This is a statement of my selected beliefs and perspectives about politics in general, and particularly in the present-day United States.

I. GOVERNMENT AND CULTURE

I.0. SUMMARY STATEMENT

I believe governments exist to provide some measure of justice in this world and to secure the liberty of their people, and that governments should carry out these duties according to principles of wisdom and righteousness. While on a traditional left-right spectrum I land a fair bit right of center on average, I seek to understand political issues within a biblical framework that transcends the progressive, libertarian, and conservative approaches that dominate America's public discourse. The aspiration of "liberty and justice for all" guides my general approach to political issues that are not particularly addressed in Scripture.

I.A. GOVERNMENTAL PHILOSOPHY

I.A.1. Government as an Institution

(The Foundation of Government; The Nature and Role of Government; Liberty under Government; Human Nature and Progress; Moral Reform)

The institution of government is established by God, meaning the Triune God revealed in the Bible. Ruling authorities are appointed by God, are accountable to God, and must obey God in all things. This does not conflate the government with the church, or place the government under the church, since these institutions have separate roles and authority over different areas of life.
Just as the church obeys God by conducting itself according to the Bible which is addressed to it, the government's obedience to God should consist in governing according to God's general revelation in the natural law available to everyone via the common grace-gifts of reason and conscience.
While government should serve the common good of society and glorify God, it is neither right nor wise for it to constrain its people's liberty or attempt to coerce the reordering of society for the sake of that common good or in supposed service to God's glory.

The government is one of several institutions that are essential to a healthy society, alongside families, churches, businesses, charities, and private associations of common interest. It is also the only institution to which God has delegated the inherent right to employ constraining force against adults in the carrying out of its duties. It uses the power of restraint to compel the good behavior of those who will not restrain themselves. The original and primary purpose of government is to safeguard the lives and liberty of all within its jurisdiction, by providing just retribution and recourse for harm done to the people within the society.
However that is not government's only purpose. The Bible commends actions by governments to keep an orderly society, reward and incentivize good acts and human flourishing, defend from outside threats, cooperate in good causes with other nations, including defending them from attack, ensure responsible stewardship of creation, and provide humanitarian aid to those in need both among its own people and elsewhere.
Government's decisions to those ends should be made with wisdom, compassion, a recognition of humans' sacred dignity and corrupt fallenness, and a humble sense of its place under God and in service to the people.
For a government to be just, its protections must extend to all the people and entities within its jurisdiction, so that all its persons enjoy the full and equal benefit of all its laws and proceedings for their liberty, security, and participation in society, and are subject to the same standards and processes of accountability.

Consent of the governed is a concept derived from the Bible (though also deducible from natural law) and became part of the American legacy through Protestant theology generally and congregationalism in particular. Just as people associate in other institutions by common consent, so a government ought to exist among its people by their collective choice. In short, a people has an inherent right to choose its leaders and its form of government, and the government should be held to account by its people for the carrying out of its duties—chiefly the preservation of the people's lives, liberty, and freedom to pursue their own paths to happiness.
Further, the Bible's pervasive themes of liberty and equality, and its condemnation of oppression, require that a government must not violate the very rights it exists to protect, and society should be permitted to develop organically rather than being engineered.

Humanity has benefitted greatly through advances in science, medicine, and technology, as well as the propagation of democratic institutions throughout the world in the past couple centuries. Nevertheless, human nature is the same from generation to generation, and there will be no permanent progress in our collective moral sensibilities prior to the return of Christ. In any era, moral reforms in one area of life are often offset by moral degradation in other areas. Even our idea of what an ideal society would look like changes from one culture to the next, and from person to person.
We must therefore be always reforming and aspiring to virtue, seeking wisdom from other times and places rather than assuming past cultures to be primitive and foolish. This reality also calls for humility among our chief leaders and thinkers, caution in judging political figures of the past, and a reluctance to try to move society forward by force rather than by persuasion and democratic processes.

I firmly support efforts to make a society, and the world at large, a kinder and less unfair place, and to oppose those who seem to devote their energies to making others' lives more difficult. Moral reform in society, especially on issues of controversy, is successful and lasting when it is advanced persistently, passionately, positively, and peacefully, with visible compassion, and from the ground up rather than from the top down. Hearts and minds must be changed first so that the people press for systemic changes instead of resisting them. As Calvin Coolidge once said, "Real reform does not begin with a law, it ends with a law."
It is important to speak out against injustice, and all major injustices should have someone calling them out. But not everyone is called to be an activist or to speak out on every issue. Generally speaking, people who choose not to engage matters of controversy are not part of the problem and bear no guilt for silence on an issue unless they are in a position of special knowledge or particular responsibility for that issue.
I generally favor an incremental approach to issues of controversy until a consensus can be obtained. The issue is not slow change for its own sake, but attainable change that may open the door to more desirable, more thorough changes that are not yet possible. Incremental reforms are not mere half measures; they are first steps.

I.A.2. Politics and Worldview

(The Political Spectrum; Libertarianism; Progressivism and Social Liberalism; Conservatism; Neo-Conservatism; The Political Divide; Conspiratorial Worldviews)

The concept of a one-dimensional left-right political spectrum does not reflect the breadth of approaches and philosophies in political discourse, or the elusive definitions of "conservative" and "liberal." There are any number of multi-axis models that better account for the political perspectives in our society.

I understand libertarianism to frame political issues primarily in terms of self-determination, with the state's proper role being minimal.
I identify with libertarianism's valuing of dignity and rights of conscience, and its wariness of corruption in both big government and big business. However, I disagree with libertarianism's often low view of law enforcement, its penchant for isolationism, and its tendency to miss the moral character of government's divine purpose in preserving justice as well as liberty among its people.

I understand socially liberal progressivism to frame political issues primarily in terms of mercy, with the state's proper role being to liberate the oppressed and to guide the nation toward social equity.
I identify with social liberalism's compassionate advocacy of social justice (rightly defined) since this is a major biblical theme. However, I disagree with its collectivist tendencies, its paradoxical bent toward cultural elitism, its reliance on an optimistic view of human nature, its frequent assumption that wealth and success are the results of oppression, and its tendency to trust government to compel the direction of society.

I understand modern American conservatism to frame political issues primarily in terms of morality and personal responsibility, with the state's proper role as upholding the principles of civilization and the American social order.
I identify with conservatism's traditionally high regard for moral character and the dignity of owning the fruits of one's choices. My views align more with conservatism than with the other approaches to politics. However, I disagree with conservatism's penchant for overestimating the role of personal choice in the plight of those less well off, for casting the political arena as a war for the soul of the nation, and for unduly prioritizing clean living over care for others. Also, due to its inherent penchant for traditionalism, American conservatism is hampered by its resistance to helping groups that have traditionally been mistreated or disenfranchised in our society.
My basic political orientation is conservative in the sense that I want government to guard the fundamental moral pillars of society. However, I include among those pillars a high degree of self-determination and a high priority of mercy, with the balance of liberty, justice, and personal decency being determined issue by issue.
More specifically, the conservatism that appeals to me includes insisting on the importance of moral character in our leaders, including their faithfulness in marriage; regarding leaders as public servants we select to perform a duty rather than celebrities we revere and identify with; opposing authoritarianism both at home and abroad; supporting a rewards-based economy in which people are generally free to do business as they choose; opposing overspending; appealing for truth, civility, and fair-mindedness in political discourse; and upholding free speech and opposing book bans and restrictions on what teachers can say in the classroom. To me, anything contrary to this is not true conservatism.

I understand neo-conservatism to be not a holistic political philosophy but a desire to use American foreign policy to export American principles of political liberty and capitalistic economic freedom to the rest of the world.
While liberty is indeed the proper condition for all mankind, history has shown that liberty cannot be imposed on a people who are not willing to cherish, sacrifice for, maintain, and defend it themselves. We can and should seek to persuade nations toward greater liberty and respect for human rights, but any effort to unilaterally "liberate" a people through simple regime change is likely only to exchange one tyrant for another.
Though I reject neo-conservatism, I oppose misusing the label "neo-conservative" as a pejorative for conservatives generally or for moderate Republicans who are not deemed conservative enough.

I agree with the observation of many that in America, the widening political divide is not between "right" and "left" so much as between the middle and the extremes. Many of us, perhaps even most, see a place for all the aforementioned outlooks in our society, and seek to remain teachable and to make common cause across the lines of party and philosophy for the good of all—not out of a motivation for respect and prestige, but as a matter of moral conviction. Meanwhile an increasing number are being drawn to far-left, far-right, and anti-government approaches that are illiberal, in that they believe that mainstream opposing viewpoints are evil and must be silenced, excluded, and defeated for the sake of a healthy society. Insead, I believe it is this very mindset, more than either side of the spectrum, that is responsible for the recent rise in political violence.

Conspiracy theories arise and are sustained by pride and fear: pride of understanding "the real truth" missed by the masses, and fear in terms of a persecution complex or suspicion of a group of people. Such theories are often used to manipulate or exploit those who believe them. The idea that society is secretly being directed by sinister human forces is especially loathsome, since historically such theories have been used to persecute minorities out of envy and suspicion.
It is worthwhile to expose the errors of such theories, but it is not especially worthwhile to debate "true believers" who are unwilling to consider ideas at odds with their preconceptions.

I.A.3. Politics and Responsibility

(Leadership and Expertise; Leadership and Character; Civility in Government and Politics)

Only wise leadership is good leadership. At the same time, the fundamental idea of a free society is that the direction of its culture and institutions be steered by the free choices of the people at large, and not by an elite aristocracy. While the voices of experts offer valuable guidance to the public, they should not have authority to overrule the will of the people in their decision-making capacity, nor should "experts" be preferred over other good men and women in representing the people in government. A good understanding of law and history is important for lawmakers, but an Ivy League degree is not required for a sufficiently good understanding. And matters of character, attitude, and real-world work experience are just as important as education.
Even so, anti-intellectualism and suspicion of education can be deadly in times of crisis if leaders deny plainly demonstrated reality due to political inconvenience. Leaders should make decisions with the will of the people in mind, but should listen to reliable experts to obtain the facts that inform those decisions.

The Bible assesses leaders, both believing and unbelieving, based not on accomplishments or policies, but on whether their official actions and personal lives accord with what is good or evil in the eyes of the Lord. Therefore the highest priority in my voting is whether a candidate is of good moral character, and how that character works itself out in the candidate's past and anticipated leadership.
The qualities I seek most are humility, gentleness, and quickness to acknowledge and learn from mistakes.

Order, decorum, and dignity are fundamental to the fair administration of justice, and should, by rule and policy, be expected of anyone acting in their capacity as a public official.
For the public, political speech should be given broad latitude in society, although it is reasonable to direct political discussions away from forums that are devoted to specific non-political topics. Political issues are also known to be contentious, but people entering a political discussion should do so with an intent to listen as well as to speak.
Political discourse should be respectful, considerate, and a sincere attempt for people on opposing sides to arrive at a mutual understanding, whether by changing hearts and minds, or simply to be better informed of the opposing viewpoints. Arguments should not conflate issues or divert the discussion, and should avoid generalization and stereotypes. They should not include threats, wishes of harm, personal attacks, bitter sarcasm, or mocking language. This also rules out name-calling, degrading language, assumption of bad motives, and unfounded accusations of conspiracy or bribery.
Political advocacy should respect personal boundaries and basic decency, and the tranquility of a person's private residence ought to be legally protected. Regardless of the issue, it is inappropriate to protest at people's homes, places of worship, funerals and other solemn ceremonies, or the places of work of private citizens, to follow public figures into restrooms, changing areas, and other private facilities, or to celebrate the deaths of one's political opponents.

I.A.4. Religion and Government

(Religious Liberty and Society; The Role of Religion in Political Action; Legislative Prayer)

America, both its government and its population, ought to submit to the Lord of all the earth, as should every other nation. But America should not officially favor Christians and Christian institutions over those of other religions or of no religion. Compulsory religion is as tryannical and futile as compulsory atheism.
Christians in America should desire not honor and power over our society, but religious liberty for all within our society. Lost power is not an injustice, only lost liberty, for liberty is a right, while power over others is not.
The American project originated to establish a place where people could serve God as they saw fit, seeing that it is both improper and impossible for the government to effectively regulate beliefs and conscience.
Government should not, in its official capacity, evaluate the truth claims of a religion or the sense and morality of religious practices. Government officials, being people of free conscience themselves, may certainly do so in their capacity as citizens, but not in a way that curtails others' equal right to do so.
The equal right of people to practice their own religion does not mean that people should not discuss, debate, or try to persuade others to their own beliefs and practices; in fact, such peaceable discourse is the only natural alternative to coercion or coerced silence.

Religion, by its nature as an understanding of what is supreme in life, naturally calls for particular modes of behavior, attitude, and conscience. As public officials ought to exercise their duties conscientiously, their views about religion will inevitably affect how they carry out their work. This cannot be fairly or reasonably restricted.
Likewise, citizens will vote, advocate for issues, and support or oppose candidates for reasons of conscience. The Constitution's "no religious test" clause means no candidate can be officially ruled eligible or ineligible based on religious considerations. But still such considerations may (and inevitably will) guide the conscience of voters.
The First Amendment's establishment clause likewise forbids churches and other religious bodies as institutions from having authority over or favor from the government, but religious citizens may still advocate and petition the government based on their own religious concerns.

I agree with the Supreme Court's upholding of legislative prayer as constitutional, given the historical tradition of the practice, and the fact that the drafters of the Constitution welcomed it. I also believe it is good and right for Christian legislators to publicly acknowledge Jesus as their Lord and appeal to God for wisdom in their decisions. The Bible even commends unbelievers appealing to believers to pray on their behalf.
However, I see no good served in prayer being offered merely as a tradition to lend a veneer of solemnity or sanctity to the proceedings, or in prayer being offered to a generic "God." And notwithstanding our pluralistic society, the same body offering prayers sometimes to the true God and sometimes to the gods of other religions is as vexing as the confusion Paul encountered in Athens.
Therefore, I believe legislative prayer should remain legal so that officials may make sincere appeals where God is truly worshiped, but I see no good purpose served in mere religiosity by legislators whose lives and votes follow only worldly allegiances.

I.B. THE AMERICAN SYSTEM

I.B.1. The American Identity

(Nationalism and Exceptionalism; Patriotism; America's Christian Heritage; America's White/Western Heritage; America as an English-Speaking Nation; Birthright Citizenship; Dual Citizenship; Accidental Americans; Issues of Statehood)

The only sort of nationalism I embrace is civic nationalism—meaning a commitment to equality, tolerance, and the democratic process, with a sense of national identity grounded in our shared belonging to a particular country and its defining values and institutions. I reject ethnic nationalism—whether by the name of white nationalism, Christian nationalism, kinism, or whatever. I abhor the notion that Americans are better, or deserve better, than the people of other nations. It is good to love the place we live and the people around us and to want them to thrive. It is quite another to believe people who are not like ourselves have less to offer and to assume unfairness whenever they begin to share the advantages to which we are accustomed.
The exceptional principles, origins, and history that bind the American people together make it important for the United States to continue as an undivided sovereign nation, and its government's primary obligation is to the people within its jurisdiction. However, that does not translate to a general right to increase the power and prestige of the United States over other nations.
The US should also respect the sovereignty and distinctiveness of other nations and their responsibility to their own people. It makes sense for the US government to prioritize the interests of the American people in many respects, but it should not expect other nations to put America before themselves.
The commonness of our humanity, the global interactions of modern society, and America's inescapable influence mean that it is right and necessary for the US to seek the good of the world, and to prefer global cooperation over competition or adversarial relations with peaceful nations.

Biblical patriotism is a love of one's home and a desire for the well-being of one's people, but not a notion that we are superior or deserving of God's blessings. I love America not because I believe it is the best country, or the only good country, or the most deserving country, but because it is my country.
The American identity is grounded not in geography or ethnicity but in its aspirations and federal structure—more specifically:
1. its aspiration to be a haven of liberty marked by self-determination, equal right of access and opportunity, freedom of expression and especially of religious faith and practice, and a political system that allows the people recourse to hold their government accountable to its purpose;
2. its structure as a union of states that are mostly sovereign in their internal affairs but united via the federal government in their common pursuit of those aspirations, their harmony with one another, and their interaction with the rest of the world; and
3. its historic conviction that the upholding of its structure and ideals depends on the prevalence of basic moral norms among the people and a public expectation of high personal character in its leaders.
For all of America's historical faults, God's providence worked its founding, story, heritage, and aspirations in special ways that have influenced the rest of the world toward greater freedom, justice, and prosperity. It is good for Americans to vocally cherish, promote, preserve, and defend these principles, and to seek the welfare, flourishing, and reforming of the American people, for the good of their country and the world.

I believe many of America's early English colonists and quite a few of our Founding Fathers were faithful Christians who derived many of our historic ideals more from Scripture than from Enlightenment philosophy. While their orthodoxy and consistency in the faith was far from perfect, I believe God blessed our founders' efforts to establish our nation as a place where liberty and justice ought to flourish. I further believe that America's Christian heritage should be more widely known and more accurately taught.
There is a difference, however, between recognizing God and His ways as the source of all true liberty and justice, and believing America's political system and traditional ways of life have divine sanction, or that American values cannot be sincerely embraced and carried forward by non-Christians.
Christians should seek to win others to Christ through the preaching of the gospel and pray for the Holy Spirit to bring a national revival. But they should not use America's Christian heritage as the basis for a right to seek power or to penalize non-Christians for living out their own beliefs. The same liberty of conscience that allows Christians to practice their faith without fear of persecution also guarantees not an officially Christian society but a pluralistic society, especially as America also exists as a haven of refuge for people from across the globe to escape poverty and tyranny.

Americans who treasure their country's historically dominant Western cultural heritage and religious values are not thereby more American, more patriotic, or of more value to the country than those with another heritage or other values, so long as they share America's central aspiration toward liberty and justice for all.
"Western" does not translate to "white." There is no historical or cultural legacy, set of values, or innate character specific to light-skinned cultures. The advancements and global influence of Western civilization arose from a host of historical factors, and Western culture is a mixture of contributions and influences from myriad societies across three continents.
Contrary to voices on the extreme right and the extreme left, I do not believe people of color are less likely than whites to be rational, objective thinkers; to be hard-working, self-motivated, and personally responsible; to be considerate of others' time and sensibilities; to respect responsibly exercised authority; or to value stable families and the education of their children.
It bears mention that non-Western cultures also have virtues and perspectives valuable to modern society, and the impact of Western influence on the world is very much a mixed bag. Additionally, a rise in visibility, influence, and equality of diverse groups of people does not in itself constitute oppression or an existential threat to the cultural majority. I celebrate America's future as a majority-minority nation.

America speaks English by custom, but it is not essential to American identity. The US does not need to designate English an official language by law, nor should English literacy be required for voting or other exercises of American citizenship.
Even so, for obvious practical reasons, English should be taught universally in childhood education, and some minimal facility with English should be required as part of the naturalization process.
For the sake of global interaction and in light of our internal diversity, the government should promote multi-lingual study and make reasonable accommodation for those who prefer a non-English language.

