If we were attacked again in a manner similar to 9/11, what should be our response and what, if anything, should we do differently than we did before?

If we were attacked again as we were on 9/11, our response should be consiistant until the threat is neutralized unlike the past 18 years where the Obama administration actually paid Iran over $1.7 Billion which is currently funding their terrorists activities against US troops in the Middle East and around the world.

Until these threats and hostilities are ended President Trump's travel ban should be extended - During the second World War the United States did not permit military aged males nor anyone else from Nazi Germany or the Japanese Empire to travel or immigrate to the United States. It is both irresponsible and dangerous to leave our borders open during this time.

What issue will be the focal point of your attention during your term? Describe what makes you passionate about that issue.

Our party has held the House of Representatives for 20 of the last 25 years, but instead of smaller government we see government invasion into almost every aspect of our lives; federal government with an unquenchable thirst for power and money, which leaves us less free and in greater debt every year.

Instead of rolling back these incursions, most of our representatives never play offense.  They never fight for us.  They don’t take back the ground lost to the socialists.  They are like a football team too afraid to play offense.

I will fight every Big Government invasion into your life starting with Obamacare - my opponent spent 22 years in Washington funding them. Politicians in our party promised to repeal this terrible federal overreach since 2010 - It is time to keep that promise. 

Today the average family of four pays premiums of  $1,403 per month - Before Obamacare the same family paid only $426 per month.  Whether you agree with Justice Scalia as I do that this burden is unconstitutional or you believe it to be a tax, it is unbearable to the middle class. 

I've met dozens of families in the past month who had to make a terrible choice - Pay their mortgage or pay for healthcare.  They chose their mortgage and now have no health insurance. 

I'll join Jim Jordan and the Freedom Caucus who stormed the basement where democrats were holding secret impeachment hearings behind locked doors unlike the 22 year incumbent who was no where to be found.  I'll work with these bold republicans to cut spending and shrink the size of government and the debt government has incurred so we can give a great country to our children and grandchildren where government is subservient to them - not a country where our children are subservient to government.

Our parents gave us a great country and I am passionate about giving a great country to our children.

Please list the most recent three(3) pieces of key legislation, how you voted (or would have voted) on each, and why.

I would have voted against raising the debt ceiling again, which Congress now does routinely.  The greatest generation left us practically no debt after fighting and winning a global war against Nazi Germany and Japan.  Since then Congress has raised the debt ceiling over 100 times.

One of Paul Ryan and Kevin Brady’s biggest betrayals of Republicans was the Continuing Resolution in September of 2018 when our party had majorities in the House & Senate, but did not keep their promises to repeal ObamaCare, defund Planned Parenthood or fund the Wall.

When JFK was president in 1960 over 50% of the federal budget was allocated to our military and only 15% was spent on social programs – today the military only get 15% while 8% is spent just paying interest on the debt and social programs exceed 60%.  

Congress hasn’t done its job and passed an actual budget since Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the House in 1997.  Since then our debt has risen from $4 Trillion to $24 Trillion – increasing the burden on tax paying households from $50,000 to $600,000.  

You and your family balance your budget. Government must be forced to do the same or you will soon leave your children with over $1 Million in debt as they graduate from High School.  I will vote against these Continuing Resolutions, their reckless spending and backwards priorities.

Finally, I would have voted against democrat sponsored bill to amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to equate sexual orientation and gender identity with race and sex under anti-discrimination laws which would remove protections for women and girls against sexual predators in women’s bathrooms, locker rooms and safe houses from domestic violence. Kevin Brady didn’t bother to show up.

What have you done, or will commit to do, to reduce federal spending? Where specifically do the cuts need to be made?

Congress continues to fund too many programs that benefit special interests and Washington lobbyists who now write thousands of pages in each Continuing Resolution effectively giving the Swamp ruling power over we the people and paid for by we the people.

I vote against these pork filled Continuing Resolutions that fund every program the democrats want - Kevin Brady has voted for them for 23 years.

I will fight for a balance budget amendment to the United States Constitution like we have here in Texas.  I'll fight to eliminate federal bureaucracies that never achieved their mandate, out lived their mandate or were outside the Constitutional role of the Federal Government in the first place.

