Trevor Ferrigno

Neutral

I don't believe the government, be it Federal or State, has the authority to dictate the medical treatments of private citizens. It is a real threat to human rights if we delegate authority of medical autonomy to our government. This goes for abortion and vaccinations. That said, there was no obligation to pay for treatment until The AHA. If we want to retain our authority, we must also retain the responsibility of paying for care. Autonomy is double-sided and imparts responsibility.

Disagree

The right to one's own life is sacred. No one should have the authority to take another person's life nor should they feel obligated to do so at someone's request. I do believe it is a function of government to protect life where possible. The medical arts prescribe standards for palliative care and the Hippocratic oath dictates "I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan..."

Contraceptive abortion is never justified. Could abortion be justified when a mother is the victim of a crime or when she is at risk of death or bodily harm if brought to full term? That is the wrong question. Who retains the authority to make the decision? That is the right question. Moral conviction aside, I believe the answer to this is the people. I would argue against the delegation of medical decision-making authority to any level of government. The only moral discussions that matter are between ourselves and our creator. The only civic question that matters is whether we are willing to transfer this authority to our government or not.

Strongly Disagree

If the government had the authority to seize private property at the behest of the masses, no one's property would be safe from theft. While the concentration of wealth to a small percent of the population may lead to the wealth gap growing larger, capitalism will always reward those who prepare and seize an opportunity. The idea of individualism is a founding principle of American values. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness are guaranteed for all, but there is no guarantee of success.

Strongly Agree

Federal spending is out of control. We feel the effects of this every day at the checkout counter. Certain expenditures on our balance sheet are not discretionary but are untouchable guarantees. Like any business, Congress must retain the authority to review how tax-payer funds are being spent and evaluate them for efficiencies and waste. Too many liabilities on the Nation's balance sheet are outside the control of Congress and must be corrected now.

I would advocate for more deduction options for W-2 wages, such as allowing private school tuition write-offs for k-12 education. Also, make C-level compensation non-tax deductible for corporations earning over 5 million in profits. The bulk of our tax burden should shift off American families and back onto high-profit corporations as originally intended. Before the 16th amendment, only the nation's top earners paid income taxes, and wages were not considered income. "Income" was defined as "a profit or gain from corporate activity," also known as sales. The amendment shifted tax ideology and suspended the appropriations requirement. "Income" was expanded to be "whatever source derived," which included the wages of average Americans. After receiving this unprecedented power to tax in 1913, congress increased the national debt by more than 1000% by the end of 1939 while America suffered through the great depression. Over time, the code was re-written to minimize tax liability for corporations as much as possible. Today, average Americans have very little recourse to reduce their tax liability on W-2 wages. The tax burden transferred from the nation's wealthiest corporations to the individual. The IRS raised $2.4 trillion from individuals in 2021, while corporations paid only 372 billion. That is about 8x more tax paid by American families. There is no single provision of the tax code that needs to be changed. The entire ideology in which its currently built needs to change.

Agree

I do believe religious liberties are under attack in the U.S. Some practices are treated favorably under the guise of anti-discrimination, while others are being targeted unjustly, violating of 1st amendment in both cases. I also think there is an active attempt to delegitimize the concept of God to break down the hierarchy of human rights. If people no longer believe in God, we can't claim that human beings "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights."

Strongly Disagree

Business owners should not be forced to operate in opposition to their religious beliefs. The only exception would be in cases of discrimination based on a protected class, public health, or illegal activity. If a business operates in a way the community opposes, the free market should weigh in with its buying power. The "educated" consumers should stop purchasing from that business if their principles don't align with their customers.

Both agencies should operate exclusively from each other. Religious practice or tradition should not influence law. The law should not discriminate against any religion except in cases where such practice constitutes a crime against another person.

Never. Vaccines should be limited to specific or high-risk individuals and environments but never coerced. Vaccinations against polio, MMR, are required for enrollment in school and employment in places like hospitals. Those vaccines were developed in traditional ways, proven effective in studies, and used in a targeted manner. They were not requirements for access to all facets of daily life.