I affirm birthright citizenship as an unambiguous guarantee of the 14th Amendment and a right of any person born within the territory of the United States, except those not subject to US jurisdiction (e.g., children born to ambassadors, or occupying enemy forces in time of war). As a matter of due process, this right obtains irrespective of the citizenship and legal status of the parents. They are natural-born citizens, as are US citizens' children born abroad in most cases.
I believe retaining a policy of birthright citizenship is extremely important, as the alternative seen in countries without it is the creation of a class of (usually impoverished) ethnic minorities whose immigrant heritage prevents them from obtaining citizenship and being integrated into the larger society.

While naturalizing citizens should take the Oath of Allegiance to the US, they should not be required to renounce their prior citizenship, and neither naturalized citizenship nor dual citizenship should restrict an American's rights or access to the benefits of society, including holding public office (except for the constitutional requirement that the President be a citizen by birth).
US citizens who hold a valid foreign passport should be allowed to enter the country on that passport.

The US should preferably not tax citizens who neither reside within US jurisdiction nor earn or spend any money there within a given year. The US should especially not penalize citizens abroad who were not aware of their citizenship status.

I support statehood for Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia, and a path toward independence for American Samoa, as well as greater self-determination for other US territories.

I.B.2. Constitutional and Structural Issues

(Foundational Principles; Constitutionalism; Federalism; Constituency; Term Limits; Branches of Government; Senate Confirmation of Presidential Appointments; Congressional Oversight of the Executive; Conditions for Impeachment; Prosecution of Public Officials; Emergency Powers; Judicial Philosophy; Nationwide Injunctions; Pre-Enforcement Challenges; Article V Convention )

Any nation's representation of its people depends not only on elections to choose their own leaders, but on the division of powers, the rule of law, equality before the law, and freedom from arbitrary coercion, among others. Where those principles are neglected, the rights of the whole people are not protected, and the likely result is some portion of the people oppressing the others.
In assessing how well our nation upholds those foundational principles, we ought to consider not only the experience of people like ourselves, but of all the residents of the land under our nation's jurisdiction.

In terms of earthly causes, our nation owes its freedom, longevity, and peaceful transitions of power to the system of the US government established by our Constitution, and its selection of which powers it grants to that government and which are left reserved to the states and their people.
The effectiveness of our constitutional system depends on the dedication of the people and their chosen leaders to uphold it. Even today, our government should respect the structures, limits, and rights expressed in the Constitution. Presidents, legislators, judges, and administrative agencies should hold the Constitution, rather than the status quo, foreign systems, or their own sensibilities, as their standard for law and justice. The people should shun candidates with too little care for the Constitution and should hold their leaders accountable to it.
The Constitution should be amended only when necessary for maintaining orderly continuity and accountability of government, or for preventing the federal government from infringing on the liberties of the states and the people.

The growth of national government and the rise of administrative rule-making in the twentieth century have made the federal government bloated, wasteful, and domineering. There should be a gradual return of power to the states, especially in matters of commerce and personal behavior, though matters of civil rights should remain with the federal government.
The federal government should respect the actions and decisions of states and their people, not intervening except in the case of violations of the Constitution or existing federal law.

In any representative democracy, elected officials represent all the people of their jurisdiction, not only the ones who voted for them. Their loyalty to the good of their entire constituency should be greater than their loyalty to parties, party leaders, or prominent donors.

While the Senate was envisioned by the Founders as being composed of people well versed in matters of law, members of the House of Representatives should be chosen from among the people and not from a class of "career" politicians. In the interest of accountability and in recognition of both the advantages of incumbency and the temptations of power, I support a constitutional amendment to limit members of the House to twelve years of service.
I also support an amendment to have Supreme Court justices serve for a term of eighteen years, so that a new justice is normally appointed once every two years. Other federal judges, not being of the political branches, should continue to serve for term of good behavior. However, a pattern of judicial lawmaking or defiance of the law should be considered a violation of good behavior and subject to impeachment and removal.
I acknowledge the necessity of a constitutional amendment to introduce term limits for legislators and justices, as well as the political infeasibility of such an amendment in the current partisan climate. However I believe it would be a worthy long-term goal.

Despite the common expression "coequal branches of government," I believe the Founders intended Congress to be the supreme branch, both for its role in creating the law which the executive branch enforces and the judiciary applies, and for its power to check and shape the make-up and jurisdiction of the other two branches, compared to its relative independence from their actions. I am hopeful that the overturning of Chevron deference will ultimately return to Congress powers that had wrongly been assumed by administrative agencies within the executive branch, without giving the courts undue influence over the other two branches.
It is a violation of the separation of powers for an official in the executive or legislative branch to demand, publicly or privately, that the court decide a case in a particular way.
It is also a violation of the separation of powers for judges to set aside or ignore federal laws for reasons other than constitutionality, or for judges to set aside executive actions for reasons other than the Constitution and laws passed by Congress.
It is a violation of the separation of powers for Congress to refuse to allow votes on a President's appointments after reasonable time for disclosures and debate.
It is a violation of the separation of powers for the President to spend taxpayer money on items for which Congress has specifically declined to allocate funding, or to block funding which Congress has expressly allocated (or make it dependent on personal favors).
Much of the imbalance in Presidents' authority has come because Congress has failed to act during a crisis and Presidents have stepped in to meet the need, opening a way to executive authority in that area. The functionality of our constitutional system depends on all branches of government committing to exercise their powers to fulfill their responsibilities, rather than deadlock due to factionalism.

Appointment of public officials being fundamentally a Presidential power, not a legislative one, I interpret the "advice and consent" clause of the Constitution to require that the whole Senate vote to confirm or deny the President's appointment of judges and public officials. Nominees should not be held up in committee with unnecessary delay or otherwise denied a vote from the whole Senate.
I believe judicial philosophy is vital for a President to consider in selecting judicial nominees (and likewise for nominees to other public office). However, in deference to the Constitution's vesting of judicial appointments in the executive branch, Senators should vote to confirm any nominee who is of good and lawful behavior and is professionally qualified for their prospective office. They should not be denied on the basis of ideology, judicial philosophy, or stances on partisan or controversial issues.

Oversight of the executive branch is necessary to Congress's constitutional duties, and Congress needs to understand how the political processes operate in order to address needs with remedial legislation. The President may not defy valid Congressional subpoenas or bar individuals from testifying before Congress, beyond the right of executive privilege as defined by law—which exists not to protect any individual but for the benefit of the people in the operation of the executive branch, and which has historically been waived for matters of grave public importance. Laws against witness tampering and witness intimidation should apply equally to the President as to anyone else.
Notwithstanding the branches' historical responsibility to attempt to resolve interbranch informational disputes through negotiation and accommodation, when that process fails, the power to appeal to federal courts to enforce subpoenas is long-established and vital for Congress's ability to compel information, not only for oversight of the executive but for the carrying out of its normal legislative functions. Without such enforcement, Congress is confined to only the information the President wants it to have, diminishing the country's essential check on abuses and excesses of executive power.
Since federal prosecutors and investigators answer to the President, they are hindered in their ability to investigate the President or his cabinet objectively and free of interference when criminal actions are suspected. Such investigators should be appointed by and answerable to Congress, independently from the President.
Advice given to the President by officials with respect to executive actions should be privileged from public disclosure unless unlawful abuse of power or other illegality is reasonably suspected.

The power of impeachment should not be used for political disagreements or mere public dissatisfaction with the President, which are more properly resolved through elections.
The term "high crimes and misdemeanors" for which a President may be impeached is intended to describe a broad range of misconduct in serious dereliction of duty or abuse of the office, including not only crimes but other extremely serious offenses that corrupt or subvert the political and governmental process and are plainly wrong in themselves to any decent and disinterested party. Such acts include abuse of the pardon power; using official powers to solicit the unwarranted investigation, surveillance, or other persecution of political opponents; and "the wanton removal of meritorious officers." Such corrupt activity deserves impeachment even if technically legal, even if the accused is popular, and even if the behavior at issue is tolerable to much of the public.
As impeachment votes ought to be a matter of conscience and individual judgment, not adherence to party, and are the most solemn responsibility a lawmaker has, it is abhorrent for parties to censure lawmakers for their votes regarding impeachment or conviction.
Given the ways impeachment was discussed by the Founders, I believe it was intended to be a more commonly sought remedy for public officials' overreach than it has been thus far, and exercised on principle regardless of likelihood of success or considerations of political viability. If the President's duty is to enforce the law regardless of political expediency, then it is Congress's duty to hold the President accountable regardless of political expediency. In cases where officials ought to be impeached, their resignation is of course a preferable outcome.
As it stands, impeachment is not a reliable check on the Presidency, given the factional nature of any large body of people (as the Founders themselves admitted). It is far better for voters to be scrupulous in selecting candidates of good character whose leadership experience has not a trace of corruption.

No one should be immune from prosecution of serious violations of the law because of their status as government officials, even if the illegal acts were committed in the exercise of their public duties, and court decisions to the contrary should be overturned. If any official, including the President, is found to have committed crimes while in office or to obtain that office, those crimes should be prosecuted separately from Congress's decision whether to impeach, and statute of limitations should not apply to such crimes during the official's time in office, nor should the President or his cabinet have any authority over investigations or proceedings against himself.
Besides the foundational principle that no official is above the law, having officials stand trial permits them opportunity to have their name officially and publicly cleared if innocent, whereas immunity from prosecution means a cloud of scandal hangs over them while the facts remain in dispute.

Federal law currently delegates too much statutory emergency power to the President. Except in true emergencies whose extreme urgency does not permit Congress time to gather and pass legislation, the President should keep to the powers normally permitted by law.
Even such a true emergency should not permit the President to allocate money or other resources contrary to the will of Congress except to meet the emergency itself, and then only until Congress has had time to address the crisis through legislation.
Even under current law, Congressional inaction does not justify the President or the courts assuming power to act unilaterally in matters assigned to Congress by the Constitution.

The duty of courts is not solely to hear the outcry of the oppressed and afflicted, nor to execute justice according to its own judgment, but to hold both the claims of accusers and the actions of the accused up to the light of the Constitution, the law, and fair process.
Interpretation of laws and the Constitution should be based on the original public meaning of their text, though not contrary to the meaning intended by the lawmakers, when that intention is knowable. Such originalist interpretation guides, but does not prevent, their application to contemporary issues and realities.
I am closer to an institutional approach than to a "four corners" approach to cases. That is to say, in decisions that set precedent, I would prefer courts to consider not only the law and facts of the case before them but also the importance of consistency, judicial restraint, and providing a clear and precise road map to lower courts for future cases, and that changes to the law should generally be incremental and narrow, to preserve the principle of the rule of law. However, I do not believe concerns for the court's credibility should prevent a court from overturning a law that is unconstitutional.

For the sake of the separation of powers, a single federal district court should not be able to issue a nationwide injunction against a law or executive action.

If a law or government policy is unjust or unconstitutional, a citizen ought not have to be punished by that law before challenging it in court, if enforcement is impending or the law is presently injuring the citizen. Such injury may include self-censorship arising from restriction of their free speech and other guaranteed rights.
Since pre-enforcement challenges often involve hypothetical scenarios in which the citizen "would" face liability or prosecution if a situation were to arise, these are often derided as "phony" cases and occasions for judicial activism. To the contrary, I believe (and courts have recognized) that the right challenging of our laws by the people requires that their concerns may be heard before facing actual fines, imprisonment, or other punishment.

Activists and commentators periodically wish for an "Article V convention" to clarify constitutional issues, usually in the interest of federalism or to address debt, government accountability and transparency, election concerns, etc. I oppose the idea of invoking Article V, since it could open up the Constitution's rights and the government's very structure to renegotiation in a time when those rights and that structure are poorly understood and radically undervalued. I believe such a convention is highly unlikely, but if it were to take place, it would only leave America less just and less free.

I.B.3. Partisan Issues

(The Two-Party System; Bipartisanship and Tribalism; Media Bias)

The current state of the two major parties has made our government dysfunctional by the animosity of their rivalry and by prioritizing the winning of elections over the principles they purport to represent. Thirty years of following politics has convinced me that while most voters and some elected officials are sincere and principled, the two major parties as institutions do not really care about their issues (abortion, immigration, climate change, gun control, etc.) as much as representing a tribal identity against the opposing party whom voters are encouraged to resent and fear. That is, they use the issues to gain leverage over large voting blocs so that people identify with and vote for their party without considering the character and qualifications of the candidates, for fear that the other party will ruin and despoil the country. In the meantime, the parties fail to seek "third options" on contentious issues and entirely neglect potentially important issues that do not pit the parties against each other.
While I see no problem with citizens voting for third-party candidates, I am not certain a strong third party would remedy the situation. At present, the best improvement would be for voters to field less-partisan candidates, and to consider candidates on their own merits rather than defaulting to voting for a particular party.

It is understandable that officials with mutually exclusive solutions to problems, or who wish to move in opposite directions, will be in competition on those particular matters. But whenever possible, public officials should work together toward practical solutions to the most important matters under consideration.
Citizens should strive for education, awareness, and discernment in finding right positions on issues and assessing candidates, not attaching themselves uncritically to any one information source, movement, party, or personality. We should all remember that politics are only a part of our lives, and not the most important part. Certainly, no one should assume the moral character, wisdom, or mental health of a person based on their political orientation or party preference.

Having an opinion is not the same as bias. Anyone who pays much attention to political and social issues will have their own perspective and positions on those issues. But bias requires prejudgments or conflicts of interest that influence one's selection, description, and interpretation of information.
News reporters should be forthcoming about their own opinions where appropriate, but the reporting of news and fact-checking should be kept separate from commentary and should avoid loaded language, biased weighing of details, and selection of details to form "narratives."
The media's reputation for bias is worsened when partisan public officials become anchors and analysts for news networks, and likewise when media personalities become political appointees.
News organizations should have a policy against political activity on the part of reporters and staffers, including donations, speaking at rallies, and acting as unofficial advisors.
Regardless of opinion or bias, the government should not intervene to affect the tone of news reporting or take an adversarial approach toward news media, or show material favoritism to friendly news sources while showing hostility toward contrary ones.

I.C. ELECTORAL ISSUES

I.C.1. The Electoral System

(The Electoral College; Independent State Legislature; Proportional Representation; The Role of Money in Politics; Politics and Foreign Influence)

The Electoral College process is an essential element of the nature of the US as a union of states, in which the President is by design elected by the states rather than by the people at large. The Electoral College as set forth in the Constitution is necessary to balance the power of larger states with the will of the people throughout the country. Without it, the interests of smaller and even medium-sized states, as well as of people in rural areas, could be safely ignored by candidates, who could win election by appealing solely to voters in the largest US cities.

I reject the Independent State Legislature theory of state electoral power. The Constitution's empowering of state legislatures to prescribe the manner of holding elections does not prevent judicial review of states' decisions in questions of voting rights and the drawing of congressional districts, nor does it permit states to defy the expressed will of voters in election results by appointing electors from the losing party.

I am supportive of proportional-representation systems and methods such as single-transferable-vote, on state and local levels and for any state's members in the US House of Representatives.

Those who complain about "money in politics" should realize that:
1. traveling, public events, and public promotion naturally cost vast amounts of money,
2. the amount freely donated by an electorate the size of the US will also naturally be a vast amount,
3. giving money to promote a candidate or cause is one of the most effective forms of political expression and therefore rightly falls under constitutional protection, and
4. money is typically not given to candidates with contrary views to get them to change those views, but to candidates who already share the donor's views, so that the candidate may be elected and govern by the views they already share.
I support the general existing regime of campaign finance law, including public disclosure of donations to candidates, reasonable caps on individual donations, and laws against "quid-pro-quo" donations.
Unions and other organizations whose members join as a condition of employment should only be permitted to donate money voluntarily given and designated by their members for that purpose, and with proper disclosures to all their members.

Elections within the United States should be free of material influence from foreign nations, groups, and individuals. Soliciting or cooperating in such efforts, including the sharing of candidates' or voters' confidential information in either direction, should be prohibited by law and should disqualify a candidate from seeking office in the future.

I.C.2. Voting Rights

(Voting Rights; Criminal Voting Rights; Election Fraud; Voter ID)

The right to choose one's leaders and representatives is at the core of any democratic society. Elections require the coordination of law and official guidance on national, state, and local levels to proceed with order and integrity.
The Due Process clause requires the counting of all votes cast in reasonable reliance on existing election rules as implemented and described by state officials. Election law and policy should be generously construed to protect a voter's right to have their vote counted when cast in good faith, even when a ballot violates a technical requirement or the government errs in the election process. All lawful votes should be counted promptly and finally, and no ballots should be set aside without weighty proof of the unlawfulness of the specific ballots in question.
No election should be overturned contrary to voting results unless it can be proven clearly and conclusively that the outcome of the reported results was contrary to the will of those who voted. Expectations based on polls or statistical models do not constitute evidence of actual voter intent.
I support voting rights for all US citizens age 18 and older who are not currently fulfilling sentences as convicted felons.
I support early voting as well as voting by mail, but I oppose mandatory voting and am skeptical of the reliability of online voting.
Governments should not restrict efforts to transport poor, elderly, or disabled voters to the polls.

Citizens should not have voting rights or be allowed to hold public office while fulfilling a sentence for a felony conviction, including probation and the payment of fines. However, their voting and office-holding rights should be unrestricted prior to conviction and following completion of their sentence.

I believe that in the US, neither voter fraud nor election rigging is a serious problem, and that the current voting, tabulation, and audit methods used in most states are sufficient to deter or detect any large-scale attempt to falsify the vote. I have no problems with electronic tabulation of votes or the use of electronic ballot marking for those with disabilities, but I do believe marked paper ballots or some other auditable paper trail is important for verifying and confirming the integrity of the vote.
I am impressed by the care and transparency with which all states have handled ballot counts in increasingly complex elections, especially under the pressure to quickly declare a winner. My greater concern is that a baseless narrative that our processes are rigged and cannot be trusted undermines people's desire to vote, feeds a volatile political atmosphere that has already bred violence, and opens the door for legitimate election results to be overturned due to false claims of manipulation.
I oppose any efforts to "stack" boards of elections in a partisan manner or to place state legislatures in a position to unreviewably overturn the outcome of elections based on claims of irregularities.

In short, I support Voter ID laws only if the government provides the IDs at no cost to all registered voters.
Voter ID and other requirements are generally not racially motivated or intended to be a form of voter suppression but can make voting disproportionately more difficult for immigrants and the poor. A reasonable compromise between the need for voter access for citizens unable to obtain common photo IDs, and the desire to secure against voter fraud, would be to compensate voters for any costs incurred obtaining the necessary documents to register to vote, and to provide a free identification upon registration, to be used only for voting.

I.C.3. Voting Decisions

(Moral Duty to Vote; Moral Duty and Party; "Lesser of Two Evils" Voting)

It is important for conscientious citizens to participate in elections to preserve the promise of our Constitution, protect the rule of law, and affirm the moral center of American democracy. It is thus every citizen's duty to be aware enough of candidates and issues to be able to cast an informed vote for Presidents, Senators, Congressmen, Governors, and Mayors. However, if a voter cannot in good conscience support any candidate for a particular office, there is no moral obligation to cast a vote for that office.
I support a "none of the above" option when voting for candidates for office, as a way of registering opposition to all the candidates for that office in a way that is more active and discernible than simply not voting. In the alternative, ranked-choice voting would be preferable to the current system.

