Human life begins at conception and deserves legal protection at every stage until natural death.
Abortion providers, including Planned Parenthood, should not receive taxpayer funds or grants from federal, state, or local governments.
I support the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which requires health care providers to provide life-saving treatment for infants who survive an attempted abortion.
Under what circumstances should abortion be allowed?
A complicated question . . . There is no practical way to eliminate abortion. It has been around for a thousand years or more and I don't see any way to prevent them from happening. If women are forced underground it will not take long for stories of botched abortions and Kermit Gosnell type clinics to turn the tide back in the other direction. Therefore, abortion needs to be available in order to be safe. With limitations on timing (first trimester, as early as possible) and types of procedures. Parental notification needs to be a priority in almost all cases. Education should allow for women to know early that they are expecting and the law should require a reasonably quick decision.
It is the government’s responsibility to ensure everyone has a livable income.
Free enterprise and the right to private property are essential elements of a productive economic system.
Taxpayer-funded public education should be guaranteed through college.
What government spending would you reduce in order to balance the budget?
First, I believe that most levels of government are on the wrong side of the Laffer Curve. This means that tax cuts should increase revenue and allow for fewer spending cuts. The job growth caused by these tax cuts will increase revenue further. None of that means that there isn't a lot of waste in government. Some of the obvious waste (bloated, unneeded, agencies for example) is easy to go after but squeezing budgets by forcing limits on growth in spending will further the effort
Governments should not discriminate against individuals, organizations or small businesses because of their belief that marriage is only a union of one man and one woman.
Governments should define marriage as between one man and one woman; no other definition of marriage should be legalized or supported with taxpayer or public funds.
Religious liberty is at risk in the United States and deserves the highest level of protection in the law.
I promise to protect the freedom of Christians to share the Gospel and to practice Biblical principles.
What does "separation of church and state" mean to you?
"Separation of church and state" is a construct of the courts. Yes, Jefferson used the term but had the founders wanted it in the Constitution, they would have been clear. What I believe is that the government should stand clear of religion. The establishment clause means, clearly, that no religion should be singled out for favorable treatment and none should be singled out for unfavorable treatment either. Where religious belief and the public interests clash, compromise should be reached with the balance of effort being made to allow religious freedom.
It is the government’s responsibility to ensure everyone has health insurance.
How would you promote healthcare coverage that is adequate, affordable and accessible for all?
When you talk about healthcare "coverage" as opposed to "availability" I believe that there are two different discussions. In both cases though, step one is to get the government out of the way. Allowing insurance companies to sell policies across state lines will start to allow competition/markets to properly drive the insurance industry but this is just a start. There a number of tax incentive methods available to help the uninsured get better access to care. But, one of the most important issues, in healthcare, health insurance and other industries is the need for tort reform. The risks of huge judgements down the road affect the cost of insurance, the cost of care and the quality of both.
The best way to maintain peace is through a strong military.
I am in favor of construction of a wall and other necessary infrastructure on our border that gives complete control over entering and exiting the United States.
State and federal funds should be denied to any public or private entity, including but not limited to sanctuary cities, that are not in compliance with immigration laws.
Who should be allowed to immigrate to the U.S. and under what circumstances?
Prior to the Immigration Act of 1965, the average immigrant to the U.S. was better educated, earned more and was more likely to own a home than the average natural born citizen. We brought in people who improved the nation. Today, the exact opposite is true. We limit those who can help us improve and those who, for the most part, cannot, are allowed in in droves. Without restriction and without control. Only those who will follow our laws should be allowed into the nation. We have no need for people who will work under the table or drive without a license or insurance, those who come here as part of drug gangs or other criminals. We need people who want to be citizens. Who want to assimilate and who want and support the American dream. We have taken in people from all over the world during our 250 years of immigration. Today, you can't tell who they are or, for the most part, where they came from. We don't care because they became "Americans". This is what we need more of
Judeo-Christian values established a framework of morality that is necessary for our system of limited government.
