Please describe under what specific circumstances governmental rights or interests should override parental rights or interests in regard to the welfare of children.
Parents have the right, duty, and responsibility to raise their kids how they see fit, free from government interference and overreach.
However, parents do not have the right to abuse their kids, whether that be physical or sexual, or to make permanent decisions for that child they may regret later - for example, transitioning kids or allowing them to choose their gender.
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?
Life begins at conception, not perception.
Aren't the communists always screaming, "Trust the science?"
According to the Science of Embryology, a whole human being is created at conception and begins the earliest stage of development.
Conception brings about a new, genetically unique, newly existing, individual, whole-living human being that has never existed before and will never exist again.
Life is an unalienable right endowed to us by our Creator.
That fact means that the pro-life/pro-choice issue does not fall under the Jurisdiction of the federal or state governments. Constitutionally and morally, this issue falls under God's Jurisdiction.
We won't legislate our way out of this.
We already have laws against murder, so why do we need more legislation to follow when we should be just enforcing the laws already on the books?
The only way to fix this is to elect Constitutional Conservatives who will fight for the rule of law.
Do you support or oppose the PATRIOT ACT and efforts to build government databases that monitor the activities of the public-at-large, including bank deposits, phone usage, health care, air travel, schoolchildren, and gun purchases, etc.? Do you believe that the government is currently collecting this data?
I absolutely oppose the unpatriotic legislation mis-titled the "Patriot" Act. The Patriot Act took advantage of the swarm of Patriotism that followed after 9/11 and, unfortunately, proved that much of the American people were willing to give up essential liberty for a false sense of security.
They are 100% collecting data on us, and Edward Snowden and Wikileaks exposed this fact - and most recently, the Pelosi-led "insurrection" that took place on January 6, 2021.
Interestingly enough, my opponent has consistently voted to renew both FISA and The Patriot Act, showing his allegiance is not to liberty nor his constituents.
Do you believe the search warrant process is being abused to grant law enforcement overly broad access? If so, what do you plan to do about this?
Absolutely, and it is 100% the result of an authoritarian government no longer operating within its Constitutional jurisdiction.
Agencies like the FBI, NSA, CIA, and ATF, which were created to protect and serve the American people, have gone rogue, are being weaponized against the American people, and no longer listen to Congress.
We must restore congressional oversight to these agencies. Otherwise, we will become even more of a police state.
Many bad bills, like H.R. 6448 (Invest to Protect Act of 2022), should've been struck down and never passed the House. This specific bill directs the Department of Justice's Office of Community-Oriented Policing Services (COPS) to award grants to county, municipal, town, village, and tribal governments that employ "fewer than 125 law enforcement officers."
Additionally, this bill undermines the local control and independence of police. The strings attached to such grants move the United States closer to nationalizing police — making police subordinate to federal stipulations, guidelines, and control — instead of a police force controlled locally, independent of the federal government.
Furthermore, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution does not provide federal grants, training, or guidelines for local law enforcement.
I opposed this bill – my opponent did not.
That said, beyond voting NAY on bad legislation, there is not a whole lot that I can do about this on my own unless we vote the political puppets out of office because I will be a minority voice among 435.
Firing these political puppets can only happen when the American people stop playing the victim card and wake up to the reality of self-governance and what that means.
This is why part of my action plan, whether elected or not, is to engage, educate, and activate the citizenry so they can know their rights, defend them, and assert their rights.
I've already been doing this, so I started Project Defiant, which will continue whether elected or not.
Do you support or oppose the operation of the FISA Courts? Do they need to be left as is, reformed, or closed down and how do you propose to achieve this?
It depends...
While national security falls under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government, the FISA Courts, as they currently operate, pose a significant threat to transparency, privacy rights, and civil liberties. Their secretive nature raises due process concerns, and the high rate of warrant approvals by these courts exposes a need for extremely rigorous scrutiny.
Reforms could include increasing transparency, implementing an adversarial process, narrowing the scope of surveillance, strengthening oversight, and enhancing privacy protections.
But achieving these reforms would require legislative action and public advocacy.
While national security is important, it should not come at the expense of constitutional rights and liberty.
I would support reforms only if the unalienable rights and liberties of American citizens are protected - otherwise, shut them down.