Most of today's political issues are not matters on which the Bible takes an unambiguous stance. Without question, there are political movements no Christian should support (if they are genocidal, totalitarian, anarchic, based on subjugation and ownership of people, etc.). However, one can be perfectly patriotic and a thoroughly biblical Christian while embracing political views that are generally conservative, progressive, or libertarian. Voting contrary to one's conscience or to God's express will in Scripture is sinful, but the morality of one's support of a candidate is grounded in the motives and reasoning of the voter.
Christian principles do not bind all Christians to vote for or against any particular candidate for office. While individuals and groups may certainly advocate and persuade voters, no one owes their vote to any candidate or party.
It is flatly illogical to claim a voter who supports neither major candidate and therefore declines to vote thereby skews the result of an election in one direction as opposed to the other.

As Scripture does not assert a particular philosophy of voting, it is a matter of Christian liberty whether to regard a vote as something one says (an expression of endorsement) or something one does (an effort to achieve a particular outcome). In the former case, one only votes for fully qualified candidates and is broadly endorsing their moral character and policy agenda, or else withholding their vote. In the latter case, one may vote for an undesirable candidate in order to prevent one who is even worse from taking office.
For myself, I prefer the former approach but may resort to the latter in dire circumstances. Reflecting on the elections in my adult life, I see an acceptability threshold and a danger threshold. For a candidate who is above the threshold of acceptability, whose character, competence, and agenda are at least ok and lacking any "deal-breakers" or red flags, I will happily cast my vote as a true endorsement, even if there are minor flaws and disagreements. If neither major candidate is acceptable, I may vote for an acceptable third-party candidate (or write-in as a last resort). However, in the rare case that I believe a candidate falls below the "danger threshold," being extraordinarily cruel or posing a significant threat to the country or to a particular group of people, I may with great sorrow resort to voting for even an unacceptable candidate to do what I can to avert the threat.
We ought to insist on better candidates whom we can wholeheartedly endorse. Repeatedly voting for "the lesser of two evils" ultimately perpetuates evil and gives the illusion of a public mandate for the winner's poor qualities. Both major parties have fielded candidates of low character and poor experience, who would do more harm than good, and then pleaded for votes on the grounds that their opponent would do even greater harm. This abuse of power does more long-term damage to the country than either party's policies ever would, because it ensures that the people will continue to vote for corrupt leaders.
In any case, I believe God will hold us accountable not for how we voted, but for our motives in doing so, taking into account our understanding of the foreseeable consequences of our vote.

II. FOREIGN POLICY

II.A. PEACEFUL COOPERATION

II.A.1. International Organizations

(The United Nations; World Cooperation; International Courts)

The United Nations is simultaneously a much-needed force for peace and international cooperation, and also near-hopelessly compromised and ineffective. The principal limitation of the UN's effectiveness and moral authority is the membership and high ranking of many nations that are corrupt, abusive of human rights, and hostile to Jewish and Christian interests.
I support the continued influence of the US and its allies at the UN as a means of bringing about the best efforts of other nations in good causes as well as some measure of international accountability. I also desire free nations to be more outspoken in rebuking the UN for its toleration of cruelty and for hateful bias in its decisions and in the actions of its members.

The US benefits greatly from participation in the World Trade Organization, World Health Organization, World Bank, and our principal trade agreements. America's ideals and influence contribute vitally to the accountability and integrity of world organizations which otherwise would be unduly influenced by authoritarian regimes such as Russia and China. More American involvement, not less, is the answer to the shortcomings of these organizations. Because America's challenges require alliances, and because America's help is necessary to meet challenges faced by the rest of the world, even treaties and organizations that are not ideal may be worth our partnership if they contribute to a general atmosphere of cooperation and mutual aid.
Developing nations should not be seen as competitors to the US; on the contrary, when they prosper in their interaction with the US, that is to our ultimate benefit as well.

I support the existence of international courts and tribunals for the settlement of economic disputes between countries, as well as major war crimes, atrocities, and obligations of international law that cannot be settled through ordinary diplomacy, as a pragmatic way of globally promoting the rule of law and as an alternative to military conflict. Such courts have made valuable contributions.
However, the courts have not fared well in politically charged cases and cases not submitted by mutual agreement. And a pervasive tendency toward inefficiency and bias means democratic nations should be cautious in referring matters to the court that may jeopardize the rights of their people and their sovereignty in matters of national interest. The US should be especially guarded against ICC claims of jurisdiction since the US is not a party to the Rome Statute, and should not permit any US resident or citizen to be brought before an international criminal court or tribunal.

II.A.2. Globalism

(Global Governance; Trade and Tariffs; The Global Economy; Foreign Aid)

I strongly believe the world's independent countries should retain their own sovereignty due to the drastically different needs, interests, priorities, and histories of the world's many peoples, and as a limitation on corruption and abuses of power.
International cooperative organizations and treaty-borne alliances are a vital tool for peace and humanitarian assistance but should not act as authoritative bodies over any nation's people. Their influence on governmental policies and actions should be limited to the terms of the underlying treaties. Free nations should be especially careful not to cede their people's right of self-determination in the interest of solving international problems, as "the greater good" is a historically common justification for tyranny.

Free trade and the institutions that support a global economy are to the long-term advantage of all nations, including the US. We should remember that trade is not a function of government policy but results from the free decisions of consumers and businesses; government can only limit, tax, or incentivize those decisions. Except in very limited circumstances, tariffs are undesirable and hurt all parties involved. In particular, our leaders must remember that punitive tariffs are paid by US consumers, not by the countries against which those tariffs are enacted.
The right to enact, raise, lower, or suspend tariffs and economic sanctions lies with Congress, not with the President or executive agencies; that authority should not be transferred to the President on the mere assertion of national security interests.
International trade needs to be diverse. Our industries should not be too reliant on just one foreign country or organization, in case a disaster or diplomatic failure jeopardizes our trade with that country.

It is good to have global diversity in the ownership and location of business, sources of materials and labor, foreign and domestic consumer base, and globally agreed-upon standards for products, labor, and health and safety. There should be no penalty to businesses for sourcing abroad, nor do businesses have a moral obligation to get their labor and materials primarily from within their home country.
With business partnerships and trade across international lines comes a responsibility to avoid perpetuating or profiting from modern slavery. States and companies alike have a duty to ensure that slavery and human trafficking are not taking place in their business or supply chains.
Americans should be under no pressure to exclusively "buy American." But it is wise for consumers to consider the labor practices and reputation for quality of the countries they buy from when making purchasing decisions.

It is good for the US government to provide disaster relief to other countries in the form of USAID coordination and supply, transportation and logistics by the military, and support of private relief organizations. But the giving of money, food, and other donations is usually best raised, administered, and delivered by private entities.
Longer-term aid to nations should not consist of general gifts of money but assistance (which may include designated funding) in developing systems, infrastructure, and methods (such as in agriculture) to enable their own freedom, prosperity, and self-sufficiency.

II.A.3. Immigration

(Basic Immigration Policy; Border Security; Immigrant Assimilation; Sanctuary Cities)

Immigration policy should be guided by America's original purpose as a haven of liberty for the persecuted and oppressed of the world, and not toward punishing the poor and the desperate for the insufficiencies and inefficiencies of our process.
Immigrants have sacred dignity as people, and are not just consumers but producers, creators, cultivators, innovators, and reformers. Far from diluting our values, they bring values the West could use more of. Recognizing that refugees and immigrants on the whole are as productive and law-abiding as native-born citizens, we should welcome them, viewing their presence as a benefit and not as a threat or a drain on the national wealth.
Modern security and administration requires an orderly immigration process. Accordingly, we should have reasonable and compassionate laws governing immigration, and those laws should be enforced fairly and humanely. Yet at present, our southern border is in chaos, as we lack a workable system to distinguish between benevolent and malevolent entrants but are attracting masses of both, and it is too difficult and expensive to immigrate to America and attain citizenship through proper channels. America's policies and treatment of refugees in particular have been cruel in recent years, often deliberately for the purpose of discouraging people from seeking refuge here. Political polarization is largely responsible for our disarray, so that we currently apply our laws cruelly in some cases and hardly at all in others.
We should devote sufficient personnel and resources to manage as many as we can safely take in, keeping families together in healthy and comfortable conditions while approvals and determinations are in process.
One of the most important ways to prevent overruns of immigration is to help troubled source countries become safer and more prosperous; solving the border crisis requires more cooperation and aid to the countries south of us, not less. For its earlier propping up of "banana republics," the US bears some historical responsibility for the instability of many of those countries.
State and local officials should not (and by law cannot) block the settlement of refugees approved to live within the United States.

Nations, by necessity, have borders as the legal boundaries of their jurisdiction (as do states, counties, and even cities). But having a border does not require restricting the travel of non-criminals across that border, nor does a position on border security have anything to do with economic systems or orientation on the left-right political spectrum.
We should find ways to screen out criminals and terrorists without placing an undue burden on people seeking to become responsible residents. Border security should focus on preventing smugglers, human traffickers, and "coyotes" who prey on migrants, and stopping the importation of drugs and other contraband which predominantly come through ports of entry. The current border fencing that already exists (as of 2016) needs to be properly maintained and fortified as needed, but is otherwise sufficient for its purpose.
Violent criminals illegally in the US should either serve sentences here or be extradited to the criminal custody of their country of origin, so as not to export criminal activity to those countries.
I support enforcement against visa overstays and newly-entered illegals as cases arise, but legal residency and proper documentation should be offered as easily and affordably to peaceable residents, especially those who came in as children, as to legal immigrants.
The most pressing issue for undocumented residents is inhumane employment due to the under-the-table nature of their work and their lack of legal recourse. This problem may be addressed by requiring e-Verify or other authentication for hiring and aggressively prosecuting companies that employ undocumented workers under harsh conditions. This problem can be further alleviated by offering legal status to workers to bring them out of the shadows.

Naturalization and legalization policies should have as their priority the provision of a timely and unburdensome path to participation and mobility in American life. History has shown that immigrants willingly join into American culture, contributing to it elements of their own distinct customs, as they are embraced by the society at large and permitted to enjoy the rights and benefits of life in America. Communities that are viewed with suspicion and/or denied access to the larger society are naturally slow to integrate.
Cultural integration does not require assimilation. We should desire immigrants' fellowship and contributions without demanding they adopt our own customs or forsake their own legacy. All that is ultimately necessary for an immigrant to be American is to have legal residency on American soil and consider it home.
Adult citizenship tests should include a general awareness of America's origins, system, and ideals, along with a basic understanding of English, but should not be more challenging than what is required of students in primary education.
All children should have access to basic public education, but legal status should be obtained before residents may receive public financial assistance or admission to public universities.
Public financial assistance should not be dependent on full citizenship or fluency in English, nor should the government discriminate against the poor by disqualifying immigrants who have received public assistance from attaining citizenship or permanent residency status.

Enforcement of violations of immigration law should prioritize the punishment of violators who commit crimes that are violent or persistent. Since, in our federal system, immigration enforcement is handled by the national government while most crimes are matters of state jurisdiction, any effort to so prioritize requires the cooperation of state and local police in detaining such criminals and notifying federal authorities. I therefore oppose sanctuary cities' refusal to provide that cooperation.

II.B. NATIONAL SECURITY AND DEFENSE

II.B.1. Stance Toward the World

(America and "Policing" of the World; Nation Building and Exporting Democracy; NATO and Other Defense Agreements; Intelligence and Espionage)

The political and economic pull of the United States, as well as its military might, place the US in a vital position to be a force for good in the world by persuasion and influence.
Any direct military action against a government that is not an imminent threat to us or to an ally with whom we have a defense agreement should be done only as part of a broadly international effort to prevent or stop major atrocities such as genocide.

I support state-building efforts only with consensus support of a nation's population and the voluntary and enthusiastic participation of that nation's military. Democracy cannot be secured from outside a nation when a sizable portion of its people are opposed to the new government.
I support the US providing money, humanitarian aid, and arms only to revolutionaries whose cause is just, whose methods are well-vetted and generally honorable, who have the capacity to govern their country in the event of their success, and who will not likely continue the oppression and tyranny of the government they overthrew. The fact that we provide revolutionary support should be public for the sake of government accountability, even if the details of that support are necessarily classified.

Given the international reach of hostile nations and the many benefits of international partnership, I strongly support defensive alliances with free democratic nations across the world; that is, mutual promises to come to the aid of an ally under attack, especially in Eastern Europe. I do not support alliances that would obligate us to enter a conflict in which an ally is the aggressor or enters a third-party conflict by choice.
In conflicts where both sides primarily involve dictatorships or other nations especially hostile to human rights, the US should generally remain outside the conflict except to protect the lives, liberty, and property of its own people. Nevertheless, humanitarian concerns may sometimes necessitate intervening in such a conflict to prevent genocide or the rise of major regional or global threats.
International alliances should be resourced through mutual efforts based on the relative ability of the parties to provide those resources. In the case of NATO in particular, members are not required to fund the organization but to invest a certain percentage of their GDP on their own defense, in order to be ready to provide military aid if called upon. The US should not approach such alliances as business ventures or regard their value as a matter of dollars and cents.

International intelligence and counterintelligence, against any possible threat and in cooperation with other nations with a common interest, is necessary to national security. It is also by its nature fraught with perplexing ethical dilemmas. While many real-life scenarios have no clear moral resolution, spy agencies should be guided by inductive morality and by the will of the people as expressed through their elected representatives.
Congress should not leave intelligence agencies to their own devices with the order to protect the country at all costs, only to treat them as villains after deciding they went too far. The red-line moral boundaries should be set down in law ahead of time. This requires transparency regarding the limits of policy (while still protecting sources and methods), and accountability to Congress and the justice system for violations of policy.

II.B.2. War and the Military

(The Value of Military Service; Declarations of War; Just Grounds for War; Just Practice of War; Civil Wars and Revolutions; Nuclear Weapons; Interrogation Methods and Torture; Detention of Foreign Terrorists; Assassination of Foreign Leaders; Conscription)

Faithful service in a nation's military, motivated by a desire to help protect the people, freedoms, and rightful interests of that nation and its allies, is highly honorable for men and women. Many Christians in many countries have demonstrated the love of Christ by thus placing their lives at risk for the lives and liberties of others.
Nations owe vocal and material lifelong appreciation to military veterans who have served honorably, and to their families, especially to those who are harmed or captured in war. I support the extension of veterans benefits including pensions, free education and job training, exemption from taxes, care for their physical and mental health, and generous death benefits.

constitutionally, the decision for the US to engage in armed conflict rests with Congress, and the exercise of warfare is carried out by the President as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces (who, as a civilian leader, ought not to micromanage strategy and tactics).
In cases where immediate action is necessary, I support current law which allows the President to address serious imminent threats to Americans' life and liberty first and then obtain approval for military force from Congress at the first opportunity—"imminent" meaning not just that an attack is being planned or a threat is known to exist, but that it leaves no time for deliberation or for the seeking of a non-military solution. In all other cases, the President must obtain Congress's permission before ordering military strikes, targeted killings, or other acts of war. No President has authority to initiate armed conflict without Congressional authorization, and every theater of war should receive its own appropriately-defined authorization.

Military action against foreign acts of war is justified only if all the following conditions are met:
1. proper authority as defined by our Constitution, treaties, and laws;
2. just cause (defense against aggressors; restoration of people, things, and territory wrongly seized; or proportional retribution for wrongs done to the people);
3. morally honorable motivation by decision-makers;
4. measurable and well-defined objective and a reasonable hope of achieving it;
5. military action being the only means of righting the wrong.
Wars for glory, conquest, or religious conversion are inherently unjust.
Soldiers fighting under lawful orders and serving justly with regard to their own conduct are not to blame for leaders' wrongful decisions, and so we should support and pray for the safety of our armed forces even in an unjust war. However, we should not desire the success of unjust endeavors even when they are pursued by our own government.

Fighting justly in a just cause is a good, not an evil, but fighting unjustly is abhorrent even when done for a good cause. War necessarily requires the killing and incapacitation of enemy forces, as well as destruction of its military resources, supply lines, and factories. But the aim is not to cause pain, suffering, fear, and antagonism, but to end the war and achieve a livable peace.
War must also be waged with no intentional targeting of noncombatants, with reasonable measures taken to minimize the suffering of innocents, and with prudence of proportionality that weighs the likely success of a mission and its contribution to the war effort against the suffering and loss. Targeting historical and cultural sites of limited strategic value serves no purpose other than cruelty and is rightly considered a war crime.
Since insufficient use of force leads only to prolonged suffering and mounting of casualties, military action should be sufficiently overwhelming, severe, and powerful to achieve swift killing, a swift end to the war, and a swift return to peace. Yet we must not use means that are evil in themselves or whose effects cannot be controlled.

Subject to the same principles of just grounds and just practice, armed defense against usurpation and tyranny is in some cases necessary and in harmony with the precedent of Scripture. When a civil authority initiates violence against a population with the aim of death, slavery, impoverishment, or other oppression, the people may use force to defend their lives and liberty under a lawfully constituted authority. Any force used to prevent power from being wrongfully seized or unlawfully retained should only be exercised by the appropriate agencies of law enforcement. Military personnel should have no role in resolving disputes over transfers of power. Safeguards should also be taken at every step to ensure the end result does not become oppression and tyranny by those newly in charge.
By these principles, I believe the American Colonies were justified in defending themselves when the King subverted colonial assemblies and began making war on the people, and that the United States was likewise justified in defending the Union when the South attempted an illegal secession and took up arms to preserve the institution of slavery.

The original use of nuclear weapons in World War II, while perhaps necessary to prevent an even greater loss of innocent life, was a tragedy that must not be repeated. Preventing nuclear proliferation should be the highest goal of our defense policy, since indiscriminate nuclear weapons are incompatible with the just practice of war.
We should renounce the current nuclear deterrence policy that relies on the threat of killing millions of innocents, and openly work to replace it with a victory-denying strategy of developing low-yield, high-precision nuclear weapons to inflict severe enough military losses to quickly incapacitate an enemy. Such a use would require the renegotiation of any treaties that forbid any first use of nuclear weapons or development of new types of weapons, and in the course of that renegotiation we should strive for the worldwide dismantling of the entire current indiscriminate nuclear arsenal. Conventional forces should be strengthened and reoriented accordingly to maintain security.

Torture and "enhanced interrogation" have been proven to be unreliable as means of gaining information or legitimate confessions. Regardless of reliability, brutality and torture as defined in the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (including extended periods of solitary confinement) are inherently immoral and should be illegal, whether used by the military, federal agencies, or state law enforcement.

People captured via armed conflict while lawfully making war against the United States should be held and treated according to the customs for Prisoners of War outlined in the Geneva Conventions and similar treaties. Anyone captured should be treated humanely even if not required by treaty.
When suspected terrorists, saboteurs, and other unlawful combatants are captured outside the US, I support holding and trying them under military jurisdiction outside the US. Terrorist suspects captured inside the US should be tried in civilian federal courts.
The principle that prisoners of war be released at a war's end requires that our wars not be open-ended but conducted with a goal of conclusion and a return to peace. Unlawful combatants found guilty of war crimes may be held beyond the end of the war, but even these should be treated humanely and not subjected to torture or degradation.

Targeted killing is a reasonable tactic against enemies both in and atop the chain of command when there is an existing state of active warfare between nations. However, sponsoring or engaging in political assassination, however indirectly, should be strongly proscribed by law for any US entity. It is both foolish and dangerous for any leader to speak positively of political assassination, even in jest.