Eliminating ObamaCare, Planned Parenthood, Department of Energy, Department of Education, Foriegn Aid, Federal Housing & Community programs would reign in federal over reach and save $500 Billion per year.

These programs have been disasters costing American Trillions in debt we can not afford with no return on investment.  The Department of Energy was created in response to the 1973 Arab Oil Embargo to make the US energy independent never came close to meeting its mandate - free enterprize and innovation from oil and technology companies. Habitat for Humanity has built over 1 Million homes where families participate in the labor take pride in paying off a zero interest loan on their own homes - Federal Housing projects cost ten times more per family and sadly deliver permanent poverty for most of their inhabitants.  

What form of federal tax law do you support (e.g., current, flat tax, fair tax, other) and why?

I will support the fair tax which is a national sales tax as long as all income taxes and the entire IRS bureaucracy are completely eliminated the same day the fair tax takes effect.  Otherwise you will simply be getting an extra tax on top of your income taxes.  

My second choice is a 10% flat tax.

There have been several mass shootings in recent years. What, if anything, should the federal government do to solve this problem?

The federal government is not the answer and does not have the answer to this problem.  Any time a politician tells you they want to help remember how every government solution turns out; less freedom, more bureaucracy and more tax.  Remember, If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor and if you like your plan you can keep your plan and it will all save you $2,500 a year.

The choice to bear arms is a constitutional right and a decision to be made by the citizen, not the government. In fact the Second Amendment exists specifically for citizens to protect themselves from any future tyrannical government as was the case with the British Empire in 1776.

On the topic of mass shootings, it has been proven that areas with a higher number of guns per capita are safer and prevent crimes from occurring. Data from the Crime Prevention Research Center shows more than 98% of mass shootings occur in gun-free zones and from 1950 to 2016, only 1.6% of mass shootings took place in areas where guns were allowed to be legally carried.  

Police take 18 minutes to respond to an incident - An armed citizen responds in seconds saving dozens of lives as we saw recently in Ft. Worth.  A study by the FBI found that defensive gun uses occur an average of 67,740 times per year in the US while homicides committed with a gun occur 11,004 per year.  

Giving up your guns because criminals use them illegally might make Beto happy, but it makes as much sense as a man castrating himself because a neighbor had too many kids. 

Meanwhile over 70,000 Americans die each year from drug overdose and the opiod crises costs our nation over $600 Billion per year but Kevin Brady could not find the courage to fund the Border Wall for $8 billion President Trump requested.

Please explain your interpretation of the Tenth Amendment and the principle of nullification. Do states have a right of nullification? What should the federal government do if a state attempts nullification?

I believe the federal government has far exceeded its legal authority invading our lives in ways that would shock our founders.

The Tenth Amendment was passed to limit the federal government's power, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” but the past century has witnessed severe erosion of the power of this amendment with Congress relying on the interstate "commerce clause" to force regulations onto States.

Interpretations from both Thomas Jefferson (nullification) and James Madison (interposition) in 1798 gave teeth to the Tenth Amendment finding that any State can choose not to submit to federal laws or regulations that the State determines to be unconstitutional even if ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court.

So what does this mean today?  The principle of nullification is actually alive and well today, 31 states have legalized marijuana for medical or recreational use in direct violation of Congress, the Executive Branch and the Supreme Court.  Another example is the flaunting of federal immigration law by "santuary cities".  Who would have thought that liberals would take adavntage of the principle of nullification?  The left always fights with every weapon at their disposal. We need real conservatives at every level of government with courage to fight.  Conservatives need to employ the nullification principle in our fight against federal overreach like Montgomery County has recently done in declaring itself a santurary county for guns.

At what point should the "right to life" or "personhood" be granted to new human beings (e.g., at conception, birth, 5 days old, etc)? What action, if any, will you take to reflect this in law?

My personal belief is human life begins at conception.  When the Supreme Court ruled in Roe vs. Wade in 1973 the justices could not see a live 3D sonogram image of the baby or the baby’s reaction to pain caused by the abortion procedure – had they seen these things I believe they would have left this issue with the states or required the federal government and states to follow the process of amending the United States Constitution to declare what constitutes a life granted equal protection under the law.

The inexplicably extreme position the left have taken on this issue is infants can be aborted at birth and if they survive can be killed as Democrat Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam said. "The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother." 

