Patrick Bohan

Strongly Agree

Since I believe rights are actions that people can pursue without government interference and regulation, I do not believe that the government has the power to fund rights (that would be regulating). Since I would not fund rights, I certainly would not fund something that is not a right such as abortion.

Strongly Agree

The safety and well-being of the mother should always be the most important concern.

Abortion may be a viable option when the mother's life is in danger or if the mother is a victim of crime. However, these exceptions account for fewer than 1.5% of all abortions.

Since SCOTUS decided abortion does not belong in the federal realm (Hobbs), they will not be open to any federal legislation regarding any aspect for or against abortion. That said, regardless of abortion laws, abortions can be organically reduced. For example, mothers cite financial hardship as the chief reason to get an abortion. But, by empowering churches and charities to provide women with pediatric care, childcare services, and job training, society (not government) can provide women with the resources to pick life, family, and hope over death. Charities will be empowered by eliminating the government's role in social issues. I support laws that will truly protect the right to choose and provide women with an option other than abortion. Women should be aware of all the choices available to them to make an informed decision including adoption and charitable resources. Women should also be aware of the potential long term negative consequences of having an abortion.

End deficit spending to lower inflation and the cost-of-living. Reduce government regulations that are driving up the cost-of-living. Reduce federal taxes for all Americans. Support non-profit charities, not the government for social solutions.

Strongly Agree

The problem with most federal legislation, such as student loan forgiveness, is it picks winners and losers because these laws are not applied to all citizens equally. The government is supposed to be a neutral arbiter of the law by passing legislation that treats everyone equally.

No

I would like to end government lobbying for issues outside the scope of Article I Section 8. Treating citizens, organizations, and corporations equally eliminates the need for any organization to lobby the government for preferential treatment. Besides, the government very rarely establishes efficient and innovative solutions to our problems.

The Separation of Church and State (SCS) doctrine should have a very narrow reading. The establishment clause (SCS) is a prohibition against the government from creating a state sponsored religion. In no way is it a prohibition against people from practicing religion on public grounds or using educational funding to pursue religious liberty. Otherwise, the establishment clause is in direct conflict with the free exercise clause. The doctrine is applied the opposite of how it was intended.

Strongly Disagree

I strongly believe that accommodation laws should be revised. People should have the right to deny service for any reason since they have a right to conscious thought, a right to associate with whom they want, and a right to contract with whomever they wish.

Healthcare or medical freedom is a private matter, and vaccines cannot be mandated for any reason. There are many medical reasons why persons susceptible to autoimmune disorders, for instance, should not be required to get a vaccine.

I would prefer D, but privatizing Medicare and Social Security would be very difficult because tax revenue is needed to support those who are retired. Thus, I would answer C and repurpose tax dollars and cut federal spending to keep social security solvent without cutting social security or Medicare benefits. That said, I would empower charities (by increasing the discretionary income of citizens) and private insurance companies to privatize Medicaid instead of it being a government program.

C. It makes very little sense to protect the sovereignty of foreign nations when our own borders are not secure. The government has a duty to protect both national and individual sovereignty first and foremost. I am for building the border wall, putting in place technological surveillance, and hiring more border agents before purchasing weaponry for foreign nations. I will adhere to Christian principles to justify whether a conflict is necessary.

Strongly Agree

Communism is a threat to our Republic. As a former engineer, it is obvious that the United States is not producing enough engineers, scientists, and mathematicians. Chinese nationals are educated in our schools, trained in our companies, and then go home to create their own businesses. We are strengthening the Chinese economy and giving them the know how to be a cyber threat and create intellectual property. I believe our issues stem from our educational failures.

Every relationship with a foreign nation is important, even relationships with our adversaries such as North Korea, China, Russia, and Iran. There is a lot of truth to the statement "keep your friends close, your enemies even closer." That said, to protect national and individual sovereignty at home from terrorism, a strong relationship with Israel is essential to share intelligence.

The decline illustrates the ideological divide in the United States because conservatives are more likely to serve, and liberals are less likely to serve. In my opinion, polarization is driven by the two-party system, the government picking winners and losers (driving a wedge between citizens), and a biased media that supports particular narratives. End polarization, provide a competitive wage, and provide competitive benefits, and we can resolve recruitment issues.

Strongly Agree

I detailed my response in the National Security section. I would add that more needs to be done to secure the northern border and our airways (spy balloons). The Constitution makes a distinction between citizens and persons. Persons (citizens and migrants) are guaranteed due process of the law, but migrants are not guaranteed the same privileges as citizens such political rights or welfare benefits. Thus, policies providing migrants privileges at the expense of citizens is unconstitutional.

Green cards can be issued to people for a variety of reasons (humanitarian, work ...) but every immigrant should be vetted, want to assimilate, and truly want to live the American dream. Perhaps, immigrants who offer a job skill should also be prioritized.

Strongly Agree

I believe parents have the right to choose how their children are educated and what school they attend -Pierce v. Society Sisters. Furthermore, their tax dollars should follow the student. I would like to add, that trade schools should also be an option for high school students and older Americans who wish to learn a new trade. I would like to see public and private schools partner with cooking, beauty, automotive, technology, healthcare, HVAC, construction, plumbing, and welding trade schools.