Military service ought to be voluntary, even during wartime. The US should endeavor to keep its voluntary standing forces sufficient to meet any need so that a draft is not required. An all-voluntary military is also a method of keeping our nation's military actions accountable to the people: If too few people wish to serve, that indicates the military does not have public support for its operations. I likewise do not believe Americans should be required to register with the Selective Service. The only scenario in which I would support a draft is if our land was physically invaded by such a large force that it was the only way for our people to survive.
For any draft to be just, it would need to treat people as equally as any other law or government action: All citizens of suitable age and physical and mental capacity would need to be equally eligible to be drafted, with the exception of conscientious objectors and incarcerated criminals. Moreover, if we can afford to exempt whole classes of people from the draft (college students, businessmen, public officials, and women), the situation is not so dire as to require a draft.

II.B.3. Long-Term Security Issues

(Terrorism Defined; Islam and the Global War on Terror; The War in Afghanistan; The War in Iraq; Israeli-Palestinian Issues; China; North Korea; Russia)

I agree with the UN's definition of terrorism as "criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes...whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them."
I also affirm the US code's more concise definition of "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents."

Today and in past centuries, most Muslim societies have often been on par with the West in terms of peace, trade, modernization, and cultural contributions. Since the rise of anti-Western terror groups among radical Islamists in the late 20th century, free governments' responsibility to protect their people requires them to be proactive and aggressive in destroying those terror groups, preventing attacks against their people and interests, and killing those behind the attacks as a matter of just warfare. This ongoing effort is not a conventional war as against nations, and any action we take against other nations, or in other nations without their consent, should require its own justification and Congressional authorization.
The primary cause of civilian deaths in the war on terror is the terrorists and other fighters who hid among the innocent and made it difficult or impossible to distinguish and protect non-combatants.

It was important to take punitive measures against the Taliban in Afghanistan in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, and it may well have been necessary to topple the Taliban government as part of our initial effort to decimate Al Qaeda. However, trying to establish a democracy in a country both strongly factional and with pervasively corrupt leadership, whose people had twice rejected democracy in the past century, was never going to succeed. Nor was the counter-insurgency stalemate a sustainable way of keeping the peace.
As it has now been disclosed that our leaders knew early on that success on that front would be futile, and that assurances from three presidential administrations were knowingly false, we should at least have worked to extract our forces as quickly as possible.
Even so, insofar as America promised to protect informants and other allies from retaliation for their aid to our efforts, America should have make good on its promises. Withdrawal from Afghanistan should have been done (1) having trained and equipped the Afghan military to be able to operate effectively without ongoing US support, and (2) with sufficient measures taken for the safety of Americans and Afghan allies and without disclosures that would compromise the situation there. During and after that withdrawal, we should have continued to provide what aid we could to Afghan forces seeking to prevent the Taliban from re-establishing firm control of the country.

The international intelligence consensus in 2003 that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction that might be used to threaten free countries, was based on flawed assumptions and overdependence on unreliable human sources, and was ultimately incorrect. For that reason, the allied invasion of Iraq was justified in its intent but based on an error and therefore a grave mistake. Additionally, the US used unlawful means to ensure UN approval of the invasion.
Given Iraq's history, establishing a pro-Western democracy was more feasible in Iraq than in Afghanistan, but the US failed to secure its territory or anticipate the influx of hostiles from other countries. The surge of 2007-2008 would have succeeded in bringing lasting peace if we had not pulled out with AQI's successor group still intact in 2011, had prevented spillover from the Syrian civil war, and had answered Iraq's request for assistance in destroying ISIS when it was in its infancy.
US, Iraqi, and Kurdish forces deserve shared credit for taking back ISIS territory, but the US should not have left this effort without ISIS being permanently incapacitated.

I support the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish homeland for historical rather than theological reasons. Israel is not a colonizing or occupying force: It is the return of an indigenous people to their ancestral homeland, via a legitimate legal (though historically complicated) process. Furthermore, the Holocaust and the persistence of anti-Semitism in Europe and Asia proved and continue to prove the need for a safe haven for Jews. The current population and government of the land as a Jewish state are as valid a reality as the presence of non-indigenous populations anywhere else in the world. The "occupied" portions of the Golan Heights, West Bank, and Gaza Strip are legitimately part of Israel as a just outcome of its defensive actions in response to Arab attacks.
Israel has the same right to self-defense against threats within and without as any other nation, and Palestinian leadership has been consistently unappeasable and explicitly murderous, which makes diplomatic solutions unlikely. Nevertheless, a two-state solution is the best mid-range goal for peace in the region.
Israel also has the same obligation to respect the lives and liberties of all people within its jurisdiction as any other nations, including Palestinians. The US ought not to ignore Israel's own issues of government corruption and mistreatment of Palestinian people, especially withholding basic utilities and blocking humanitarian aid. These issues the US ought to address diplomatically. However, the mutually reinforcing problems of deeply embedded hatred of Israelis within the Palestinian population and the second-class status of Christian and Muslim Palestinians are a complex issue for which I have no answers as an outside observer.

China's Ji Xinping administration is not our friend, but we should not make it our enemy. China has in recent years had great success in building itself up as a global economic superpower, at the same time becoming increasingly antagonistic to the interests of free nations and oppressive of the political and religious rights of its own people.
Our debts and economic dependence on China, to say nothing of its military capacity and its influence on North Korea, make it important for us to maintain peaceful diplomatic relations with the country. Our China policy must therefore be extremely careful and strategic as we address tyrannical human rights abuses and cybersecurity concerns, and seek to dismantle barriers to free trade without provoking aggression.
In a larger sense, the US and its allies need a clearer and more consistent policy on the circumstances in which we would be willing to go war with a nuclear power over extreme actions such as the genocide of the Uyghurs, a potential attack on Taiwan, the suppression of Hong Kong, or (in Russia's case) annexation of territory such as the Crimea. It currently seems we threaten war over certain actions while ignoring other actions that are equally objectionable.

North Korea's attaining of nuclear weapons was a failure of American policy, and we should join China, Japan, and other regional powers in multilateral efforts to prevent further nuclear development. I do not believe denuclearization is feasible under the current DPRK government, and any promises on their part should receive a skeptical "trust-but-verify" response. Our highest priority in the region should be to protect South Korea from acts of military aggression or retaliation.

US and other NATO nations should seek to protect former Soviet and Eastern Bloc countries from Russia's expansionist posture. Free countries should by their trade and diplomatic policies present a united front against Russian aggression toward former Soviet states. Russia should also not be permitted to expand its influence in the Caucasus, Middle East, and Latin America.
Russia's actions since its 2022 large-scale invasion of Ukraine have led me to conclude their intention is not just to regain former Soviet territory but to kill a large portion of the Ukrainian population, as it did in the Holodomor genocide. I support any economic actions taken against Russian leadership, and open military aid to Ukraine by NATO countries and other allies, in whatever form or amount is required to drive Russia entirely out of Ukraine. I also believe more direct military action, such as enforcing a no-fly zone, would be justified, though I defer to people with better knowledge as to the wisdom of such action. In any case, Ukraine should have the same priority for us as any NATO country. However, we have no quarrel with the people of Russia, or people elsewhere of Russian descent or nationality, only with the political and military leaders intent on aggression against peaceful nations.

III. DOMESTIC POLICY

III.A. RIGHTS AND CIVIL PROTECTION

III.A.1. Life And Its Protection

(Pro-Life as a Political Identity; Abortion; Government Funding of Abortion; Euthanasia and End-of-Life Care; Self-Defense and Gun Control; Liability for Firearms Dealers; Security from School Shootings

Being pro-life means not just a position against abortion and euthanasia but also against violent crime, police brutality, domestic abuse, wrongful war, and racial injustice.
Though it is true that "all lives matter," a generalized message has no more effectiveness than aiming an arrow at ten targets at once. Instead, each of these issues deserves its own dedicated advocacy. Even as we call upon our society to value life itself more than it does in all areas, it is good for some of us to focus on the unborn, some on the elderly, some on crime, some on policing and justice reform, some on abuse survivors, some on international diplomacy, some on particular racial issues, etc. And for some of us, being more private, it is enough to show mercy and plead justice for the people in our own sphere of influence.
Being pro-life implies a devotion to care for people's basic needs at every age, but it does not imply a particular belief about what the government's role ought to be in those needs being met.

Unborn human beings are in a temporarily dependent state, but they have infinite independent worth, such that preserving their life is a moral duty of the highest sort. That new life should be welcomed and celebrated as a blessing, regardless of the convenience of its timing or its effect on the dreams and plans of the parents.
The most basic purpose of government is protecting the lives of the persons within its jurisdiction, including those not yet born. Therefore, states should (and should be free to) outlaw the practice of elective abortion from the time of conception. In light of the sanctity of human life, abortions are not justified for reasons of economics, disability or disfigurement, non-life-threatening health concerns, emotional stress, or the circumstances of the conception (rape, incest, etc.).
Given the political divides in this country and the variety of political leanings in different states, I believe the most feasible strategy to make progress toward the abolition of abortion is to persuade people of the value of life in pursuit of legal victories state by state. (Persuasion is essential since public support is necessary to sustain those victories.) I simultaneously support efforts toward a federal ban on civil rights grounds, based on the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, and in the long term a human life amendment to the Constitution. Either of these would require greater public support for the pro-life cause than currently exists, but none of these legal strategies is incompatible with the others.
There may be cases where preventing death or dire physical injury to the mother requires medical treatment the unborn child may not survive. Whether or not such procedures are called abortions, the necessary loss of the child in such circumstances (though tragic) should receive no legal penalty.
Citizens opposing abortion should continue to demonstrate their conviction of the sanctity of life by adoption, assistance to new mothers, and care for the poor and the disabled, as well as peaceful, lawful, and positive efforts to persuade voters to cherish all human life from conception to natural death.
I do not favor laws that provide for the prosecution of women who seek or obtain abortions, for numerous moral and prudential reasons. Most importantly, women who have abortions in our present context often do so in highly difficult circumstances and with an understanding impressed upon them by pro-abortion voices. This does not mean they are not morally culpable for their freely chosen actions as adults, but homicide charges often depend on intent and state of mind, and it is consistent with the principle of equal protection that in the very common scenario where a mother has been persuaded that she is not taking the life of a human person, or that she is at risk of serious bodily harm or death, she should not be prosecuted even if the abortion performed is illegal.
Laws restricting abortion should be carefully written to withstand court scrutiny and should not "play dirty" through "bounty hunting" and other unconstitutional provisions, unrealistic requirements, or bypassing due process. Such methods may appear morally justified in the effort to save unborn lives, but they poison the legislation's legal posture and harm the reputation of the pro-life cause.

It is a violation of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment for the government to deprive any person under its jurisdiction of life without due process. Government money should not be designated for abortions or abortion advocacy at home or abroad, nor should it be legal for government employees to perform abortions or for assistance to be spent on abortion services or health plans that cover abortions.
Organizations such as Planned Parenthood that receive a substantial portion of their revenue from abortions (over 20% in PP's case) should not be eligible for Medicaid funding or other state or federal funds.

Medical services exist to preserve life and health, and should not be permitted to take action to end a person's life unnaturally, assist in a suicide, or fail to provide basic life necessities such as air, hydration, and nutrition while the body is able to process them. While euthanasia and assisted suicide should be illegal, this should not require keeping a body functioning after permanent cessation of consciousness, which for legal purposes may be regarded as natural death.
People should be at liberty to decline medical care, and it is important for people to make record of their end-of-life care preferences ahead of time. The law should require such wishes to be respected, excluding euthanasia or assisted suicide, and providers should withhold treatment when and only when clearly indicated by the patient (or by parents for juvenile patients). Parents do not have the right to withhold critical medical care from children whose condition is not terminal.

The right to life logically implies a right to self-defense, which in our time includes a general right to own and carry common firearms. I believe the Second Amendment's intention was to guarantee that general right.
The right to bear arms does not mean the right to brandish weapons or to go heavily armed in public in non-emergency situations, nor does it mean that all gun safety laws are unconstitutional. For the sake of public safety, I support minimally restrictive gun licensing, affordable mandatory training, and universal background checks. I also support "red flag" laws, provided they are subject to appeal for the sake of due process. Laws for safe storage and transportation should not be so restrictive as to nullify firearms' defensive capacity. As for prohibitions and limitations on certain weapons and ammunition, I believe the measures already in place in federal law are sufficient.
I oppose the concept of "duty to flee" in favor of "stand-your-ground" laws, and I believe gun-free zones are ineffective and even counterproductive in the absence of the means to prevent guns from actually being brought into such zones.
Suicide, individual homicides, mass shootings, terrorism, and other criminal activity should not be lumped together as "gun violence" in the national discourse but should be approached as their own issues, each with its own causes and solutions.

As with any product that has a legally permissible use, manufacturers and dealers of firearms should not be held liable for the wrongful use of their products.

Schools and other public spaces should have reasonable procedures in place to prevent or stop shootings and other violent attacks. Preventative measures should not be overly burdensome or worrying to students. This may include arming security personnel or trained administrative faculty, but should not include arming teachers or placing firearms in classrooms or other student-accessible areas. I oppose the presence of police in schools for any purpose other than to protect students from actual physical violence.

III.A.2. The Free Exchange of Ideas

(Freedom of Speech; Hate Speech; "Cancel Culture"; Freedom of the Press; Government Censorship and Obscenity)

In short, I agree with the Supreme Court's famous statement that "If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein." The state has no power to require or restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.
The grounds for freedom of speech are two-fold: (1) By the principal of soul competency, God gives no person authority over another's conscience, and it is an inherent right to be honest about one's knowledge, beliefs, and opinions. (2) Practically, it is important for any people to be able to know the world as it actually is, including what people really believe, especially if that information is challenging or troubling. Efforts to stifle free speech inevitably lead to hiding truth and perpetuating error and falsehood.
The government therefore has no rightful authority to censor peaceful and orderly professions or discussions of ideas and beliefs, or to provide or withhold assistance based on anyone's ideas, beliefs, or expressions. The only instances in which speech may be punished by the state is when concrete harm is done in very particular circumstances carefully defined by law (such as defamation, fraud, obscenity, true threats, incitement, and speech integral to criminal conduct).
Private entities are not constrained by the First Amendment, nor are they engaging in improper censorship or abridging freedom of speech when they insist that speech therein be on-topic, reasonably civil and truthful, appropriate to their audience, and not contrary to the entity's purpose or fundamental beliefs.

Hate speech—which I define as speech that expresses hatred or encourages unfair treatment of people, especially on the basis of their inherent or circumstantial traits or their heartfelt beliefs—is disgraceful and worthy of personal, social, and in some cases professional reproach.
However, efforts to suppress ideas by law and force are historically counterproductive, and there is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment. The state may not punish even the most objectionable ideas and opinions, nor sanction speech whose hurt or damage consists only of the subjective feelings of the people who hear the words, or the possibility that someone may come to believe the ideas expressed.

Since the term "cancel culture" is so commonly used to criticize both trivial outrage and common-sense consequences, I believe the expression has become essentially meaningless for public discourse.
Individuals should generally not face serious or lasting professional or social sanctions for words and actions that are merely in poor taste or politically unpopular, or which occurred so long ago they would normally be forgotten.
Deliberate bullying and abusive behavior, including repeated overtly hateful rhetoric, and similar inappropriate actions should receive consequences in proportion to their severity.
Many children's first introduction to other cultures has come via racial caricatures and negative stereotypes in previous generations' entertainment. We should commend efforts to raise awareness of the hurt this may cause and to steer families toward healthier entertainment choices. Even so, the material in its original form should be preserved and remain reasonably accessible for the sake of artistic integrity and honesty about our history.

"The Press" is not an industry but the ability of any person to publish thoughts and information. By consequence of the First Amendment, government does not have the right to determine who may be counted as a journalist or member of the press, or what may be considered "news."
Any individual or organization should have a legal right to investigate public affairs, report events, and disseminate information, from whatever perspective and with whatever interpretation they wish, barring malicious libel or slander. They should face no legal penalty for publishing true information acquired through lawful newsgathering activities, even if their sources violated the law in acquiring or sharing that information.
Even so, legal access to information does not necessarily justify publishing that information if doing so would cause undue harm or discomfort, serves no purpose other than to pander to lurid curiosity, or otherwise violates journalistic ethics.

I agree with court holdings that obscenity, as defined under the Miller test, is not protected under the First Amendment.
From a biblical standpoint, obscenity has to do with the gratuitous and non-metaphorical use of explicit and graphic sexual language, imagery, and behavior.
However, such material (while potentially harmful) does not amount to legal obscenity, and while government has some power to protect children from harmful materials, under our Constitution it must do so without an “unnecessarily broad suppression of speech addressed to adults." Thus adult individuals and voluntary gatherings intended for adults should be left free to determine and enforce internally their own standards of expression.
The mere presence or mention of gender-nonconforming or LGBT people should not be restricted on the grounds of obscenity or harm to children. While I believe the promotion and normalization of immoral behavior is spiritually harmful to young audiences, that is not a matter for the government to decide or enforce.

III.A.3. Religion and Conscience

(Religious Liberty Defined; Separation of Church and State; Government Aid to Faith-Based Charities; Conscientious Protest; Civil Disobedience)

Religious liberty is the freedom of all people to express, advocate for, and live according to any religious beliefs (or lack thereof) without coercion by anyone and without interference or condemnation by government, provided there is no harm to person or property. Neutral laws of general applicability apply as much to religious as to non-religious institutions, but any restriction of First Amendment rights by government must be narrowly tailored as the least restrictive means possible to preserve truly necessary government interests.

The government should acknowledge its accountability to God and the religious/spiritual elements of our nation's heritage, but the government should use neither force nor money for the primary purpose of advancing the spiritual cause of specific religious entities, nor seek to regulate the religious activity of such entities.
The government must also not use its power to prevent private entities from building places of worship or otherwise advancing their own spiritual causes through peaceable means.
Public officials need not keep their references to God generic or non-sectarian, but may freely acknowledge our nation's indebtedness to God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Yet respecting others' religious liberty, they should take care not to denigrate anyone's religious beliefs in their public statements.

While it may be unwise for faith-based charities to depend on the government for funding, the government should not discriminate against organizations or disqualify them from public funding due to their religious nature, for purposes for which it would otherwise be available.
Public funding should not be used as leverage to restrict a charity's right to operate according to its held principles. Government may not require, as a condition of funding, that an organization make actions or statements contrary to that organization's religious beliefs.

I seek to consistently support the inherent right of all people to peacefully speak, critique, protest, and publicly rally for any cause or message. I likewise seek to consistently oppose any authoritarian effort to shut them down, regardless of whether I agree with that cause or message.
I also support law enforcement acting proportionately against true threats or violence motivated by any cause or message, regardless of whether I agree with that cause or message.

