Blay Tarnoff

Neutral

Criminal matters that do not involve the federal government are appropriately addressed at the state level. As a congressman, I would not be in a position to determine state law, and would oppose any effort to legislate this issue federally. I would also oppose any constitutional interpretation that would interfere with states legislating this issue, (continued in next question)

Neutral

. . . and would oppose any federal legislation that would in any way aid or support those who would promote either abortion or the disposal of living human embryos, including but not limited to spending tax dollars or legislating insurance mandates.

Same answer as above – these are matters to be determined at the state level.

Strongly Disagree

Forcing people to financially support activity that is morally repugnant to them is horrific.

Disagree

I do not believe it is appropriate for the federal government to ban substances in interstate commerce. States may pass legislation against criminal behavior which causes harm to others.

Strongly Agree

These are basic human rights which precede government and go to the very core of the American Experiment and our system of government. Any infringement upon them is unconstitutional, in my opinion, in addition to being a very bad idea.

Strongly Disagree

In addition to being morally wrong, this proposition actually makes no economic sense – the imposition of taxes on an economy slows the economy, which hurts the people at the margins, i.e. working families, the most. While handing those proceeds over to those individuals may help those particular individuals, the harm to the economy will cause an even greater number of new people who need help. This is why the “War on Poverty” has resulted in millions more needing help than when it began.

Strongly Agree

Transition all administrative agencies to equivalent private institutions. Transition all welfare, social security, medicare and medicaid to equivalent or better private alternatives, ensuring that everyone currently receiving benefits continues to receive no less, and that everyone who has paid in receives no less than the expected value of their contribution. Gradually reduce all foreign aid to zero.

Strongly Disagree

Beside not allowing any government to establish an official or approved religion, it also means that no law or government official may infringe upon any individual’s right to believe or worship or engage in religious ceremony or practice however they see fit, so long as their doing so does not infringe on the rights of others. Among other problems, the scenario in the previous question would constitute a violation of the principle.

Government involvement in health care has produced a Byzantine monstrosity that bilks patients, doctors and taxpayers to benefit politically connected pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies and hospitals, which then help the politicians who support the monstrosity. Eliminating government from health care is essential and restoring competition and market pricing to that system will vastly improve health care at prices anyone can afford. Also see last question in "Economy" section.

Strongly Disagree

Your personal medical information is none of the government's business. Knowledge is power and the government should not have such intimate power over you.

All foreign policy must be justified by how it is in US interest. The US must be able to defend itself and protect its interests abroad, but the best way to ensure the means to do that is by having the strongest economy possible and demonstrating that and the other benefits of liberty to the world. It is in US interest to help and support nations that respect the individual, and to help and support the people of nations that do not. However, that should not be done (cont'd in next question)

Strongly Agree

. . . at taxpayer expense, and I would vastly reduce US military presence around the world. || Socialist systems are parasitic and can only exist while there remains a healthy host to feed off of. Otherwise, they eventually collapse and die. The US must obviously never become dependent on China for anything it would need in a war, and must not allow China access to anything it might use to gain leverage. Other than those, “peace, commerce and honest friendship” (Jefferson) should be the rule.

We live in a world where dangerous and hostile ideology abounds. Israel is an outpost in the midst of it that shares the same respect for the individual upon which the US is founded, and provides a shining and crucially important local example of the benefits of such liberty. Although Israel is dangerously socialist and must improve its political system, it is also especially valuable to the US to remain closely tied to a people who are so able to produce more value per capita than any other.

Agree

The red-green alliance between those who champion socialism and those who champion radical Islam as the purported reason to crush the US is more of a threat than Islamic terrorism alone. Each group wishes to implement a totalitarian state that is impossible to achieve under our constitution, and very difficult to achieve anywhere so long as a tangible example exists of the benefits of liberty and respect for the individual, concepts which both groups must repudiate to achieve total control.

Anyone who is willing to support the principles upon which the nation is founded should be allowed to live here. They may not receive government entitlements, however. Controls should also exist to mitigate the danger of criminals and those with communicable diseases, and the rate of absorption may be regulated, with order of entry reflecting their desirability and value to society. Sponsorship may also be employed to effect any of those goals.

Disagree

This political tactic would not be effective and would disappear if it could no longer be used to help leftists gain power.

Strongly Agree

All education should be privatized. The government, at any level, has no legitimate interest in or authority to indoctrinate children. Everyone must have the opportunity and means to secure an education, which can absolutely be achieved without government involvement. "Separation of education and state"

Disagree

This is not the appropriate way to achieve the very legitimate goal of preventing hostile nations gaining access to technology they may use against the US, or to unravel the quagmires of dangerous and destructive socialist dogma many universities have become.

Agree

This is no doubt true in the vast majority of cases, and always true if perpetrated by non-parental authorities without explicit parental consent. However, the decisions of parents with regard to what is in the best interest of their child must be absolutely respected absent clear and convincing evidence that the parents are not so acting. In general, no one cares more for a child than his or her parents, and to interfere, it must be proven that the child would be better off with strangers.

Neutral

One is entitled to believe whatever one wishes. I am running for congress, not clergy. In the legal sense, “marriage” is basically a default contract defined by each state, combined with a legal “status” recognized by government. Religious institutions should set the terms of marriage contracts themselves, or in conjunction with couples. Whether a private institution then respects such status is its own private decision. The federal government should respect whatever status couples claim.

I believe there is much more to the universe than we can perceive or are even minutely close to understanding. I believe the desire of all living things to exist and thrive is absolutely astounding, and highly unlikely to have arisen from random chemical processes. Life must be intrinsic to the universe, itself, therefore. Is that a reflection of God? I don't know -- I am agnostic. With regard to values, however, I believe all violence and threats and theft must be eliminated from society. Nobody wants to live in a world where they are subject to such treatment, so it would be wrong for me or anyone else to engage in such behavior. As did the founders, I believe the individual is sovereign. Each individual owns him or herself, 100%.

Disagree

Unfortunately, there must be some means to ensure that only people who are entitled to vote are doing so. If anyone can think of a way to do that without issuing some form of government identification, I’m all ears.

Agree

Sometimes it may not be so clear, but you have to draw the line somewhere that makes sense. For private institutions, it is a private matter for the institution to decide. For government institutions, that seems to be the only reasonable criterion, although judicial appeals on an individual basis for particular unusual circumstances should probably be allowed.

I am certain the answer is nuclear power but politicians are not competent to answer this nor should they be asked to. Assuming all costs are accounted for, including pollution, the free market will determine this if not distorted by government.

No.

No.

Choose not to answer

None of the above. My views are very much in line with those of the founding fathers: in every issue, people must be allowed to make their own decisions, even if they are bad ones, and conduct their lives in any manner they see fit, without government coercion, so long as they do not infringe on the rights of others. But, those who do make bad decisions are responsible for the consequences and may not require others to fix their inevitable problems. "Very Libertarian" best describes me.

Agree

I answer this in the spirit in which I believe it is intended. Government has a responsibility to prosecute crimes against individuals, whether committed on the internet or elsewhere. And, online sites should be held responsible if they allow or fail to prevent illegal activity they reasonably had the means to prevent. This may include failing to provide parents a means to keep children safe. But, government does not have the authority to make regulations to prevent criminal behavior.

There should be very strict, well publicized laws regarding the use of firearms, but none on mere ownership. Every individual has the right if not the duty to be prepared and possess the means to defend themselves, their family, their community, and their country.