C) Medicaid and Medicare should remain available, but no other taxpayer-funded programs are necessary. Respectively, These programs were meant to assist individuals in times of emergency and as a social security program, implemented after The Great Depression. They strike a good balance between social responsibility and individual accountability.

I believe our foreign policy should strike a good balance between B and C. American imperialism has expanded since the 1900s and has been a point of contention for many. The United States, keeping in the vision of our first president, should take a reserved approach to foreign affairs. America's entry into a foreign conflict should be wielded sparingly. We should enter only as a last resort in circumstances where the safety of Americans, or the human rights of people, are unjustly threatened.

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

Crimes against humanity must be globally condemned in all forms, no matter who commits them. I find it unreasonable to limit the term terrorism to refer only to Islamic Terrorism. The world can not selectively observe some acts of terror and willfully turn their heads away from others. I am no an expert on Middle East affairs but until the world's powers unilaterally act as an example for, and in defense of, the inalienable rights of all humans on this earth we can not expect other countries to do so either.

Strongly Agree

Immigration laws serve many purposes. They promote economic growth and stability while ensuring the safety of our communities by vetting migrants who may have a violent history. As the son of an Italian immigrant, I am familiar with the sacrifice required to become a naturalized citizen. We can not continue to devalue American citizenship by allowing the unmetered influx of migrants who ignore our immigration policy.

Agree

Promoting the general welfare of American citizens is the responsibility of both state and federal representatives. When the Governors and mayors of our states and cities violate federal law, it sends a clear message to criminals that breaking the law doesn't have consequences. Law enforcement officers face the dangers of lawlessness in communities every day. It's junust to increase the risk to these officers while offering social services to people who violate our laws.

Any individual should be allowed to apply for a Visa or citizenship, but there is no guarantee of approval. As one of the world's most sought-after countries, we reserve the privilege of selective acceptance. Just Like other countries, we must vet and accept potential citizens who will make us stronger as a nation. Their skills should bolster us in the areas we seek to grow and educate our children. Their values should align with American values and their objective should be to assimilate into American culture. My family emigrated from Europe, so I understand this well. They brought a strong entrepreneurial spirit and the desire to embody American values because they fled communist countries that sought to stifle them.

Agree

Americans must condemn all forms of discrimination. Our founders knew this and many of them, like John Dickenson of PA, condemned discrimination, in the form of slavery, by acknowledging it as "a principle of which we are ashamed." Sexual orientation and gender identity are no different. These qualities must not prevent people from receiving an education, being offered employment, or from accessing public areas.

Strongly Disagree

The modern teachings of CRT are just another version of the 1619 project. While the truth of slavery is an undeniable part of world history, it is entirely false to claim that America, as a nation, was and still is inherently racist. In fact, the establishment of America did more to abolish slavery than any other event in human history. There is one thing in today's America that should be considered systematic racism, the targeting of poor minority communities by Planned Parenthood.

An individual's relationship with The Creator is sacred and private, but I can share one thing. I believe in God The Father, Earth The Mother, Jesus Christ The Son, and all of God's profits who delivered the message of universal Love, Light, and Truth.

Neutral

As it stands, I don't believe voter ID cards are necessary. Unverified mail-in ballots, private sector funding, and unsponsored political advertising pose more risk to voting sanctity than identity thieves showing up at a polling booth. However, if H.R. 1, also known as the "For The People Act", is to be considered, then voter ID cards should be a requirement in the bill. I wouldn't support the bill either way.

There has been a reduction in voter faith in the electoral process. To re-secure the people's confidence, changes need to be made. Our state's legislature should focus on reducing the "emergency powers" of the governor to alter election procedures without approval. I would also seek to strengthen legislative authority to enforce existing voter laws and eliminate automatic voter registration by the DMV. I recently spoke with a voter in NJ-5, born in the Netherlands, who believes a ranked-choice voting system has more integrity. What he said made sense. Our Constitution prescribes a similar method to the electoral college for presidential voting. If the people supported this, I would advocate for this change to make election victory more attainable for candidates like myself and other third parties.