Voters and public officials should always remember that they simply cannot require people to sin against their God. When a law requires people to do what they believe to be sin, or forbids them to follow what they believe to be the command of God, it is to be expected that many people will obey God as the higher authority rather than human institutions. In all other cases, people have an obligation before God to follow the law.
Where laws appear unjust, we must first collect facts to determine whether the perceived injustice is real, negotiate within the law, and pursue self-purification in our own actions and motivations, before taking direct action against unjust laws.
Where such disobedience is truly necessary, it should be carried out peacefully, in obedience to all just laws and with respect for the authorities and public servants whose job it is to enforce the law. The government must still enforce the laws as they stand, and their enforcement should not be resisted by illegal means.
Deliberate violence against lawful authority and significant damage to others' property for political ends are immoral activities that should be distinguished from peaceful demonstrations of protest and petition. There is a potential for spontaneous riots to break out among any large group of enraged or desperate people, but planned riots and similar acts of violence for political ends are terroristic in nature. Protest leaders and police should both guard against outbreaks of violence for the sake of public safety as well as the credibility of the protestors' cause.
Throughout the Civil Rights movement and in many other instances of protest, governments have used the prospect of riots and any degree of unrest to disparage and disperse boycotts and peaceful demonstrations, and to manufacture cause to detain and punish even lawful dissidents. The public should be careful not to assume too quickly that any given protest represents a threat to civil society. Also, not every person in attendance at a protest where violence takes place is necessarily a willing party to that violence or guilty of rioting.
The cry of the oppressed should always be heard, and injustices rightly addressed, regardless of the civility of the protest, but the justice of a cause does not necessarily justify the actions taken to advance it, nor are all causes truly just.
Where laws are found to be unjust, the government should remedy the situation by the means available to them, whether by new legislation, judicial review, pardons, or simple prosecutorial discretion.

III.A.4. Gender and Sexuality

(Women's Rights; Feminism; Men's Rights; Gender Roles; Hiring and Pay for Women; Marriage and Sexuality; LGBT Issues; Gender Transitions; Gay Conversion Therapy; Human Trafficking and Sex Workers)

Women should be legally guaranteed the same rights and opportunities as men throughout society, particularly with regard to health and safety, legal standing, property and custody rights, civic and political participation, employment, compensation for labor, access to public services, eligibility for military service, and protection against violence, harassment, and abuse.

Women's advocacy under the label of feminism has done much valuable work to address abuse and exploitation of women, to outlaw discrimination and weaken unfair institutional and cultural barriers to their life, liberty, equality, and pursuit of happiness, and to correct negative attitudes and stereotypes about women. Contrary to those who see feminism as driven by lust, greed, and a grab for power, I believe most feminism is motivated by a sincere desire to address actual traumas and injustices faced by most women, and to remove systemic obstacles to women having an equal voice and place in society. Yet I have many concerns with feminism as a movement:
1. I oppose abortion as an abhorrent practice and believe it ought to be illegal in almost all circumstances.
2. I reject the sexual revolution and many feminists' support of lewdness and the sex industry.
3. Though I oppose complementarianism as a system, I affirm that the Bible calls upon wives to submit to their own husbands in certain respects and limits the office of eldership to men.
4. Inasmuch as men and women, being equal as persons, have inherent between-groups differences of thought and behavior (which people on all sides acknowledge, though they may differ on the particulars), I have observed that some expressions of feminism wrongly discourage women from embracing typically feminine traits or pressure women to pursue typically masculine traits contrary their own individual natures.

While there are some areas of society in which men may be unfairly treated, such as child custody and the experience of men as survivors of spousal abuse, I do not believe men face systemic discrimination in American society to nearly the degree women do. It is certainly not the case that men as a class are being oppressed by women as a class. I therefore do not support the manosphere, men's liberation, and other anti-feminist elements of the men's movement.
Beyond discrimination issues, I believe the men's movement often falls short by promoting the objectification of women and a crude, "macho" understanding of masculinity, as well as having a strong association with online harassment and threats against women.

Care should be taken throughout society to avoid prejudice and stereotyping of all sorts, including gender stereotypes, though without legally restricting the peaceful expression of ideas about the nature of gender and natural gender differences.
The liberty of homes and churches to have their own understandings and arrangements of gender roles is sacrosanct and off-limits to the government, although men and women still deserve equal protection from violence and abuse within those institutions.

For comparable positions within any particular company, pay should vary based only on job-relevant factors such as merit, experience, and seniority, and never according to gender, race, or other discriminatory factors.
Some systemic inequalities remain between men and women in our society (particularly within the creative industries), but I am convinced that in most fields the "pay gap" is largely the result of men and women having different priorities and making different choices, rather than discrimination by employers. A free society should permit men and women to pursue their own career paths and place in the community without negative social pressure, even if inherent gender differences result in disparate life choices between men and women, and disparate outcomes that result from those free choices.
Where there are inequities, or where women perceive they are disfavored, employers should make an ongoing, high-priority effort to make their businesses a place where women want to work and where they and their contributions are respected and welcomed. Company policies should ensure that consideration of women for jobs or promotions are not negatively affected by the reservations some men may have about interviewing or working closely with a woman, as this is a form of discrimination.

The Bible presents sexual sin as gravely immoral, but not all that is immoral ought to be illegal. I do not believe any civil government should use its coercive powers to enforce Christian morality but to protect the lives and liberties of those under its care from violation by other people, including sexual violation.
While adults should generally be legally free to choose their own voluntary relationships, living arrangements, and understanding of what it means to be a family, the government has a vital interest in upholding permanent marriage between one man and one woman as the basic unit of society, as the preferred environment for the raising of children, and as the primary basis for matters of family law.
Yet the government should also recognize the validity of nonmarital relationship contracts and long-term domestic partnerships with regard to property ownership, support obligations, estate administration, tax issues, etc. In fact, I would support government recognition of civil unions, not as a substitute for gay marriage but as a way for anyone to go through life together through a mutual-beneficiary contract without reference to romantic or sexual pairing. Also, while sexual promiscuity (or sex without consequences in general) is not a right per se, it is largely outside the role of government enforcement both practically and in principle, as long as no person is being harmed or otherwise victimized.
Even if it were possible, I do not favor stripping already-married same-sex couples of the recognition of their unions by the state, or of somehow canceling legal divorces or remarriages that were not on biblical grounds. However, I would favor the government reserving its granting of new marriage licenses to opposite-sex couples and bringing its divorce laws closer to biblical conditions.
In the US under the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution, marriages and other unions performed in one state should be recognized as such by any other state.

Adult individuals and couples should be free to live out their chosen peaceable relationships and arrangements of gender roles, and to pursue their own understanding of themselves, without the threat of harm, or of exclusion or discrimination in matters unrelated to sex and gender, and so long as others' right to privacy is not violated.
Likewise, people should also be free to hold, express, and abide by their own conscience and understanding of sexual morality and its implications without threat of harm, exclusion, or discrimination. Nor should they be compelled to participate in or express approval of others' views and choices contrary to their own conscience.
Anti-discrimination laws should not bar religious organizations and institutions from policies of inclusion and service in accord with the principles of their faith. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act provides critical protection of religious liberty in this area.
In particular, even as no one should be disadvantaged in finding housing, employment, or education on account of their sexual orientation and gender identity, neither should religious institutions be forced to accommodate what they believe to be immoral living arrangements on their campuses, or to approve as fit for religious ministry anyone whose lifestyle does not meet ministerial requirements. I likewise believe faith-based adoption agencies should be free to keep their standards of fitness for parenting according to their understanding of what their faith requires, even as they partner with state agencies in the course of their operations.

If, as stated above, people should be free to live out their understanding of themselves, that includes the right of parents to raise their children according to that understanding. While parents should in no case pressure or manipulate their children into gender transition, the law should not prohibit them from allowing what they sincerely believe is in their child's best interest, nor should it punish them for insisting their children be raised according to their birth gender even if contrary to the child's wishes.
As much as I believe behavioral gender transition is harmful to the child's true self, that belief arises from religious convictions and is not a proper basis for state action, especially when others are equally convinced that it would be harmful to withhold the same treatment.
Even so, parental rights do not extend to harmful medical procedures. And inasmuch as medical gender transition treatments and surgeries have been shown to be objectively medically harmful to children and adolescents, they should be illegal except for consenting adults.
The law should protect doctors who choose to perform surgical/hormonal gender transitions on adults, and should also protect doctors' right to decline to initiate gender transitions, whether through surgery, medication, or other treatment according to their conscience. However, doctors should not be permitted to withhold medications necessary to maintain the health of those who are already in transition.
With regard to our current knowledge, more research needs to be done on the appropriate treatment for people perceiving a difference between their personal gender and their biological sex, and on the long-term effects of drugs and other treatments. Even if gender transition is the only natural means to self-acceptance for some, it may be psychologically harmful to many if not most others.

Same-sex attraction is not a mental disorder and cannot be reliably treated through psychotherapy. It is a temptation that is only overcome through the power of the gospel. Yet in a free society, people should be allowed to seek or provide what therapies they believe in. Government should not attempt to dictate what treatments are appropriate for adults' physical and mental health issues, as long as all participants are willing and no harm is being done to anyone. Nevertheless, since attempts at conversion therapy have often proven harmful to juveniles treated against their will, government should restrict the practice to adults.
Any legal restrictions on conversion therapy must be clearly worded so as not to restrict teaching and counseling in a religious context, good-faith efforts to treat gender dysphoria, or public speech and personal persuasion outside the realm of psychotherapy.

Because of their inherent deprivation of liberty, governments should aggressively investigate and prosecute human trafficking, modern slavery, and child pornography and molestation, as well as the lack of consent prevalent in the industries of prostitution, pornography, sex tourism. Efforts should also be made to raise awareness of the plight of those trapped by such institutions, and to provide means of personal recovery and reentry into free society.

III.A.5. Race and Nationality

(Solutions to Racism; Affirmative Action/DEI; Racial Advocacy; Diversity Training; Southern Pride and Confederate Remembrance)

Mistreating and discriminating because of color or national/ethnic background is rooted in prejudice, stereotyping, contempt, and fear; racism is a heart problem. Moreover, racism consists not only of conscious attitudes and actions but also of what Antonin Scalia called "the unconscious operation of irrational sympathies and antipathies." The government serves its purpose by endeavoring to deter, prevent, and punish racial mistreatment and other material injustice, and it can provide some manner of restitution and other help on a case-by-case basis. But government cannot solve a heart problem.
Racial injustice can, and has, become ingrained in the systems and institutions of a society. In such cases, the government has an interest in restoring equal liberty and justice for all its people. Systemic solutions are needed, but even so, racists will still find ways to mistreat those they despise.
Public education can raise awareness of the history and current issues surrounding racial tensions in our country, but neither law nor education, nor even an achievement of socioeconomic equality will cure the problem of racism itself. Hatred and fear are ultimately overcome by the gospel as souls are converted to Christ and converts are specifically discipled on this issue through preaching and mentoring.

A necessary part of America's aspiration to "liberty and justice for all" is that its people and institutions should promote the fair treatment and full participation of all people, with particular attention to groups who have historically been underrepresented or subjected to discrimination on the basis of identity or disability. That is not a threat to the American way of life; it should be the American way of life.
Where classes of people have historically been excluded or disadvantaged, I strongly support the deliberate hiring of minorities and careful policies of affirmative action to provide compensatory opportunities for the disadvantaged, and to ensure diversity and sensitivity—provided that those accepted through affirmative action are qualified, that an individual's actual challenges and handling of those challenges are taken into account, and that opportunities for inclusion are available for all. Sensitivity toward the special challenges that people of oppressed groups strive to overcome is not a threat to those who have not been similarly oppressed.
Nevertheless, affirmative action as practiced too often involves stereotypes and assumptions as to who is disadvantaged or privileged, based solely on their race or nationality without regard to their individual circumstances. This has given rise to perceptions (whether true or false) that some people are mere "diversity hires" who could never have earned or deserved their position. Furthermore, affirmative action by its nature only corrects already existing disparity: Greater energy should be directed toward addressing the roots of the disparity itself. Also, diversity of opinion, background, and perspective are just as important and may also be just grounds for affirmative action by private entities.
I do not support different disciplinary standards as a solution to racial or other inequities. Everyone should receive equal protection and equal restraint under laws, rules, and procedures. I therefore oppose policies in schools and businesses that overlook absences and misbehavior by people of one group while penalizing people of another group for the same.
The government should be deferential to employers' and private entities' efforts to find balance here, so long as no group is being targeted for disadvantage. Public universities and government agencies themselves should be especially careful to commit no injustice against any person in the ways they employ affirmative action or DEI.

Americans need to do a far better job accepting Blacks, Muslims, Hispanics, and other groups who are subject to stereotypes and treated with suspicion and contempt. Even once conditions improve, it is only reasonable that groups who have endured hardship, oppression, exclusion, or neglect due to their identity would come together based on their shared experiences and perspective for all manner of purposes, to have observances that emphasize their contributions to society, and most obviously to advocate for equality, representation, and protection from mistreatment. Such groups and observances are not necessarily racist or discriminatory since their existence is a natural element of the members' efforts toward equal liberty and justice in the larger society.
As every individual has his or her own convictions, opinions, and unique experiences, no organization can speak for everyone of a particular race, gender, religion, or other group, especially on matters unrelated to membership in that group.

I strongly support the use of diversity training, and more broadly anti-harassment training in higher education and in the workplace. While harassment and discrimination should be unlawful, the particular training and policies employed and the ideologies they advance to prevent such behavior should be the choice of the business or institution and not determined by the government.

There is no harm in celebrating positive aspects of the region of the US one calls home, including the South's identity and heritage. Moreover, the maintaining of historic sites, artifacts, and reenactments, accompanied by accurate educational material, is vital to any nation's history.
However, the experience of African-Americans is still deeply affected by the history of slavery in the American South, along with the oppression that followed and the disparities that continue to exist today. In the early to mid-1900s, memorials and battle flags of the Confederacy were publicly displayed for the express purpose of reinforcing white supremacy and Jim Crow laws, reminding Blacks of their supposed place in society, and rallying opposition to the Civil Rights Movement. Many schools named after Confederate figures were so named for those same purposes. Confederate flags and memorials are therefore deeply offensive to large segments of the population. For these reasons, and especially in light of the primacy of slavery among the causes of the Civil War, we ought (as Robert E. Lee himself counseled) "not to keep open the sores of war, but to follow the examples of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife and to commit to oblivion the feelings it engendered." Private citizens and organizations should be free to hold and express such views as they please, but aside from battle sites and museums, such symbols should not occupy publicly owned space or receive government funding or endorsement.
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, J. William Fulbright, and other southerners who supported slavery or segregation but who made overall positive contributions to society may be honored for those contributions, though with a historically informed understanding of their shortcomings.

III.A.6. Other Civil Rights Issues

(Equal Protection; Freedom of Travel; Discrimination vs. Freedom of Association; Military Inclusion; Right to Privacy)

Equal protection under the law does not mean that all violations of a particular crime ought to automatically receive the same sentence. It means, in simple terms, that the enforcement of the law does not depend on the social status of the alleged offender or of the victim. More specifically, equal protection means people and their cases are not treated differently based on factors that are irrelevant to a legitimate governmental objective. Knowledge, motivations, criminal history, and other aggravating and mitigating circumstances may be and should be considered in determining culpability and liability under the law.

As states ought to respect each other's sovereignty, people have a right—which should be constitutionally protected—to travel from one state to another for any purchases or actions that are legal in that state.
Likewise, states should not prohibit official travel to other states as retaliation for those states' laws and policies.

Ideally, institutions such as businesses and schools would be free to choose employees, clients, customers, faculty, teachers, students, etc., with the same liberty with which individuals form friendships and other social groupings. However, given people's equal right to live and move within society, and in light of the historically prevalent exclusion of entire classes of people, it has become necessary for the government to broadly prevent discrimination in secular employment, education, housing, finance, and businesses open to the general public, with regard to race/ethnicity, place of origin, religion, age, sex/sexuality, marital status, parentage, or disability.
I support laws requiring the provision of normal business services to be non-discriminatory. However, the expression of the person providing the business, including artistic expression, is constitutionally protected and cannot rightly be constrained. And so publishers, distributors, artists offering commissions, photographers, cake decorators, etc., should be free to establish standards not to produce or display content they find objectionable.

Service in the military and law enforcement should be open to all US residents who meet relevant physical, mental, and behavioral qualifications (as well as relevant standards of age, number of dependents, etc.), regardless of race, religion, gender, or sexuality. Such qualifications should also be the same for all who enlist. Likewise, the conformity of behavior normally expected for military service should apply across the board as well. I support the current standards for religious accommodations in the military dress code.

People should be generally free to control access to and use of their body, home, possessions, and intellectual property, and to decide for themselves when and whether to disclose their beliefs, opinions, feelings, lawful secrets, and personal history.

III.A.7. Law and Crime

(Politicizing of Law Enforcement; Domestic Terrorism; Hate Crimes; Flag Burning and Anti-Patriotic Acts; Claims of Sexual Misconduct; Whistleblower Protection; Leaking of Classified Information)

Laws and broad policies of enforcement are rightly set by elected officials and political appointees as a way of keeping the power of government answerable to the people. However, prosecutors must be allowed and required to apply the law in an even-handed manner, isolated from political considerations or political interference. It is as unjust to refrain from prosecution for political reasons as it is to prosecute for political reasons.
Governments that use the enormous power of law enforcement to punish their enemies and reward their allies have forsaken the very principle of equal justice for which governmental power exists. Such interference is contrary to the rule of law and is especially intolerable in any democratic society.
As with any accusation, claims that a particular investigation or prosecution is politically motivated must be based in evidence and reason, not conspiracy theory and partisan bias.
Just as current public officials are not above the law, former public officials should receive no special treatment under the law or protection from prosecution for having once held office.

In our polarized society, a growing number of people have despaired of solving problems in our nation by peaceful and lawful means. On the political left, there is a renewed defense of lawlessness and violence for the sake of achieving economic, environmental, and racial justice. The political right has seen the rapid growth of anti-government militias and neo-Nazi, white supremacist, and Christian nationalist organizations, many of which traffic in death threats and calls for a new civil war. Both extremes operate under the guise of pursuing America's founding ideals while undermining the institutions that have allowed those ideals to be achieved as far as they have.
For there to be any earthly hope of de-escalation, government must be even-handed in prosecuting purveyors of violence, while at the same time acknowledging and addressing valid concerns about deficiencies of liberty and justice in our nation.

A crime committed against a person or group deserves punishment in and of itself, regardless of motive. But when the crime's purpose is to threaten, intimidate, and traumatize a larger group (i.e., people who are like the victims), the crime is essentially terroristic in that it aims to inflict trauma on a population for an ideological purpose, and should be separately chargeable as a form of intimidation against that population as a whole.
The mere expression or promotion of hatred or hateful opinions—in the absence of overt criminal acts or of advocating or threatening such acts—may be worthy of social and professional sanction but should not be included within the definition of a hate crime.

It is a mark of civilized behavior to speak respectfully of one's leaders even when criticizing, and to treat the symbols of one's people with honor. It is reasonable for citizens to consider a person's regard for the nation, its principles, and its symbols when determining whether to support that person in public life.
Nevertheless, neither the government nor public schools and other public institutions should ever compel expressions of patriotism from citizens, or punish expressions of opposition to the government and its actions and policies.

Sexual harassment and assault are a gravely serious problem in our society, far more prevalent than false allegations thereof. Too often, misconduct is not addressed because victims' claims are met with active disbelief and retaliation. Quickness to believe victims should be the general rule: What few false allegations there are tend to arise from fairly transparent motivations and fall apart soon enough, whereas true allegations tend to be corroborated as more victims are emboldened to come forward (since assailants rarely limit themselves to a single victim).
In any criminal case, the prosecuting state bears the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and in civil cases, the burden of proof (usually by preponderance of evidence) rests with the plaintiff. However, both in court and in public discourse, firsthand and eyewitness testimony constitute evidence, and multiple independent testimonies corroborate one another.
It is ignorant and improper to discourage alleged victims of harassment, assault, or bullying from making their stories public for lack of proof, to confront them as liars, or to disbelieve them based on the timing of their coming forward or their subsequent interactions with the accused. Above all, it is simply not common for women to level false allegations out of desire for attention or to jealously tear down successful men.