Strongly Agree

The Department of Education is failing. Since its inception in 1980, education costs are skyrocketing, and results are diminishing. Education was one of the most important facets of society during the founding era, yet the founders provided it no federal power. Let's restore federalism and provide Americans more liberty and freedom to determine their education. Education is the great equalizer in society, not DEI.

Strongly Agree

There is a difference between marriage in a church which is a covenant with God and civil unions which are a contract with the government. Churches can't be compelled to marry anyone for any reason. The primary reason the government offers civil unions is so couples can receive the same tax benefits as married couples. I suggest married (and civil union) couples and single persons be taxed equally to end the practice of discrimination and getting married for the wrong reasons - Financial.

Strongly Agree

The rights of children can be denied until they reach maturity (age 18) to make decisions on gender. If smoking, drinking, owning a gun, fighting in a war, marriage, voting and other privileges can be denied, then so too can gender decisions. The Constitution provides a voice for those with no voice: the unborn, children, the disabled, the incapacitated, and even the deceased.

Strongly Disagree

Since I believe rights are actions that people can pursue without government interference and regulation, I do not believe that the government has the power to fund rights (that would be regulation). Since I would not fund rights, I certainly would not fund something that is not a right such as gender transition services.

I was raised a Catholic but had some negative experiences with religion as a youth. I became agnostic for the next 50 years. However, a debilitating neurologic disorder provided me with a lot of down time, and I started independently studying constitutional law and American history. This led me to studying natural law and the obvious next step was to study theology and the Bible. I was reluctant and kept putting it off. A serious bike accident that nearly killed me would change me in many ways. When I recovered, I knew I had to read the Bible. I never thought it would convert me back to Christianity, but it did. I now believe the Holy Spirit led me to study law, history, and theology, which provided me the wisdom to run for office.

Strongly Disagree

ID is mandated to make all types of choices - whether buying certain products or services or to get into and out of the country. In fact, ID requirements are much more stringent today than in the past because of the threat of identity theft. States can reduce the burden of voter ID requirements by offering citizens free photo IDs. The burden of obtaining a photo ID has to be weighed against the implications of voter fraud changing the outcome of elections. The choice is obvious.

Strongly Disagree

The Electoral College increases personal rights by increasing the impact of a person’s vote, protects the integrity of elections, and balances the sovereign interests between large and small states. In other words, my vote counts more in a state of a few million over 150 million national votes. States are better equipped to fight voter fraud, and the electoral college limits the power of more populous states. The Constitution says states control elections, not the federal government.

Strongly Disagree

Without question, the discriminatory past of United States history (slavery, segregation, eugenics, internment ...) should be highlighted in civic classes. However, CRT is polarizing when it proposes racial segregations concepts, white guilt, racial universalism, racial stereotyping, and victimization are at the core of modern American society. Many of the concepts of modern CRT will regress, not improve race relations.

Strongly Agree

The women's rights movement that increased athletic opportunities for female athletes over the past 50 years has taken a big step backwards when men are allowed to compete against women in sports.

Strongly Disagree

Even if climate change is real and manmade, it is beyond the government's charter. I will support capitalism and free markets by subsidizing all companies equally with a tax break. Companies will be free to innovate solutions, create more jobs, pay higher wages, donate more to charities, and to invest as they choose (Companies are free to decide whether or not to invest in climate change initiatives).

It does not matter what I think since I believe in free markets and therefore, businesses are free to decide what source of energy they will produce and sell. Capitalism and free markets will dictate which businesses thrive and which will perish.

Choose not to answer

Not sure if there is an option for me. I am a Libertarian and a Constitutionalist. I do not even know how to define modern liberalism or conservatism. Liberals became social liberals and socialists which is completely impractical. I used to consider myself conservative, but they became big spenders, promote government solutions, apply the law unequally, and ignore our Constitution, so I migrated to the Libertarian party to bring back our founder's vision of a smaller government.

The role of government is simple, and we are making it much more complicated than it needs to be. The role of the federal government is to pass laws within its limited constitutional grants of power (Article I Section 8) that are applied equally to all citizens and companies. The government should be a neutral arbiter of the law. That's it!

No

No

Strongly Disagree

The Executive and Legislative branches vying to pass legislation to pack the Court clearly violates separation of powers, especially if the objective is to shift the Court's political leanings. Our founder's created a Republic which puts in place checks and balances and separation of powers to prevent tyranny. In other words, the founders supported a government where no corrupt person, branch of government, or Party can ever obtain too much power.

Strongly Disagree

The only reason people consent to government is for protection and safety of their fundamental rights. The government has few responsibilities but protecting individual and national sovereignty should be its chief concern.

There are very few reasons to curb a fundamental right of US Citizens. Rights can be restricted for children until they reach maturity (18 years old), illegal aliens, and convicted felons who have violated the rights of other citizens. That is it! Guns are an essential form of self-defense and self-preservation that should be fostered, not restricted.