I believe the Supreme Court should at the minimum take the federal government out of this issue and return it to the states.  In the meantime I will support the Heatbeat Bill sponsored by Ted Cruz at the federal level to protect infants.

Do you support or oppose requiring schools, public health departments or any medical personnel to secure consent from a parent or legal guardian before prescribing, dispensing or administering contraceptive drugs or devices to a minor?

Schools, public health departments and medical personnel should secure consent from a the parents or legal guardian before prescribing, dispensing or administering contraceptive drugs or devices to a minor.

Our society is founded on the family - not the federal government.  We need to reinforce the family, and the parents that are leading them, and not create policies that divide it while minimizing the authority that the parents have to guide, lead and instruct their kids.  This is not for someone else to determine or interfere with without gaining consent from the parents first.

Do you support or oppose allowing a panel of qualified doctors to overrule the decisions of parents of a minor who has a serious medical situation and, if so, under what conditions?

I oppose the overrule of parents in this situation.  Just today, Thursday January 2, 2020 a judge ruled that a 11-month-old baby can be taken off life support at Cook Children's Medical Center in Fort Worth against the family’s wishes.

This is another case of government assuming a role where it clearly has no constitutional authority.

Medical professionals should be given an opportunity to advise and counsel, but should never be left making the final decision unless agreed upon beforehand with the parents.

Please describe under what specific circumstances governmental rights or interests should override parental rights or interests in regard to the welfare of children.

The only intervention that overrides parental rights is in the case of harm to the child. Aside from harm to the child either physically or emotionally or situations where the parents or legal guardians are deemed mentally unfit, governmental rights or interests never override parental rights or interests. 

In situations where time is of the essence and availability of the parent or parents is not feasible, then medical professionals should be left to make the best decision for the patient. Other than this, parents or legal guardians should be advised and left to make decisions regarding the welfare of their children. 

Irrespective of current law, should private corporations be allowed to discriminate against potential customers based on their race, religious beliefs, sexual preference, or any other condition? Why or why not or under what conditions?

No one should be forced to provide a service or product that violates their religious beliefs.  Forcing somone to provide a service in violation of their beliefs or punishing them for noncompliance is itself discrimination agaisnt a person of faith.

Competition in the free market of both services and ideas is key to our country's success. The Constitution exists to protect your freedoms - not dictate your behaviors or choose winners and losers in every disagreement. 

 Do you believe that humans are a major contributor to climate change and if so, what action(s) should the federal government take?

No, I believe humans are minor contributors to climate change and we already have responsible laws to protect the environment from negligent violators.

Evidence obtained illegally in a legal case is called Fruit of the poisonous tree, if the source (the "tree") of the evidence or evidence itself is tainted, then anything gained (the "fruit") from it is tainted as well and is not valid.

Scientific debate has even higher standards for the data used to create or support theories. In 2009, the public discovered emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit exposing how scientists who have been enormously influential in promoting the concept of man-made climate change actually manipulated the data to obtain results that served their narrative that the planet was heating at a dangerous trend due to higher levels of carbon dioxide.  

The left are desperate to have you believe 97% of scientist agree with their theory when in fact the number is closer to 43%.  So why do democrats and RINOs push the false narrative?  Just follow the money and you'll see the profits Al Gore has made off this hoax along with politicians in the DC Swamp from both political parties - you can start here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/11/03/blood-and-gore-making-a-killing-on-anti-carbon-investment-hype/#10702e3032dc 

Is there anything in your background of an embarrassing nature that should be explained before your election? Arrests/Convictions? Bankruptcies?

No

Please define your position on abortion restrictions and fully explain why.

I personaly believe that abortion should only be considered to save the life of the mother or in cases of incest or rape.  I believe the Supreme Court should at the minimum take the federal government out of this issue and return it to the states.  In the meantime I will support the Heatbeat Bill sponsored by Ted Cruz at the federal level to protect infants.  Please see my answers to the 8th question above regarding this issue. 

What is the federal government's proper role in the delivery of healthcare and what specific approach do you propose to get us there?

The federal government has Zero business in health care delivery!  As discussed in detail above ObamaCare must be elliminated entirely and the federal goverment removed from healthcare.  Failure to do this will insure a sequel to ObamaCare which has been the democrat party's goal, socialized medicine.  