Those who disclose legal or ethical misconduct through established, legal processes are not leakers but whistleblowers and should be protected by law from retaliation. I support state and federal anti-SLAPP laws and other measures to protect complainants from being silenced, punished, or intimidated by costly litigation.

The press is an important check on the government's affairs and operations, including national defense, but it may not itself violate the law to acquire information. With possible narrow exceptions in extreme cases, the press should not be compelled by courts to disclose their sources.
People who leak classified information regarding activities they know to be lawful should not receive whistleblower protections. However, it is no crime to discuss information that is already public.
Yet the government should also avoid secrecy for its own sake and should prosecute the leaking of information only if it truly endangers national security or places personnel at risk. Editors should exercise discretion and self-restraint about sensitive matters that may be a threat to US interests, but officials should not try to hide corrupt behavior under the pretext of national security interests.
Prior restraint of speech is generally unconstitutional and should be forbidden except in certain matters of national security or for participants in a court case as needed to ensure a fair trial.

III.A.8. Crime Prevention

(The Value of Police and Emergency Workers; Philosophy of Policing; Law Enforcement by Armed Forces and National Guard; Police Militarization; Racial Profiling; Police Brutality and Shootings; Qualified Immunity; Domestic Surveillance)

Inasmuch as God has delegated earthly justice to governments, their use of force is literally a sacred trust that should be both respected and reserved for proper use. Police officers are both part of the community they serve and the visible presence of the government protecting that community. Acting both as guardians and enforcers, police promote public safety and the rule of law which allow liberty to flourish.
In view of the value of their service and the degree of emotional investment and personal risks involved, communities should hold in high honor those who faithfully serve as police, firefighters, public safety workers, and other first responders, including emergency personnel in the private sector.
Many, many police go far out of their way to help the families of their community, including assistance freely offered on their own time and at their own expense. Prejudice against faithful public servants is as reprehensible as any other form of prejudice.
The key practical solution to policing problems in the US is not to sideline or minimize policing, but to have officers better paid, better trained, more visible, more focused on the task of policing, and held to higher standards of transparency and accountability as public servants.

I reject the "thin blue line" philosophy of policing for its fostering of an "us vs. them" mentality in which police provide a protective barrier between supposed law-abiding and supposed lawless populations—particularly as the symbolism of the thin blue line has been used to defend excessive police actions. Rather, police serve the entire society in a limited role that is only one of many influences and institutions that contribute to civilized behavior.
There is one community, of which police are a part, and when members of that community (including police) are thought to have broken the law, the police's distinctive contribution to the community is to address that lawbreaking, with appropriate force if necessary but in a way that upholds the rights and safety of the community, including the suspect's.
I support structural reform to increase the accountability of police to their communities. Trust between police and the citizens they serve is further enhanced when police work alongside community leaders and organizations to solve local problems through collaboration, and when community members are able to provide feedback on policies and tactics that will be considered by decision-makers.
Overall, I believe the "Broken Windows" strategy of policing should be ended, since it deteriorates relationships with law enforcement and fails to reduce violent crime.
I further believe that policing should be focused on actual enforcement of the law, while other matters of public service and safety that do not require the use of force should be managed by other agencies, with the necessary resources allocated accordingly.

With only a few exceptions, it is illegal for the US military to enforce domestic policy or be deployed against citizens in the US, unless requested by a state's legislature (or governor in the legislature's absence) in an insurrection so dire that ordinary law enforcement has become impossible, or unless a state itself defies federal authority.
I believe the Insurrection Act should be amended to require the consent of at least one cabinet member besides the President, require Congressional authorization if lasting more than 48 hours, and trigger automatic judicial review.
In any intervention, the military must respect the constitutional rights of citizens and act according to law, proper procedure, and basic decency.

I generally oppose providing municipal police with military equipment, on the principle that the cultures, roles, and tactics of the police and military are meant to be vastly different. It has been found that militarized police forces have more violent encounters with the public regardless of local crime rates.

It is both unjust and unreliable to apply statistical or assumed traits of a group to a specific member of that group. Thus racial/ethnic profiling has no rightful place in law enforcement or prosecutorial discretion. Since literally hundreds of studies show racial disparities in searches, arrests, convictions, and sentences outweighing any behavioral statistical disparities between Blacks and others nearly everywhere in the US, systemic racism and racial profiling are pervasive issues that have a severely detrimental effect on race relations and the effectiveness and reputation of our justice system. In short, America's original besetting sin is still present with us, and tragically more in our enforcement of the law than anywhere else.
It is, of course, reasonable when searching for particular individuals to direct one's attention to individuals matching their description, but that is not what is commonly meant by the term "racial profiling."
While Terry stops may be deemed necessary in exceptional cases, they should not be promoted systematically on either a departmental or municipal level, both on Fourth Amendment grounds and because of the history of discriminatory abuse of this tactic. Data on Terry stops should be available to the public on request. Stop-and-frisk instances and pretextual traffic stops should be periodically reviewed for racial disparities.

Every culture should take steps to prevent brutality and abuse of authority by police and to minimize the frequency of violent encounters with law enforcement. While I acknowledge that the vast majority of police uses of force are reasonable and justified, there are far too many cases of lethal actions against people not presenting a threat, and the disproportionate use of excessive force against Black men is too pronounced and well-documented to ignore or rationalize away. Even so, I believe much of the racial disparity is due not so much to the overall culture or policies of policing but to the deliberate infiltration of law enforcement by white supremacist groups.
I accept that only a small percentage of police officers actually engage in acts of brutality, but too often there are no consequences for those involved unless or until there is a public outcry in response to incidents being captured on video. I believe justice would be served more readily if abuse records were open to public scrutiny, and with increased whistleblower protection to encourage fellow officers and other citizens to report abuses of authority without fear of retaliation.
It is important to understand facts and contexts before presuming guilt or innocence in police shooting cases. High-profile cases that have been misrepresented and politicized (in both directions) have contributed to polarization on this issue. I support body cameras to provide both accountability and protection for the police by producing a record of hostile encounters.
Police should use force only to counter actually perceived threats, not merely on the basis of risk that someone might pose a threat in the future.

Given the nature of police work, there should be a reasonable balance of discretion and accountability, wherein officers are provided with clear standards to which they will answer while also being empowered to make decisions and exercise discretion as appropriate.
Though supported by court precedent and some state laws, the doctrine of qualified immunity is a misreading of statutes originally intended to hold police accountable so that it has the opposite effect, and too often forms an impenetrable shield allowing law enforcement to abuse its power. As commonly applied, it has become an obstacle to citizens' ability to hold their government accountable and often prevents cases against clearly unjustified behavior from even being heard or constitutionally tested. Qualified immunity in its current form is morally wrong and diminishes constitutional protections. The reasonableness of official acts is best decided by a jury.
More generally, laws that are intended to protect people from excesses in government must not be turned on their head to protect the government from accountability to the people.

I have not given much attention to the issue of domestic mass surveillance, but I am concerned about the potential for misuse or theft of collected information, and I question whether the prevention and solving of crimes via public surveillance and mass information gathering are sufficient to justify the loss of privacy and confident liberty by the general public.

III.A.9. Criminal Punishment

(Restorative Justice; Prison Reform; Bail Reform; Civil Asset Forfeiture; Capital Punishment; Mental Health and Culpability; Pardons)

I favor a justice system that embraces the biblical link between justice and reconciliation, prioritizing rehabilitation with accountability, making amends where possible to repair the harm done by crime, and just retribution for irreversible loss (proportional to the harm caused by the offense, though not degrading to human dignity in its severity), with the aim of restoring harmony between the offender and the person and community offended.

The explosion of mass incarceration in America, especially as compared to other countries—with its resulting deprivation of rights and access to the benefits of society, as well as frequent inhumane conditions and disproportional application across social classes—is largely the fault of judicial deference to government overreach in criminal cases, contrary to the emphasis on protection for the rights of the accused found in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Repairing this deficiency of liberty ought to be one of Americans' primary matters of concern.
Confinement may be necessary for violent and/or predatory criminals whose freedom would put their community at risk, but it has proven ineffective for deterrence or rehabilitation, and may not be a fitting punishment for many crimes. Currently the scope and severe effects of incarceration in the US are far out of proportion to the crimes for which people are imprisoned, especially when compared to other countries. I favor non-violent alternatives to prison for lawbreakers who are not a danger to their community.

Life in prison should be unpleasant and austere but humane, with proper medical care and other life necessities, adequate protection from other inmates, and not damaging to mental health. Prisons should be managed by the state and not by private entities. Abuse of inmates by authorities should be aggressively prosecuted.
Restorative justice and alternative punishments would solve the problem of prison overcrowding.

I support the general concept of ending the system of cash bail for non-violent offenses, since it is extremely burdensome for the poor and lower middle class. However, I have not seen a replacement system proposed that does not carry the same potential for unequal treatment of arrested persons irrespective of the nature of their charge and the strength of the case against them.
I oppose efforts to make it difficult or illegal to pay bail for someone who has been arrested for a non-violent offense.
If anything, bail policies for domestic violence should be toughened.

I believe civil forfeiture as commonly practiced in the United States is generally unconstitutional and motivates government misbehavior. Assets may need to be confiscated as evidence but should not be seized permanently or without compensation separately from criminal punishment.

The Bible invests the government with the primary duty of protecting the sanctity of human life, and the power of capital punishment is entrusted to civil government for that purpose, though not even in the Bible is death prescribed for every case of murder. I support swift and humane capital punishment following due process, for cases of multiple premeditated murders and those committed with exceptional brutality and cruelty, as well as for acts of treason or desertion that result in the loss of human life.
Capital punishment should be considered only for offenses committed by adults.

With regard to pleas of not guilty by reason of insanity, I favor the current federal standard that the defendant must present clear and convincing evidence that he was unable to comprehend the nature of his actions due to severe mental illness. Other instances of mental illness contributing to a crime may be considered mitigating factors but should still leave the defendant culpable for the crime.

The power to pardon men and women is inherent to the authority of chief executives, and is necessary since no government should be without mercy. Pardons should most commonly be used in individual cases where strict application of the law has an unjust result.
One of the pardon's intended purposes is to quell unrest or rebellion, but it is not generally the appropriate remedy for whole classes of offenders or for laws that are unjust in and of themselves. Nor is it wise to pardon high-ranking public officials, since our country already faces the perception that our leaders think they are above the law. Pardons should especially not be used for offenders who are unrepentant, as political favors, or for cases in which chief executives or their family or appointees have a vested interest.
Nevertheless, the pardon power should not be legally restricted by the limits of jurisdiction (i.e., the President cannot pardon state crimes or contempt of Congress; a state's governor can only pardon crimes in that state). If the pardon power were to be abused grossly, flagrantly, and on a large scale, the better remedy would be impeachment and removal from office, rather than a restriction of the rightful powers of future leaders.
Although Congress cannot limit the executive's power to grant pardons, the offering of pardons to obstruct justice (such as to induce false testimony) or in response to bribery is rightly prohibited by law, though it is the obstruction or bribery which is illegal and ought to be punishable, not the pardon itself.

III.B. HUMAN FLOURISHING

III.B.1. The Economy

(Basic Approach to Economics; Economic Systems; The Federal Reserve)

Having something to offer in exchange for one's livelihood being an essential element of human dignity, healthy adults ought to earn their living through labor of equivalent value, ideally doing so by using their unique talents and skills to provide goods and services for the betterment of others. This divinely ordered arrangement entails the right to control and enjoy the fruits of one's own labor, attended by the responsibility to voluntarily help those in need. Related to this overall concept is ownership of one's rightfully obtained possessions and property.
While government has an inherent right to tax and some duty to care for the needy by virtue of its divine purpose in serving its people, any economic system or governmental action ought to keep in line with these economic principles.

Regulated capitalism is the best and most successful economic system, and it is responsible for raising much of the world out of starvation and extreme poverty. To work properly, capitalism requires a system of accountability. Proper regulation in the interest of honesty and safety and to prevent consumer mistreatment is part of a healthy capitalist society, as is the presence of a social safety net.
For capitalism to achieve its potential in the US, we desperately need to recover the principle, found in Adam Smith's writings, that economic self-interest must be restrained internally by moral sympathy and externally by competition. We should also remove regulations that unduly hinder competition and economic development.
We should refrain from using the term "socialism" to describe all efforts to reduce economic inequality or to provide increased social services and public assistance. Truly socialistic systems feature centralized economic planning and social ownership and operation of the means of production. These are prone to fail for their lack of incentive to create wealth, and for denying people's right to enjoy the fruit of their own labor to varying degrees. Whereas democratic socialism can still strike a balance between justice and liberty, Communism is highly destructive of both due to the tyranny necessary to force sameness on a population whose diversity of talent and effort ought to lead to justly different outcomes.
I am not committed to either supply-side or demand-side economics, but top-tier tax cuts have historically not "trickled down" to the middle and lower classes. Instead, a "trickle-up" effect has been demonstrated for policies that directly benefit the middle class, which I find preferable to bailouts and tax breaks for the wealthy on one hand, or government spending and handouts on the other.

The Fed has generally behaved responsibly and has proven a useful instrument in managing the economy, as long as it refrains from micro-managing the economy. And much of its success is due to its independence from political pressures. It should not be politicized or placed under orders or pressure from the executive branch of government.
In normal circumstances, interest rates ought to be kept reasonably low (mid-single digits), but not so low as to disincentivize savings and investment or to deprive the Fed of the possibility of lowering interest rates when needed.

III.B.2. Taxes and Spending

(Tax Policy; Tax Exemptions; Property Taxes; Taxing Capital Gains; Estate Taxes; Government Spending and Debt)

Biblically, taxes are not theft by government but a debt owed to government for the services it provides to the people under its care. The Bible recognizes the legitimacy both of direct taxes on the population and of indirect taxes taken in the course of commerce.
A mildly progressive tax rate seems to me to be most fair. Every individual should pay at least some percentage, and taxes are better assessed on expenditures than on wealth or income. I believe amending the Constitution to permit a federal income tax was a grave error.
One general tax at each level of government ought to be sufficient for that government's general operations and services, rather than the multitude of taxes, tariffs, tolls, and fees currently collected.
I generally support lowering tax rates for middle- and lower-income households, and I believe corporate taxes should be assessed on net profits rather than gross income. As tax cuts have historically reduced revenue, any federal tax cuts need to be offset by cuts in spending.

One of the biblical purposes of government is to reward the doing of good, and one effective (and biblically exampled) way of doing so is by tax incentives. I support tax incentives for responsible choices such as saving for retirement, having children, and investments that aid the community.
The government should continue to recognize charitable and non-profit organizations, including churches, as tax-exempt. I further believe that political advocacy organizations should also be tax exempt. Such tax exemption is important not only to incentivize charitable giving, but also to prevent the government from using taxation as a tool against disfavored religious or political activity.

Property taxes are burdensome because property is not a liquid asset, and one's living space may not reflect what resources a person has from which to pay the tax. They also discourage home ownership and (in the case of local taxes) provide inadequate funding for municipalities with poorer residents, which only worsens their situation. There is also the problem of double-taxation, since the money used to buy the property was already taxed either when it was earned or when the purchase was made.
For similar reasons, I also oppose charging more than a nominal amount of money for annual vehicle registration and the collection of property tax on vehicles, policies which make vehicle ownership especially burdensome for the poor.

The issue of taxing capital gains is challenging since, on one hand, much of the money from investments relates to retirement plans for lower- or middle-class workers, while on the other, many wealthy corporate executives receive most or all of their income as stocks. Under the current system, I favor a capital gains tax that exempts retirement investments. Of course, if we taxed expenditures instead of income, there would be no need for a capital gains tax at all.

The passing on of an inheritance is a sacred act that accompanies grief and loss, is essential to human flourishing, and is especially important to farmers and others whose work is intergenerational. Taxing inheritance is inadvisable for all these reasons, but also, under a system based around income tax, it constitutes double taxation. Currently the lifetime exemption is high enough for most families, but ideally, all estate taxes and associated gift taxes ought to be abolished.

It should be remembered that government is only one of several institutions in society that do good things: Not every good cause needs to be funded through or managed by government. While voters have wide latitude in how they want taxpayer money spent, it is best to limit government expenditures to the particular functions of government and necessary things the government alone can provide (meaning those that require the use of force or universal participation, or whose scale exceeds that of any private entity). Most worthwhile projects are best handled by the private sector.
The people may choose to have their government provide them with social services but should do so only if they themselves are willing and able to pay the taxes necessary to provide those services.
A mild degree of government debt (for example, in the form of Treasury securities) has merit as a way of permitting citizens to invest in their government at low risk and as an alternative to taxation. However, significant debt should only be incurred in emergency situations or with a plan for repayment, not as a matter of normal operation or for programs that could be managed in the private sector. The high national debt currently existing in the US is largely borrowed from our own future, and it places us at risk of eventual ultra-high taxation or runaway inflation and economic collapse. High debt also inhibits our diplomatic leverage with creditor nations.

III.B.3. The Government and Business

(Pro-Business and Jobs Legislation; Bailouts and Corporate Welfare; Local Corporate Subsidies; Corporate Mega-Mergers; Usury; Use of Eminent Domain; Gambling)

Generally speaking, a free economy thrives as people make free choices selecting goods and services, how much to give, spend, or save, what work to pursue, where and how to do business, whom and how many workers to hire, etc. Jobs are created via that network of choices. Government can incentivize business and job creation mostly by getting out of the way: by reducing corporate taxes, cutting payroll taxes for new hires, and keeping regulations and legal "red tape" at a reasonable level.
In times of recession, government should further stimulate the economy by reducing interest rates, temporarily extending unemployment benefits, and (with caution) moving forward scheduled public works projects. However, stimulus packages may be counterproductive if they are too large or too late (i.e., when the economy is already in recovery), contributing to inflation while increasing government debt. Also, deficit spending and wartimee spending are limited in their short-term help to the economy and are costly over the long-term, and thus are not beneficial to national prosperity.

Corporate bailouts, federal subsidies to large corporations (including most farm subsidies), and industry-specific protective policies are contrary to the spirit of economic liberty and ultimately undemocratic. In natural disasters and similar emergencies, financial assistance should generally go to affected individuals and small-to-medium-sized businesses rather than to large corporations.

I support the use of state and local subsidies to incentivize the location of businesses and institutions, so long as officials involved have no conflict of interest. I prefer that such incentives be generally available, as opposed to special deals designed to attract particular businesses. This is a matter of competition that can function well within a capitalistic framework.

I support a requirement that "mega-mergers" of large corporations be subject to federal approval, because of such mergers' potential to stifle competition to the detriment of the industry and its consumers. Approval of such mergers should not depend on the political or personal associations of the corporations in question.

Immorally high interest rates, price gouging, and predatory lending, in which the wealthy place the needy at their mercy for profit, have no place in a free society. The government should cap credit card and other private interest rates at 15% for the protection of consumers.

I recognize the right of government to purchase property via eminent domain for genuine and necessary public use, such as for roads, schools, and military bases. However, this right does not extend to economic development, demographic steering, efforts to increase property values to raise tax revenue, or any other acquisition that involves forcibly taking land from some to give it to others.