I support adding sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression as protected classes in non-discrimination laws.
Briefly describe your spiritual beliefs and values.
It is actually, my study of science that has led me to my belief in a higher power: God. Mankind didn't arise by accident. How much "design" and how much "guidance" were involved in the process is, I believe, impossible for us to know.
When you consider your views on a wide range of issues from economic and social matters to foreign policy and immigration, which of the following best describes you overall?
Please provide publicly available information validating your answer to the previous question.
My personal and campaign Facebook pages contain many, many, long and short statements on my political views. As this is my first run for office, I don't have a set of published papers or blog posts.
What education or experience qualifies you to hold the office for which you seek election?
In almost 40 years in the IT industry, I have worked in both large and small organizations. I've worked on problems from nuclear reactor safety, to ballistic missile defense to insurance, banking and many, many, other software design and maintenance areas. I have, for all those years, prided myself on my ability to look at problems from different angles and find novel solutions that prove to be improvements on the standard solutions.
Have you ever been convicted of a felony or been penalized for sexual misconduct? If so, please explain.
Very simply . . . No and no . . .
Is there anything else you would like voters to know about you?
I don't want a career in politics. But, I feel that I have a job that I can do for the people of our state at this time. I don't believe that our current representatives are properly representing us. They aren't really telling you what they are doing. They do what they want and then they tell you what you need to hear in order to believe that this is what you want. I want to turn this around. I promise that when I look at a bill before the legislature, I will do my best to figure out if the bill is good for the people or not and why. Then I will tell you what I figured out. I want to be completely transparent with the people. This is what I have wanted from my representatives for many years and it's the one thing that most of them consistently fail at. It's called public service for a reason and I would like to bring that idea back.
I support the use of Sharia law as a basis for legislation and judicial decisions in the United States.
Mandatory minimum sentencing should be required and enforced for violent crimes.
Should teachers be allowed to carry guns at school?
What restrictions on gun ownership are needed to protect public safety?
Assuming that we are restricting the discussion to commonly owned rifles, shotguns and handguns, we need to keep those weapons out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill while allowing law abiding citizens of good standing easier access. Eliminating the hoops that many states (my home state of NJ in particular) force their citizens through is important. I support Constitutional Carry, but it's going to be a difficult sell in many areas. That doesn't mean that the work can't be started
People should be able to vote without photo identification.
I support the legalization of recreational marijuana.
The Electoral College should be abolished.
In priority order, what three areas of legislation do you propose to author or sponsor if elected?
Likely the largest problem affecting New Jersey today is the rate at which our citizens are fleeing the state. Our seniors are not staying here to retire, too many of our graduates and other workers are leaving for what they see as greener pastures. In order to stem this flow we need to reduce the tax burden and improve the business atmosphere. 1. Property tax reform. This includes the outlandish school tax funding formula and better breaks for seniors. 2. Business and personal tax reductions. New Jersey suffers from the highest business tax rates and one of the highest personal income tax rates. These combine to drive business and workers from the state. 3. Improved services. New Jersey has one of the highest tax burdens in the nation. We are also over $200 billion in debt. Yet, with all of that spending, our MVA, unemployment, revenue and most other services are also among the worst in the nation.
Is racism a threat to domestic security in the United States? Why or why not?
Of course racism is a threat to domestic security. It doesn't matter from which side or how you look at or perceive it, it results in a threat. The idea that the police are systemically racist or that, as Lebron James claimed, they are out "hunting black men" is idiocy. It doesn't show in the statistics and it doesn't show when we look out at the street. But, the perception is still a problem and it's one that will be difficult to overcome. Minorities, when interviewed, understand why police are in their neighborhoods and what positive effects that has. Most want their communities policed at the current level or higher. The problem tends to be with white liberals who don't need the protection. The mayor and DA in Philadelphia are perfect examples. They have their security detail but are against the citizens having their protection provided by the police.