Gregory Thorne
Gregory Thorne (Republican Party) ran for election to the U.S. House to represent Texas' 22nd Congressional District. He lost in the Republican primary on March 1, 2022.
Thorne completed Ballotpedia's Candidate Connection survey in 2021. Click here to read the survey answers.
Biography
Gregory Thorne was born in Findlay, Ohio. Thorne earned a bachelor's degree and graduate degree from the University of Alabama in 2013 and 2014, respectively. His career experience includes working as a tax manager.[1]
Elections
2022
See also: Texas' 22nd Congressional District election, 2022
General election
General election for U.S. House Texas District 22
Incumbent Troy Nehls defeated Jamie Jordan, Joseph LeBlanc, and Jim Squires in the general election for U.S. House Texas District 22 on November 8, 2022.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ |  | Troy Nehls (R) | 62.2 | 150,014 |
| Jamie Jordan (D) | 35.5 | 85,653 | ||
 | Joseph LeBlanc (L) | 2.2 | 5,378 | |
 | Jim Squires (Independent) (Write-in)  | 0.1 | 170 | |
| Total votes: 241,215 | |||
| = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
Democratic primary election
Democratic primary for U.S. House Texas District 22
Jamie Jordan advanced from the Democratic primary for U.S. House Texas District 22 on March 1, 2022.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ | Jamie Jordan | 100.0 | 20,818 | |
| Total votes: 20,818 | |||
| = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
Withdrawn or disqualified candidates
- Matthew Berg (D)
- Angel Vega (D)
Republican primary election
Republican primary for U.S. House Texas District 22
Incumbent Troy Nehls defeated Gregory Thorne in the Republican primary for U.S. House Texas District 22 on March 1, 2022.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ | | Troy Nehls | 87.2 | 50,281 |
 | Gregory Thorne | 12.8 | 7,378 | |
| Total votes: 57,659 | |||
| = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
Libertarian convention
Libertarian convention for U.S. House Texas District 22
Joseph LeBlanc advanced from the Libertarian convention for U.S. House Texas District 22 on March 19, 2022.
Candidate | ||
| ✔ | | Joseph LeBlanc (L) |
| ||||
| = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
Campaign themes
2022
Ballotpedia survey responses
See also: Ballotpedia's Candidate Connection
Gregory Thorne completed Ballotpedia's Candidate Connection survey in 2021. The survey questions appear in bold and are followed by Thorne's responses. Candidates are asked three required questions for this survey, but they may answer additional optional questions as well.
| Collapse all
When I was finishing college and starting my accounting career, I started writing a book about my political beliefs. I was planning on going into politics instead of continuing in accounting, but God had a different plan for me. I met my wife and once we started dating, I left my thoughts about politics behind, as new priorities came upon my heart. I got off of Facebook, and eventually Twitter, and was able to get closer to God, my family, and myself. I never anticipated getting back into the political realm once I decided to scrap the book I was writing, but if I won’t fight for my family and my beliefs, I can’t be shocked when they aren’t represented.
I believe our country is on an unsustainable path, and neither party is offering a solution for the issues that have plagued our nation for a generation - the federal debt, the solvency of our social programs, and the rise of globalism to name a few. COVID has proved that the government has too much power and the precedent that has been set is staggering. We must reign in the federal government and put new safeguards in the Constitution to further protect our individual liberty and our pursuit of happiness.- The main priority of this campaign is to reduce the power and scope of the federal government. I don’t feel confident that the government is able to protect what we want most – to provide a stable home and community environment for our families, to have the freedoms to live as we believe best, and to ensure our financial future is not in jeopardy by reckless politicians. I believe advocating for and passing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution will put an effective constraint on the Federal Government that has expanded too much in size and scope.
- Our Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid programs are years away from insolvency, and we have yet to address these elephants in the room. The first thing we must do is create a new program for those who have not paid into our existing programs, and this program should be a defined contribution type plan, instead of a defined benefit plan. Many companies had to make the same painful transition when they realized the pensions were underfunded, so we have a road map. Stopping bad promises won't fix our solvency issues for the existing Social programs, so we must act to change benefits, increase payroll taxes, or reduce costs. We must legislate within a balanced budget, too many Americans rely on these programs for them to fail.
- Globalism is a cancer on our nation. We must be unapologetically nationalistic while pursuing moral solutions to governance. I believe putting China on the embargo list accomplishes both of these goals. We should not be subsidizing our largest geo-political rival, especially when they are abusing human rights, destroying the environment, stealing our intellectual property, and controlling our supply chain of vital resources like medicine. Severing economic ties with China and incentivizing our companies to come back home will improve our economy long term, and lower the rate of suicides and overdoses related to jobs being lost and lack of opportunity. We were wrong to allow China to join the WTO, and now is the time to remedy that mistake.