Gambling, betting, and lotteries are a major social ill and should be prohibited by law. By deceptively holding out the promise of easy wealth, they are predatory toward the poor and desperate. Due to the addictive nature of gambling, its longstanding connection to crime and extortion, and its diminishing of the place of an earned living as the normal way of life, a free and just society should not permit gambling wherein money or other assets are placed at risk and transferred from losers to winners by chance.
Government should instead incentivize citizens to earn their living by fair exchanges and contributions of labor, goods, and services for the good of others, rather than by chance or at others' expense.

III.B.4. The Government and Labor

(Income Inequality; Minimum Wage; Labor Unions; Overtime and Benefits; Government Pensions)

In any free and just society, people who devote more time and work toward endeavors of greater value to society will generally receive more income than others. Unequal outcomes that are the result of care, talent, work, experience, and invested time are a good thing. What societies should seek to ensure is equality of opportunity. What they should avoid, and correct where present, are inequalities that arise from unfairness, but such corrections should not be at the expense of equal liberty.
While the government should not regulate wages over a minimum amount, employers should pay their employees a fair return for their labor. However, the main problem the working class currently faces is wage stagnation, rather than income inequality per se. Wages and compensation for blue-collar workers have not kept pace with productivity since 1980.

I recognize the necessity of a minimum hourly wage, but I believe it should be indexed to either inflation or the cost of living and should be set by states rather than by the federal government, given the radically different costs of living from one region of the country to the other. Any federal minimum wage should be set based on the necessary cost of living for two full-time workers raising two children in the least expensive state, and other states should adjust their minimums upward accordingly.
Ideally, jobs that are worked to earn a person's primary living should pay a living wage, but there should also be lighter or shorter-term work suitable for students entering the work force, semi-retirees, and those working for extra income, which may pay less, though still a just amount for the labor performed. This distinction would be difficult for even state governments to regulate properly, but I believe it would be better to err on the side of a livable minimum wage, which has worked well in other developed countries, than to continue to underpay the people who perform some of the most underappreciated and most essential jobs.
There is a practical limit to how much and how quickly any employer can increase its low-tier employees' wages. As of 2024 I would support an increase to $10-12 per hour; more than this would cause undue strain on businesses.

Collective bargaining with arbitration is desirable, since an employee on his own is unable to negotiate on an equal footing with a company's management. Even in a capitalistic society, employment options are often limited, and unjust policies occur frequently in both the private and public sectors. Unions can alleviate this problem, and in extreme cases a strike may be necessary after less coercive options have been exhausted.
However, most larger unions as they currently operate do more harm than good, particularly in their politicization, their quickness to resort to coercion, their frequent bullying of workers more loyal to the company than to the union, their lack of transparency, and their occasional valuing of dues over actual worker interests.
No worker who chooses to cross a picket line for the sake of needed income should face pressure or retaliation for doing so. There should also be legal protection for whistleblowers who report union corruption.

A reasonable amount of break time, overtime pay for hourly workers, a reasonable amount of paid sick leave and maternity leave for full-time workers, and a guarantee of return after a leave of absence for new parents should be mandated by law, but the provision of paid vacation and personal leave time, retirement plans, insurance coverage, profit sharing, and other benefits should be the free choice of the employer.

Government pensions should be substantially equivalent in value to the retirement options of comparable positions in the private sector. The determination of such pensions (as with any government pay) should in some way be accountable to voters under the principle of "no taxation without representation." Most importantly, governments should not promise higher pensions than they will securely be able to pay upon workers' retirement.

III.B.5. The Government and Infrastructure

(Public Transportation; Self-Driving Automobiles; Net Neutrality; Regulation of Social Media)

Having one's own vehicle is highly preferable for convenience, privacy, and autonomy. Nevertheless, public transportation is an important service for people who lack their own means of transport and cannot afford more convenient forms of mass transportation. Subway systems are especially helpful in the major cities where they operate, and it is helpful to have buses and passenger trains available for those who need or prefer them. But most high-speed rail projects in the US have proven enormously expensive and have been unsuccessful for lack of funds and/or lack of interest.

I believe a transition to self-driving vehicles is inevitable over the next century. Although self-driving vehicles, once perfected, would provide a much safer and more efficient transportation system, the transition itself will present many challenges. Governments at all levels need to consider how they will update traffic laws over this period, and what role government should play as industries based around human operation of vehicles try to adapt to the changes or are phased out altogether.

Despite alarmist predictions from both sides, I do not believe the debate over "Net Neutrality" is of much practical significance. The Internet has operated fairly and without serious restriction of access both before and during the adoption of "Net Neutrality" regulations, as well as after they were rescinded.

Social media platforms serve a good purpose in society but have run into major issues with harmful content and disinformation campaigns, as well as failures to respect users' privacy and control of their content and personal information. Businesses that operate in virtual space should have the same legal rights, standards, and obligations as "real-world" companies, though it will take time to bring laws and regulations into the modern age.
The constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech applies as much to "big tech" as to the individuals who use their services, so that the government is not permitted to restrain, police, or punish the editorial decisions or affirmative speech decisions of companies. Nor may the government engage in content-based, speaker-based, or viewpoint-based discrimination against online platforms.
Government should aim at making virtual space less harmful, not on making the companies less profitable, and I oppose laws aimed at a single business or organization. For now, the public should press social media platforms on the importance of self-policing and urge the government toward laws that address harassment, theft, fraud, and other actionable abuses of social media.
I reject the conspiratorial view that major tech companies have a systemic bias against conservatives, when in fact their platforms are where the most strident forms of conservatism are flourishing. Yet care should be taken to be even-handed in addressing online misinformation and abusive behavior, regardless of their political bent.

III.B.6. The Government and Science

(Government Funding for Research; Research Ethics; Cloning and Reproductive Advancements; Stem Cell Research; Space Exploration; Space Militarization; Paranormal Issues)

As both basic and applied scientific research are vitally important to the advancement of knowledge and innovation, I support public and private funding of all research fields. Federal support of science and technology is granted or implied in several enumerated powers in the Constitution.
I am concerned that some studies receive their funding based on an expectation that their findings will support a particular narrative or agenda, but this is the case both for corporate and public funding and cannot be effectively addressed legislatively.

The humane treatment of human subjects and respectful use of human tissue and remains in research should be regulated by law. There should also be some regulation of the treatment of animals, but with the recognition that some harm to animals is necessary for important research, such as developing medicines and other products that are safe for humans.
One major failing in modern research is insufficient peer review: More careful oversight and better investigation and reproduction of findings are necessary to detect and remedy bias, fraud, experimental confounds, and poor reliability and validity. Much of this is outside the purview of law, but the people can insist on improvements through their influence on public universities and public funding.

I support the total ban of human cloning of any sort. I support fertility treatment generally, but reproductive assistance paid for with government money should respect human life by not destroying embryos, and should respect the institution of marriage by joining the sperm and egg only from the husband and wife, not from outside donors.

Given the sanctity of human life, it should be illegal to obtain stem cells or other tissue from aborted children. Recognizing the pervasiveness of stem cell-based research in the field of medicine and the fact that existing stem cell lines no longer contain fetal tissue (and most were not derived from aborted children to begin with), I have no objection to medical advancements based on stem cells from the existing lines or from non-fetal sources.

Exploration and eventual colonization of Mars, along with other study of space, should be one of the highest priorities of our scientific research, both public and private. The benefits of space research far outweigh the costs of the program, as is evident from the prospect of answers to questions about life found from examining extraterrestrial water, the earth-practical discoveries already obtained from research in space, the intellectual capital of young science students excited about space, the closeness of such a major new chapter in human experience, and the fact that societies grow when they challenge themselves and stagnate when they do not.

Outer space should be regarded as the common heritage of mankind and should be a realm of international cooperation. Any military equipment placed in Earth orbit should be for peaceful or defensive purposes only, such as imaging, communication, navigation, and warning systems. Weapons systems should not be stationed in outer space, nor should outer space be used as a place for weapons testing.

There may be life elsewhere in the universe, and I support reasonable funding of research to determine whether there may be. However, I do not believe earth has been visited by extraterrestrial life, or that the government is concealing knowledge of such life. I believe unexplained UFO sightings and related phenomena would typically have a natural, Earth-bound explanation if all the facts were known.

III.B.7. General Education

(Educational Systems; Mandatory Preschool; Public vs. Private Education; Charter Schools; Homeschooling; Colleges and Universities; Tuition, Scholarships, and Loans; In-State Tuition for Non-Citizens; Libraries)

Ideally, and in keeping with childhood development, childhood education should focus on the most basic and practical knowledge of the world (language, mathematics, science, history, and culture, including music and other arts). Adolescent education should further develop and apply that knowledge to prepare students to be functional adults and productive members of society, including teaching "adulting" tasks and instilling general critical thinking and problem-solving skills.
By graduation, the student should be ready and qualified to work most living-wage jobs. For those who opt to continue in adult education, that experience should focus either on training for a more specialized career or on an advanced academic understanding of how the world works and how various disciplines fit together.
At primary and secondary levels of education, control should be kept as local as possible to maximize responsiveness to parental needs and concerns.

Mandatory school attendance should begin at age six with first grade; preschool and kindergarten should be optional.

Public schools, existing to make a decent universal education available to the whole population, should be funded fairly through state budgets rather than through property taxes. I also support the provision of means-tested, state-sponsored vouchers to enable parents to pay for homeschooling or to send their children to the private school of their choice, if they so desire.

I support the existence and accountability of a small number of charter schools as an excellent place to offer alternative learning styles and test new techniques and resources. However, states should not jeopardize the funding of standard public education in the pursuit of charter school projects. I do not believe charter schools offer a general solution to problems in public schools.

I recognize both the right of parents to direct their children's education, and the public interest in ensuring universal childhood education and child welfare. I therefore support the policy recommendations of the Coalition for Responsible Home Education, which affirms responsible homeschooling and its potential for flexibility and innovation, while advocating for better oversight, assessment, and protection by state authorities.

College should not be required or expected for most living-wage jobs. As a corollary, standard pre-adult education should be structured to adequately prepare all graduates for such jobs. Parents, teachers, political leaders, and society at large should recognize military service, learning a trade, or going straight into the work force to be as respectable as pursuing a college education.

Both public and private universities should have as their primary purpose the providing of education to qualified students, not the maximizing of profits. As such, tuition at all schools should be kept affordable for the average family, with need-based and academic scholarships readily available. Society should promote and incentivize private donations to universities for this purpose.
Need-based government assistance should prioritize vocational training and business- and career-oriented degrees, along with an overall emphasis in messaging on the value of vocational training as equal to that of academic higher education.
The federal government should cancel outstanding student loan debt for graduates of public universities, and up to $100,000 for private universities, and end the burdensome regime of student loans in favor of increasing need-based financial assistance (preferably from the states) that may be used at any accredited school, without constraints on the school's faith, religious practice, or political persuasion.
There are reasonable and valid arguments that can be made against broad-based student loan relief. However, forgiving of debts is not unfair from a Christian standpoint, but harmonious with a Christian worldview. We should rejoice at those whose debts are forgiven, without envy or resentment.
Any systematic forgiveness of government debt should, of course, be done through a process that is legal and transparent, and under our Constitution this requires action by Congress.

Applying students who meet residency requirements for in-state tuition at any institution should be eligible regardless of their citizenship status, but they should need to obtain legal residency status before being admitted to public universities. It should be made reasonably quick and simple to obtain that legal status.

One of local government's highest educational priorities should be to generously fund and enthusiastically promote libraries. Besides providing public access to information, media, computers, and the Internet, libraries are a safe and peaceful place for children and youth, a haven for the homeless and those without water and power, and provide important assistance to the blind, deaf, and people with special learning needs.
Legislatures should not dictate or restrict a public library's selection of materials and activities.

III.B.8. The Content of Education

(Federal Education Standards; Alterative Learning Styles; Mainstreaming; Values Education; Health and Sex Education; Religion and Academic Freedom in School Curriculum; Ideological Diversity)

The federal government has no constitutional authority to establish national education standards or even to have a Department of Education. Education should not be too standardized across the country, since different regions of the country, with different industries and ways of life, will vary in their educational needs. Standards should instead be set by states and communities, preferably by free coordination with one another.
Even so, inasmuch as funding for Special Education and other needed programs come through the DOE, the department cannot simply be abolished and funding suddenly left to the states. Realistically, the department is presently indispensable to quality public education and will probably remain so, but ideally there could be a gradual transfer of responsiblity over the course of a decade or so.

Teaching styles should be tailored to students' learning needs based on their demonstrated effectiveness, more than for tradition or ease of teaching. Opportunities should be available for students who would benefit from specialized teaching methods, whether through IEPs or other programs. Schools should endeavor to minimize social stratification, isolation, or stigma based on participation in such programs.

I generally believe students with very different learning styles, capacities, and needs should be taught in different settings and with teachers ready to focus on those needs, and that this is one of the greatest obstacles for students who currently fail to receive a successful education. The disadvantages to mainstreaming are especially damaging to gifted students, concrete and active learners, and the Deaf.

As there is no longer a cultural consensus on moral values, it is unlikely that public schools can be relied upon to teach moral values without contradicting the moral sensibilities of a large proportion of families. However, for the sake of education and basic social functioning, children should be taught how to be respectful, cooperative, and non-disruptive, and to respond appropriately to teacher and faculty authority.
Public education need not be strictly value neutral, but it should recognize and accommodate students' liberty of conscience, neither requiring nor disparaging personal beliefs or belief systems.

All schools should include curriculum on basic health and safety, and I believe public schools should be required to include lessons on abuse prevention and human trafficking.
However, inasmuch as marriage and sexuality are inextricably linked to moral and religious beliefs, in which public schools ought to defer to the liberty of parents to raise their children as they see fit, the public education system is poorly equipped to provide sex education to children or adolescents, beyond the reproductive process itself as appropriate in a biology class.
I oppose providing contraceptives to students, as this both encourages immoral behavior and seeks to remove the natural consequences that ought to discourage it. The problem is not teen pregnancy or disease, but the immoral behavior itself, and that is remedied through the gospel via parents and churches, not through government and education.

The government must never ban the expression of ideas, and faculty members at public schools and universities have a right to speak as citizens on matters of public concern without fear of censure or discipline. No field of knowledge is so perfectly known that it cannot be corrected or enhanced by new discoveries, and scholarship cannot function in an atmosphere of suspicion and distrust.
Nothing should be illegal to teach. Teachers are not mere agents of the state, nor are the viewpoints expressed in schools on behalf of the state. Legislatures therefore have no right to pick what viewpoints are winners and losers in the classroom. The pedagogical worth of ideas and approaches—whether religion-based understandings such as creationism, sociopolitical tools such as critical race theory, or teaching tools such as Common Core math strategies—should primarily be determined by schools and their faculty. The same is true for whether subjects and materials are age appropriate. For public schools, such determinations should be made, or at least be subject to potential review, by local communities via their elected Boards of Education. In evaluating controversial teaching, we should make a distinction between teaching that informs and builds understanding of a controversy, and teaching that seeks to recruit students as activists for a particular side of that controversy.
I generally oppose the formal banning of books from school libraries. While much material exists that is obviously inappropriate for young children, I believe the regular practice of item selection by librarians, teachers, and administrators has usually been exercised responsibly, while the power to require that books be removed has very often not been.
By the principle of equal rights, while parents have rights regarding the education of their own children, they should not have veto power over what other parents' children are able to learn. The objections of a few parents to a particular topic, speaker, or destination should not result in disciplined teachers, disinvited experts, or canceled field trips.

I believe the current anti-theistic assumptions of modern science should be rejected and that intelligent design is a genuinely scientific alternative to naturalistic evolution as the origin of biological diversity, and may be taught as such. At a minimum, all schools would be wise to acknowledge the historical and current resistance to evolutionary theories and endeavor to teach without disrespect to the religious or irreligious convictions of students and their parents. However, such decisions should not be compelled by government at the state or federal levels.
As most schoolteachers do not meet biblical qualifications for Christian teaching ministry, I do not support mandatory prayer or religious/devotional Bible teaching as an official activity in public schools. Of course, a factual knowledge of religions and of the Bible's historical and literary influence can be an appropriate part of any school curriculum, so long as it is freely chosen by schools and school boards and not compelled by legislators and governors.
In that context, I have no objection to posting, displaying, and discussing religious texts such as the Ten Commandments as part of that historical, literary, and even philosophical discussion. However, I do not believe displays of the Ten Commanmdments should be made mandatory in public schools via legislation, as such mandates are inevitably for religious and not educational purposes.
While I believe teacher-led prayer in class may be inconsiderate of some students' sensibilities and should not be done over a student's objection or evident discomfort, I do not support any legal restrictions on voluntary prayer by anyone in any time or place.

At colleges and universities, academic freedom is best demonstrated when faculty are as diverse intellectually and politically as they are in other ways. The perception that college education in general has to do more with indoctrination than enlightenment has some justification when a large majority of the faculty have the same political or philosophical outlook, particularly when their values differ sharply with those of the community they serve.
Public schools should be a place where the free exchange of ideas is a high priority, and where students and teachers with a wide range of beliefs are welcome. Private schools that exist for a particular ideological, political, or religious purpose will naturally prefer faculty in accord with that purpose. Even so, they should still seek to be not monolithic but diverse within the confines of their essential purpose, beliefs, and values.
Public institutions should never cancel a scheduled speaker on the basis of that speaker's views or associations, even in response to protest. Private institutions should be permitted to do so, but should not unless the speaker's views are contrary to the institution's confession/statement of beliefs and values.

III.B.9. Other Education Issues

(Zero-Tolerance Policies; Safe Spaces and Trigger Warnings; Religious Expression in Public Schools; Public Schools' Relationship with Churches; Women's Athletics and Transgender Issues)

Zero-tolerance policies are contrary to the principles of liberty and justice, since they by definition rule out considering context, common sense, and fairness in the application of rules and consequences.

With regard to education, it is reasonable to scale subject matter and its manner of discussion according to students' age and maturity, to be considerate of common or known sensitivities, and to provide warnings when content may reasonably be expected to be disturbing or offensive, especially to students who have been traumatized.
Nevertheless, resilience is developed through trial and challenge, and one purpose of college and other adult education is to explore and examine challenging or unpopular ideas, including confronting historically important evils and errors to discover better ways of thinking. This necessarily includes difficult discussions for which students ought to be prepared.
Hate and harassment have no legitimate place anywhere and should be excluded from forums with moderated discussion, including classrooms.

Outside of class, public school students should be at liberty to pray, study religious texts, discuss religion, and meet as groups for religious purposes, on school grounds at any time, and inside during times the school campus is open, so long as such activities are respectful and non-disruptive. Such groups should have the same access to school facilities as student groups meeting for any other purpose. Teachers, faculty, or adults from the community who facilitate student-led groups may do so as private individuals; this does not constitute a violation of church-state separation. I likewise believe they have the right to pray with students on a voluntary basis, including at sporting events and See You at the Pole.
The right of religious groups to associate and choose leadership according to religious criteria is essential to the nature of such groups and should place them at no disadvantage.
Bibles, religious jewelry, and religion-associated clothing do not in and of themselves disrupt the learning experience and should not be prohibited.

Public schools should be permitted, at their own discretion, to allow church groups to meet in their facilities during off-hours, and to partner with churches for various purposes. Student attendance at church-associated gatherings (such as baccalaureate) should generally be optional. Certain activities (such as sports training at church-run facilities) may be mandatory with parental approval.

