help police better serve their proper function, the idea that police need to be replaced with mental health initiatives will simply lead to a lack of police which will later be needed to deal with the increases in crime, thus costing the taxpayer for both in the end anyway.

Outside of existing criminal background checks, none. If anything, existing restrictions need to be removed as they are infringements on gun ownership, which the 2nd Amendment clearly prohibits. There is no correlation between restrictions on gun ownership and reductions in violent crime. There is, however, correlation between increased private gun ownership and reduction in violent crime.

Strongly Disagree

Firearm dealers and manufacturers are not liable for violence anymore than car manufacturers are liable for car accidents or knife manufacturers are liable for stabbings.