The example I want to follow most is Jesus'. While impossible to live up to those standards, he was the ultimate servant and is the basis for my worldview.
Lately my favorite books have been 12 Rules of Life by Jordan Peterson and Resisting Throwaway Culture by Charles Camosy - they both have made me have self-reflection and have led me to attempt to make improvements in my life.
China is a close 2nd for greatest challenges our nation faces - it will be difficult to transition away from the cheap material and labor China provides, but we must recall it is at the expense of human rights, the environment, our supply chain, intellectual property, and an opioid epidemic ravaging communities. It will be best for our country in the long run, and there is no better time than now, when we are already dealing with inflation and a broken supply chain.
Note: Ballotpedia reserves the right to edit Candidate Connection survey responses. Any edits made by Ballotpedia will be clearly marked with [brackets] for the public. If the candidate disagrees with an edit, he or she may request the full removal of the survey response from Ballotpedia.org. Ballotpedia does not edit or correct typographical errors unless the candidate's campaign requests it.
Campaign website
Thorne's campaign website stated the following:
| “ |
The Purpose of Government The Constitution is very clear about the role of the Federal government; look no further than the Preamble. “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America”. The key phrases are “We the People of the United States” and “To ourselves and our posterity” because it clearly defines that the people the government is responsible for are the American citizens and their future generations. All actions that the government takes must be what is best for Americans and their future generations, and there are specific areas the Government has authority – establishing a Justice System, and defending our nation are among those specifically defined. The purpose of the federal government was intentionally limited in scope by the 10th Amendment. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Over time Congress and the Courts have manipulated the words of the Constitution to eventually get to a point where a non-legislative body like the Center for Disease Control and Prevention has the “authority” to impose an unconstitutional eviction moratorium. The CDC, with the full force of the federal government, took away property rights without trial and without compensation, and forced landlords to hold non-paying tenants in their homes/apartments, while the government still imposed taxes on those landlords. The CDC is not the only non-legislative body trampling on your rights and using Congressional authority without legislation. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, is in the middle of passing a vaccine mandate and forcing it on the country without it ever being debated in Congress. Per Article 1 of the Constitution, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” The Constitution never gave the power and right to perform legislative functions to agencies like the CDC or OSHA, even if Congress has abandoned their authority by attempting to delegate it to unelected bureaucracies. Congress can vote on these regulations and turn them into law if they wish, but the regulations themselves should have no authority without that Congressional vote. Legislation passed by Congress is unchanging, under federal authority, and has a scope, unless there is a new law in Congress to change the legislation. It is Congress' job and authority to define the legislation and it's impacts on your life when passed, not a bait and switch, where legislation as passed can be manipulated to far-reaching and never discussed places through a bureaucracy that is not accountable to the citizens. If the government can’t get the Preamble of the Constitution right, nor the 10th Amendment, we need to re-examine everything the government touches. They have broken their responsibility to us, so why are we responsible to them? A bold reimagined view of government that is unapologetically serving the interest of American citizens and future generations is the only way forward. The Immorality of Our Taxes and National Debt So long as our government is unwilling and unable to balance the budget and provide a roadmap to paying off the national debt in full, the taxes they impose are immoral and cannot be justified in any way. The left goes so far as to embrace Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), which if we are to assume is true, is where large countries like the United States can print an infinite amount of money, and thus don’t need to be constrained by National Debts. In this theory taxes are used to take money out of the economy to prevent it from over-heating, and any unemployment is because the government didn’t spend enough money. Apparently, our economy is over-heating after COVID-19, and we need to increase taxes to take money out; don’t all of you feel so much extra money in your pockets that you can’t wait for the President Biden tax increase? Have we not spent enough to decrease unemployment? Aren’t you glad Republicans wasted all their political capital re-hauling the tax code for a 4-year tax decrease? Democrats embrace Modern Monetary Theory while asking you to pay “Your fair share”. Why do you need to pay anything in taxes if an infinite amount of currency can be printed by our government? Couldn’t they print less instead of taxing what you earn if they wanted to keep the same amount of currency in circulation to keep the market from overheating? At some point the obvious answer is that it is about controlling the money supply and thus having more power over the country and citizens they look to lord over. If they can demand money from you at any time via taxes, and can print money at any time to devalue your savings they haven’t taxed, all while deciding who gets to make the money, they are printing, they can redistribute the wealth like they have been preaching for years. Then there is a whole new issue with the right and their embrace of a Ponzi scheme and debt management. The basics of any Ponzi scheme rely on new people coming in to pay off the old people. In our current leaderships mind, those old people are the current citizens while the new people coming in to pay off the debt are either immigrants or your children and grandchildren not yet born. Remember, the Republican party had complete control over