Ask any veteran how well the VA treats them and how long they have to wait just to see a doctor - Then image everyone in America waiting in those lines at the VA and yoiu'll have a good picture of where RINO inaction from Paul Ryan and Kevin Brady are leading our country. 

Please list all rights to which non-citizens are entitled.

Non-citizens are considered “persons” under the Constitution so have only protections allocated to “persons” - most importantly, the right not to be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, as well as the rights to a jury, a lawyer, and cross-examination in criminal cases.

But non-citizens do not have the rights reserved for citizens "The People" - most importantly, the right to bear arms, to peaceably assemble, vote and to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures.

Please explain why or why-not you will vote NO on amnesty in every form on every vote.

I will vote no on every form of amnesty because it is not fair to natural citizens and legal immigrants alike. No one has a right to come and live in the US, it is a privilege. As a sovereign nation we reserve the right to control who enters our great nation as well as who may reap the benefits of becoming a permanent resident. 

Amnesty devalues the quality of many aspects of American life. Education for example, would be lowered in quality and increase in cost if all illegal immigrants were given amnesty. Not only would you further dilute the quality of the education with an increased in the student to teacher ratio, but you would also accrue extra costs that would have been prepared for if they were legal. 

I would vote NO on amnesty in every form or every vote.  Illegal aliens are just that – illegal.  It simply doesn’t matter how you got here or how long you’ve been here.  There is a process to go through, legally, to achieve citizenship.  Lawlessness is unacceptable.  

Please explain why you do or do not support the government providing financial benefits and free services to non-citizens.

Non-citizens have no rights beyond the law. For example a noncitizen should not vote or be eligible for Welfare. Illegals are eligible only for a ride back across the border. We should deport all illegals, they should not be eligible to return for a place in the legal immigration line without a penalty paid at the time they file. They broke the law and there should be consequences.

What are the mandatory components of a viable Guest Worker program and what criteria would you require for each factor?

The guest worker program has to be vetted as to not be a way for employers to avoid paying us citizens market price for labor. Only where is workers cannot be acquired. 

Please discuss what America's proper relationship to Israel should be using past and present relationships for comparison.

America’s relationship with Israel is that of a valued ally and partner. We should support their survival in whatever manner they need us to. They should determine the tenets of any peace process or sovereignty issues. 

What should America's course of action be in regard to Iran's nuclear capabilities?

America should seek to protect its interests in the middle east by prohibiting Iran from developing large amounts of highly enriched uranium fuel that could be used towards nuclear weapons. The Iran Nuclear Deal was not honored by Iran and they have paid for it since President Trump has been elected. It is safe to say that many European powers would not like to see Iran with nuclear weapons as well. This is good because those European negations and the US can work together to figure out how to keep Iran from achieving nuclear autonomy.   

Over the last few weeks, we have seen tensions heat up between Iraq and the US. The US should prepare for Iran’s nuclear capabilities because they cannot be trusted. In light of the situation with North Korea, we need to prevent Iran from ever achieving the same threat status of North Korea. We should be prepared to take military action to disable Iran’s nuclear capabilities altogether. 

However, military action should not be the primary means of achieving this. Over the last couple of years, the prevention of Irani export of oil production has weakened their economy significantly. The US should keep the economic pressure on Iran and use it as our main bargaining tool to make Iran honor their promises to abandon nuclear weapons development entirely.

Please explain your interpretation of "separation of church and state" and list some actions you have taken that illustrate your position.

Separation of church and state means the government does not in any way monkey with freedom to worship. It does not mean we cannot have religious expression in public places. It does mean we cannot force others to worship these expressions. It also does not mean that under the guise of religion anyone or any religion can do illegal or treasonous acts. 
For example knowing there is illegal and treasonous acts being planned in  mosque should not exempt them from action by the government. The placing of a nativity scene in a public park is not in violation of separation, nor is a Christmas decoration on my desk in a federal job. 

Do you support "Free Trade Agreements", such as USMCA? Why or why not? What are the problem areas with USMCA?

I support true free trade agreements. The present USMCA while better than the old NAFTA fall far short of truly free trade. No country should have one bit of advantage over the US. Any evidence of dumping or manipulation should be met with swift and costly sanctions against the party doing it.