Strongly Disagree

Racism is a threat to humanity, not just a country. It is morally reprehensible and illegal in The United States. I believe we do well, as a country, to eliminate the effects of racism as it relates to access to education, employment, and public spaces. Anyone with the drive to succeed has the opportunity to do so in America, regardless of race.

Disagree

There are other less impactful methods of extracting oil and gas resources from the earth without potentially devastating contamination to the water table and our fresh water supply.

This question does not drive at the heart of a major issue in America. That issue is corporate responsibility. We all know the difference between right and wrong. It's not always the same as what is legal or illegal but cheap and available usually wins over slightly higher prices. As consumers, we can be more aware of corporate practices and drive "regulation" with our purchases. Our media can do a better job of exposing companies "who look the other way." We all have the choice to purchase from companies that operate in beneficial ways, not just companies with the catchiest jingle. A free market is better at regulating itself than the government, but it takes due diligence. Self-regulation would reduce bad practices and reduce consumer costs as well.

Lean Conservative

www.ferrignoforfreedom.org

No.

I am standing up for District 5 because too many of our representatives sell us plans that fall lightly on our ears and heavily upon our wrists. They say they will work to preserve our liberties but undermine our legislative process with budget measures that violate our constitution and the bill of rights. They claim to protect America's children but worked more quickly to try and codify Roe v. Wade than to address the mental health crisis children face all over the country. They claim to fight for working-class families but enforced executive orders to close our businesses and terminate our employment. They printed over $20 trillion which caused record-high inflation and increased our cost of living. I am choosing to stand because I can no longer sit while our representatives on Capitol Hill cleverly subdue our suspicions and coerce our compliance. I can no longer watch as they increase our debt to fund their own lavish benefits and diminish the Social Security benefits of our seniors. I cannot stay idle as they engineer scarcity to boost profits and use insider trading to grow their wealth. I cannot remain silent while they stoke flames of hatred among us and exploit economic hardships to sell us solutions to problems they created. Washington’s career politicians claim to represent our interests when they have only ever represented the interests of their party leaders and themselves. We must stand together and push back against the attempts to ideologically segregate and manipulate us into trading our freedoms for false security. We are at a precipice of forfeiting our constitutional authority because many of us don’t realize the power and authority we hold. We all must stand now to remind our representatives of something they have forgotten. The legitimate power of government begins and ends with the governed, and our constitution is an instrument of “The People” to restrain their government. Not the other way around. It is time for New Jersey to stand together and send a representative to Washington who will prioritize our interests and defend our constitution from corrupt political despots.

Agree

Being a law enforcement officer is a hard job. Every day they take real risks, and it's easy to scrutinize their choices after the pressure is off. Making a life or death decision in a matter of seconds takes training, awareness, and skill. If an officer panics and breaks protocol, they should be held accountable. However, if they retain their composure, observe protocol, and protect the lives of themselves and others, they deserve to be judged fairly.

Strongly Disagree

Both of these functions of society should be made a priority and adequately funded.

Restrictions on gun ownership do not make people safer. Public safety is threatened by criminals or people suffering from a mental illness or hopelessness. Criminals don't fear the police or the law, so they should be made to fear their victims. People suffering from depression, and other forms of mental illness, should be helped as early as possible.

Strongly Disagree

Absolutely not. Shifting the blame from people who commit crimes has been "trending" in today's criminal justice system. Criminals must be held liable for their crimes, and the firearms industry is no different. Trading with firearms is not inherently wrong, and the industry is not immune from breaking the law or making defective products. If dealers knowingly sell firearms to ineligible persons, they are liable for that. If manufacturers make a defective product, they are liable for that too.