As physical activity in a fair-play competitive setting is a vital (and often neglected) element of healthy maturation, it is important for all children to have access to athletic opportunities. However, healthy maturation also requires the maintaining of one's birth gender due to all the biological processes at work in a growing child. And while for a time the inclusion of transgender athletes did not result in a significant number of inequities in student sports, the number of concerning cases has now grown to the point that in some cases girls cannot realistically compete and win. Since athletic competition depends on physical factors, it is a matter of course that the physical differences between most men and most women affect performance, and those factors should be taken into consideration for fair play. For this reason, even aside from the moral question of gender identity, I believe boys' and girls' sports should be divided according to the physical differences between them, regardless of their personal gender identification. I do not believe legislation to that effect is necessary at this point, but I oppose any law (whether new or newly interpreted) requiring the contrary.
More importantly, shower and changing facilities should remain separated by physical sex, since body privacy with respect to the opposite sex is a matter not of social custom but of fundamental decency.

III.C. HEALTH AND WELFARE

III.C.1. Health Policy

(The Government and Public Health; Mandatory Vaccination; COVID-19 Policy; Access for the Disabled; Mental Health; Mental Illness and Institutionalization; Abuse of Dependents)

The government has an essential interest in regulating to a reasonable degree a healthy and safe environment in the public space, in the workplace, in constructed buildings, etc. And the power to prevent and contain outbreaks of communicable diseases, including the power of quarantine or shorter-term medical isolation, is basic to the most essential purpose of government to protect the lives of those under its care. (Such power should, of course, be according to law and subject to due process.)
However, the normal provision of medical care and the general health habits of individuals are best left in the private sector along with matters of food, clothing, housing, and other life necessities, which are normally purchased with one's earned living as a matter of basic human dignity and liberty.

In non-emergency circumstances, governments should prefer guidance for voluntary action over mandates, and only opt for mandates if the action is necessary to the public health and voluntary cooperation is not forthcoming.
Getting vaccinated from infectious diseases if medically able is not merely a personal decision; it is a public matter of grave moral and social responsibility done not for ourselves as much as for those we might otherwise infect. Vaccines, vaccine combinations, and vaccine schedules have been thoroughly researched and found overwhelmingly safe. The belief that vaccines may cause autism is a dangerous fringe belief that has been thoroughly disproven.
Notwithstanding the infinitesimal risk of serious side effects, the government should compel universal vaccination against major communicable diseases where medically practicable (with the obvious exception of those who cannot be safely vaccinated), including for COVID-19. This includes vaccination as part of the immigration process for those not already vaccinated.
In the American system, vaccine mandates and most other laws relating to public health should generally be a matter of state law, not federal. But I have no objection to federal action in the case of a nationwide emergency, as long as it is done through Congress and enacted with due regard for the law and for civil liberties.
Religious liberty is a colorable argument against mandatory vaccination, but personal liberties do not extend to endangering the lives of others. Besides the fact that no major religion currently forbids vaccinations, the government's crucial interest in protecting the public health from infectious diseases must win out over religious objections to well-established vaccines.
For newer vaccines such as COVID-19 inoculations in 2021, particularly when cases are in decline, the balance is more complicated; in such instances I believe sincerely held religious exemptions should be permitted, even though I believe they are largely based on misinformation. By 2022, however, the safety and ethical origins of COVID vaccines were sufficiently established that any continued doubts were grounded more in political bias or deliberate misinformation than in bona fide convictions about morality and truth. I commend leaders of both major parties for encouraging COVID-19 vaccination.

Although many leaders on the federal and state levels were slow to address the COVID-19 pandemic, its worldwide scope and greater second wave meant that a large number of Americans would have died in 2020 regardless of even the most effective efforts.
We should be thankful to God as well as to those who supported, developed, and tested vaccines that have proven safe and effective in fighting the virus.
American hospitalizations and deaths from COVID since the vaccine became widely available have been almost entirely preventable and are primarily due to politically driven opposition to virtually every effort to protect against the virus and mitigate its effects. It is my understanding that nearly 300,000 deaths could have been prevented if all healthy US adults had chosen vaccination as soon as they could. This is mostly the fault of pundits and influencers who spread disinformation for personal gain, but some blame also rests with the CDC and other officials whose inconsistent public messaging helped fuel confusion and suspicion. That being said, I do not believe the CDC is guilty of corruption or deception, only of poor communication.

Individuals without disabilities may occasionally be inconvenienced by the layout of buildings and public spaces, but too often those with disabilities find access impossible. All facilities open to the public should be accessible to people in wheelchairs or who require trained service animals. These and places of education and employment should also make sufficient accommodations for blind, deaf, and other special-needs persons.
I also believe ADA regulations on access ought to apply to new church facilities in the same way as standard building codes. The government has no rightful authority over religious hiring practices, but churches and other religious bodies should of themselves be nondiscriminatory with regard to any disability not specifically prohibited by their Scriptures. (The Christian Scriptures have no such prohibitions.)

Much educational and promotional work needs to be done to remove the stigma of counseling, mental health issues, and natural variations of personality, and to counter the suspicion that people with mental illness are necessarily prone to violence.
Treatment for mental illnesses and behavioral impairments should be covered by insurance on the same level as non-psychiatric medical services.

Mental illness and addiction are not the main causes of homelessness, but homelessness is more common among the mentally ill. The greatest thing that can be done to reduce homelessness and poverty among the mentally ill is to provide the option of healthy and positive institutionalization (or living assistance, depending on severity) for those whose conditions render them unable to handle basic activities of daily living. Where their mental condition interferes with their ability to consent to institutionalization, responsible means should be available for that decision to be made by power of attorney. Institutionalization should be mandatory, with due process, for those who demonstrate a likelihood of danger to themselves or others.

Abuse of children (as well as the elderly, disabled, or institutionalized) by people in positions of trust should be aggressively prosecuted and severely punished. With the understanding that some with mental illness or dementia may be prone to perceive or report abuse that is not actually present, all reports of dependent abuse should be carefully investigated.

III.C.2. Drug Policy

(The War on Drugs; Needle Exchange and Safe Haven Policies; Regulation of Marijuana; Regulation of Alcohol and Tobacco)

Since drug abuse is addictive and both personally and socially destructive, the government should aggressively fight the importation and production of illicit drugs, as well as their distribution, funding, and sale, while also working to reduce drug demand and steer users toward rehabilitation. Currently there is a need for better community policing, intelligence gathering and research on the drug industry, and assessment of current drug control strategies.
That being said, America's criminality-focused response to drug abuse since 1980 has been disastrous for the country: It has broken hundreds of thousands of families, exploded our prison populations, and contributed both to racial suspicion and the overall militarization of police. While we should continue to enforce laws against the import and distribution of illicit drugs, no one should go to prison for mere possession without intent to distribute.
I believe it may be helpful to compare the effectiveness of other countries' approaches to drug enforcement to find what approaches might be most beneficial to solving America's drug problem, within constitutional limits.

It is my understanding that needle exchange programs have proven to reduce the spread of disease among drug addicts without increasing the use of illicit drugs.
I believe "safe havens" for supervised use of illicit drugs go a step too far in facilitating addiction rather than treating it.

Federal law should permit carefully overseen clinical research to determine the safety and efficacy of cannabis and cannabinoids for medical purposes, and based on positive results, approve their prescription for appropriate medical purposes. Marijuana should not be legalized for recreational use.

Alcohol and tobacco are legal drugs in America largely for historical reasons (and also because fermentation is a naturally occurring process). However, several factors call for regulation of the two: their addictive nature when used to excess, the judgment-altering effects of drunkenness, and protection of the public health from drunk driving and second-hand smoke. In light of varying cultural and historical realities from place to place, I support the diversity of regulatory schemes in different states.
More should be done to prevent underage drinking and smoking, as it seems almost all users begin their habit as minors.

III.C.3. Health Care Costs

(Government and Health Coverage; Coverage of Pre-Existing Conditions; Coverage of Mental Health; Coverage of Contraception; Price Gouging; Medical Bankruptcies)

As a rule, especially for a country as large as the US and for a government with such a poor track record of inefficiency, the normal provision of medical care and the general health habits of individuals are best left in the private sector.
Nevertheless, a free people should have the right, by vote, to have their government provide social services that benefit the general public and especially the poor, and this includes assistance with the high costs of medical care and health insurance. Decisions about the extent of those services should be made with due consideration of the government's limited resources; capacity for quality service; likelihood of waste, fraud, and abuse; and the relative necessity of the government to provide that service, compared with the more basic functions of government.
In short, I believe efforts to improve health coverage should focus on making private insurance affordable, sustainable, and fairly accessible; and on working with health industries to make medical costs competitive.

The premise of insurance requires healthy customers paying into the system to provide the money that needs to be paid out in claims, and so insurance does not work if too many people simply wait until they are sick and need insurance before signing up. However, there is less risk of such a problem if most people's insurance is provided through work, and people with chronic conditions or with problems whose significance is not yet realized must be able to have their needs covered. Balancing these considerations, I believe as long as premiums are being paid by or for the vast majority of adults, coverage should not be denied to people with pre-existing conditions.

Insurance and other medical financial assistance should cover physical health and mental health as equal priorities. Self-committing on the basis of a belief that one is a danger to one's self or others should not be considered merely elective treatment.

Except in cases of true medical necessity, insurance companies should be free to decide whether or not to cover contraceptive devices, methods, and medications. Some non-covering plans need to be available for purchasers who cannot support contraception for reasons of religion or conscience.

I am generally against price caps where markets are working, but government should forbid and act aggressively against extreme price-gouging in medicine and hospital care. There is no good reason for medicine and procedures to cost significantly more in the US than in other countries, relative to the cost of living.

Since medical debt is usually incurred faultlessly, I believe the burden of bankruptcy for medical bills in the US is an injustice that places the poor at an especially unfair disadvantage. I believe there should be a special form of medical debt forgiveness available which frees debtors while compensating medical creditors for the loss, and which does not damage the credit of those affected.

III.C.4. Public Assistance

(The Nature of Poverty; The Social Safety Net; Welfare and Public Housing; Social Security; Homelessness; Universal Basic Income; Drug Testing for Public Assistance; Work Requirements for Public Assistance)

Contempt for the poor is not a virtue. Many who have never been poor speak of poverty, even in times of disaster or crisis, as though it were only a matter of irresponsible cash flow and lack of foresight in failing to save for emergencies. They boast of their financial stability and wonder why people who don't have plenty of money stored away should ask for or receive relief from someone else. In fact, most who live below the poverty level are meager with their spending and only barely earn enough income for life's necessities. Any unforeseen expenses or shortage of income can leave them unable to ever recover without help. The question should not be whether the poor deserve help, but what manner of help will best meet their needs.
It has also been demonstrated that, while poverty may not be initially caused by bad decisions, the stress of being in need can itself negatively affect a person's priorities and decision-making, resulting in a downward spiral. Efforts to address poverty should therefore focus on removing the immediate anxiety of the affliction before expecting changes in behavior.

It is good for government to provide a survival-level safety net for those who have exhausted all other means of support and assistance, but aside from states of general emergency, private charity should take precedence since genuine help is relational, not power-based, and not merely a handout, and is noble only when voluntary. Where government assists, there must be accountability on both ends, to improve efficiency and ensure against waste, fraud, abuse, and redundancy.

Adequate public assistance in food, housing, medical care, and other basic necessities should be available for all residents who cannot support themselves due to disability and who have exhausted any other means of support. The long-term goal of any public assistance given to able-bodied, able-minded individuals of working age (whether unemployed or underemployed) should be to help them attain financial self-sufficiency.
As a matter of human dignity, any adult who is not an invalid should provide something from themselves for the assistance they receive.

As a forced-and-false savings program (essentially a Ponzi scheme), social security was always unconstitutional, in conflict and competition with other social spending, and doomed to eventual failure. Longer lifespans and stagnant wages in the face of a rising cost of living have made Social Security especially unsustainable.
Payouts to citizens who have paid in must be honored, but the government should quickly pursue a transition away from mandatory Social Security to a replacement program, voluntary and investment-based. This would take two or three generations but could involve gradually raising the age of eligibility while reducing benefits on an age-based declining scale. Funds to pay for benefits yet to be paid out from Social Security could come from the sale of government land and facilities.

The current main cause of homelessness is the high cost of housing and rent, particularly as their increase outpaces increases in wages. Government at all levels should place a high priority on preventing homelessness and treat the homeless with compassion. Prevention should include public assistance such as rent supplements, drug rehabilitation, and ensuring care for the mentally ill and for young people leaving custody of the state. Compassionate treatment should include, where possible, providing space for campsites and free publicly accessible bathroom and shower facilities. Housing First programs appear by the evidence to be the most effective long-term solutions for chronic homelessness, in conjunction with efforts to address chronic unemployment and to rescue those afflicted by substance abuse and mental illness.
The homeless should also be expected to follow the same laws as other residents, but governments should not pass laws or design facilities for the purpose of inconveniencing or driving away homeless people. I especially oppose the installment of anti-homeless spikes, anti-homeless bench designs, and other hostile architecture.

Addressing extreme poverty should be one of a society's highest priorities, but there are many ways to do so that are sensitive to genuine need and require some effort by the recipient to contribute to society. I am aware of successful experiments with UBI, but I am unpersuaded that providing a living unconditionally to every person in return for nothing is moral or is practically sustainable over the long term in a heavily populated society. Moreover, earning the necessities of life by contributing one's labor to provide some good or service to the community is a matter of human dignity and a necessity of individual liberty, and should be the norm for any society.

Addiction to alcohol, tobacco, or illicit drugs does not justify the government's public assistance programs leaving a person starving or homeless. Those receiving public assistance should be drug tested, but those testing positive should receive rehabilitative assistance rather than be excluded from help.

Ideally, able-bodied adults ought to work as they are able. However, any work requirements in public policy should take into account the difficulty many have finding work due to prior work history or educational background, lack of reliable transportation, missing documents, etc.
Any public assistance dependent on work should include some provision for job training and job placement, and should not exclude applicants who are making a good-faith effort to participate productively in society.

III.C.5. Environmental Policy

(Environmental Role of Government; Government and Green Technologies; Human Overpopulation; Waste Disposal; Pollution; Animal Rights; Genetically Modified Food)

The central purpose of government in protecting the lives of its people implies a responsibility to cultivate and maintain the environment in the interest of public health and safety. As a matter of basic compassion, proper care for animals and their habitat is an additional role whose scope often requires government regulation and other intervention (such as licensing and quotas for hunting and fishing).
However, it is contrary to the government's purpose to sacrifice or jeopardize human lives, only livelihoods, or essential liberties for environmental causes in which others' lives, livelihoods, or liberties are not equally at stake.

Government may work with private industry to help develop environmentally-friendly technologies which may end up making some jobs obsolete. This should be regarded as a natural consequence of the general advancement of society. However, government cannot compel inventions and innovations by fiat or threat, and so I oppose legal deadlines for new technologies or premature phasing out of the old before the new is truly ready.

For families, for civilizations, and for life on earth generally, human beings are an asset, not a liability. The overall human population is not too large, and people are not just consumers but producers, creators, cultivators, innovators, and reformers. The challenge of providing food for all of Earth's people can be met through economic development in developing countries and the pursuit of more efficient farming methods.

As technology permits, governments should facilitate the efficient recycling of waste, especially from non-renewable sources, and dispose of non-recyclable waste in a manner that minimizes disruption to humans and wildlife.
I favor local and statewide bans on plastic shopping bags, in view of their abundance (hundreds of billions per year) and their non-biodegradable nature. There are many alternatives that have proven popular across the world for many years. However, I do not believe federal authorities have the constitutional right to enact such a ban nationwide.

Government should seek strategies to limit pollution of the land, water, and air within its jurisdiction as well as pollution of the ocean, working cooperatively with industry to balance environmental responsibility with economic efficiency. Restrictive action should be based on actual data rather than alarmism, and should take into account feasibility, economic impact, and reasonable times for implementation.
The prevalence of microplastics and their effect on people and animals should be a matter of concern for environmental agencies as well as industries that make heavy use of plastics.

The welfare of animals is a human responsibility rather than an animal right per se. God cares for the well-being of animals and plants, yet human life is worth far more, and God has granted humans the right to use animals and plants for food, clothing, labor, and other purposes. Government should permit the use of animals while penalizing inhumane treatment, and should enact reasonable measures to protect habitats and species from endangerment or extinction. I particularly support aggressive prosecution for poaching of endangered species or buying and selling their remains.

Genetically modified food is generally no less safe or healthy than conventional food products, and once tested should be permitted alongside any other food with no legal restrictions other than honest labeling for the sake of people who wish to decline their use.

III.C.6. Energy Policy

(Fossil Fuels and Drilling; Fossil Fuels and Climate Change; Biofuels; Water, Wind, and Solar Power; Nuclear Energy)

The use of fossil fuels has been a necessary ingredient, not only of developed nations' prosperity and freedom of movement, but of much of the world's rise out of extreme poverty and starvation. While a gradual transition toward renewable energy is desirable, the use of cleaner fuels and methods will suffice in the meantime.
I support the use of offshore and directional drilling to make domestic oil and especially natural gas more readily available, especially as we should not be dependent for oil on foreign powers that are often cruel to their people and hostile to our interests. However, the apparent link between hydraulic fracturing and minor earthquakes means it should be used judiciously, with responsible management of flowback and byproducts.
Our present reliance on fossil fuels means our energy reserves, refineries, and other essential energy facilities should be maintained and protected as a vital element of our national security.

I believe human activity is contributing to a gradual increase in global temperatures, with a net negative impact on our climate that is presently being felt through warmer winters, delayed crops, storms of greater frequency and intensity, and other effects. I further believe this ought to be addressed (and is being addressed) by redoubled efforts to cultivate renewable energy sources and limit CO₂ emissions without disrupting people's livelihoods or way of life.
I believe the severity of the effects of climate change are well communicated by the UN, NASA, and standard outlets of scientific informaiton. However, the threat of climate change is often exaggerated by alarmists as though humanity faces extinction, or is hijacked by advocates for socialistic economies and increased government control. That alarmism has only helped to fuel widespread skepticism that global warming is even occurring, and actually inhibits the search for solutions.

My primary concern against biofuels is the farming space they require, which land is better left either forested or used for growing food.

I support the development and increase of hydroelectric power, as long as we responsibly consider the impact that dams may have on river-dwelling species. Wind and solar power are useful but are not yet sufficient to replace other sources of energy with current technology, and some environmentally detrimental effects of wind and solar farms are being overlooked and need to be addressed before expanding their use.
The claim that windmills are harmful due to infrasound is a false rumor and should not impede the development of wind power.

Nuclear energy currently offers the safest and cleanest source of renewable energy with the potential to replace much of our use of fossil fuels. The production of nuclear energy should be restricted to peaceful, democratic nations whose history and transparency can ensure against the weaponization of nuclear resources.
The safety of our nuclear energy facilities should take priority over questions of cost, industry reputation, or political considerations. It is believed that we now have proper safeguards in place, but if we were to discover that our facilities cannot be made safe, we should seek better sources rather than risk nuclear disaster.

Political Convictions and Opinions, by Christopher Pope (Half the Battle)

(Click on boldfaced outline headings to reveal text.)

Table of Contents