the government for 2 years, and they let inertia kick in. They signed every portion of the massive spending bill the Democrats wanted, because they were unwilling to fight and defund portions of the government without a balanced budget bill. Instead, they shut down the government for a few weeks, and paid everyone backpay. Just look to Greece for a recent example of what can happen when your debt is out of control. Riots, mass increases in homelessness, and suicides skyrocketing were just some of those effects, Is that the future you want for your children? Has it already begun in America? Our leaders are more than willing to gamble our future on that not happening, just to avoid their basic duties in governance. I will not run from confrontation but will embrace it because I believe in the moral clarity of not taking out loans that have no intention of being repaid by those who took it out and thus burdening those who never consented to the loan. It is immoral for your parents to take a loan and subject you to paying it without your consent, so why can the government do that to our children whom they are also responsible toward? Included in that monstrosity of a spending bill signed in 2018 is foreign aid. The only acceptable foreign aid is in the form of a loan, and within our own balanced budget. Why is it acceptable for us to burden our children with debt but other countries are relieved of that burden? Are your and my children less important than theirs? Does anyone believe we are getting anything of value from these countries and organizations like the UN to make it worth our while? Was there a foreign aid requirement in the Constitution? The role of the federal government is not to enhance the welfare of other countries and their citizens, but Americans and their descendants. This shift towards Americans would leave a large hole to fill in the world, and that is the point of charity if you feel so compelled to act, but I will never accept my government and my leaders directly harming me, my family, and my future generations so they can help non-Americans; that is a clear violation of the role of government as set forth by our forefathers and an immoral burden being put on future Americans. The left will use your taxes and our countries money supply as a weapon against you and the right believes that your children are worth sacrificing to avoid conflict and maintain the status quo, all while hoping the debt they are accumulating doesn’t lead to hyperinflation and eventually mass unemployment – the Great Depression 2.0 in America. Neither of these visions is worthy of your vote, and the only reason to continue to pay taxes is to avoid going to jail. Liberty The immortal words of Patrick Henry “Give me liberty, or give me death” coupled with the Declaration of Independence’s assertion that the government’s purpose is to secure unalienable rights like “Life Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” shows how much our forefathers valued their liberty – it was worth fighting for and is a priority of the government to protect. Liberty is defined as “the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views”. One of the key points about liberty, is that it is free from oppressive restrictions by authority. Our forefathers realized there is not unconstrained liberty in a civilized society and that liberty has to be balanced with other priorities as laid out in the Preamble to the Constitution. They also understood that the best way to protect against governmental tyranny was to limit the scope federal government, and they attempted to do that through the 10th Amendment. States could then be responsive to the lifestyle and behavior their citizens want, while the federal government has less authority over the citizens individual lives but still a duty to protect against abuse. Why was liberty so important that our forefathers fought a war over it? Self-determination, freewill, freedom of expression & more are all wrapped in liberty, as a moral and philosophical issue. In addition, societies with a high level of liberty have shown greater economic performance and more stable and content citizens, so why has it continually been pushed aside? There is a delicate balance to maintain, but it is clear that the pendulum has swung too far away from liberty. Do you remember the NSA wiretapping Americans at random after 9/11? Or our secret FISA courts being abused by our intelligence agencies? What about the government claiming to have the right to track you via GPS? These are abuses that have eroded our liberty for undefined benefits for years. The status quo has resulted in ever increasing intrusion into our lives and these actions clearly attack liberty, but do not provide clear benefits. When taken to the extreme, the government will be able to monitor your every move, listen to your phones, and then go to a secret court for more resources without your knowledge if that isn’t invasive enough. At what point do we swing the pendulum away from an Orwellian Big Brother government and back towards one that protects liberty and empowers the citizens? The Republican Party must become more radical defenders of liberty and the 10th Amendment otherwise, the assault on liberty will continually escalate and our liberty eroded. The Republican Party According to most polls, the 2020 election saw over half the country vote AGAINST the “other party” instead of voting for a Political Party/Candidate. In addition, over 60% of the country doesn’t believe either political party represents them. It is clear to me that the Republican Party is consistently doing the voters a disservice by offering an unappealing alternative to the Democrat’s agenda of government overreach and a broad restructuring of American society. The Republican Party should have a massive advantage at all levels of government, so why doesn’t it? I believe it is because Republicans are stuck in the past, living off previous successes, and preaching the dying globalism gospel where our citizens are sacrificed for other country’s gain. We have the right principles for governance, but we can be pursuing better goals. We must change what we are offering to a proud and defiant boldly American vision for the Party. I am running because I want our country to pursue new paths in governance, regardless of the consequences. We must recognize the current path we are on leads to disaster for our beloved nation and future generations. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, Senator Bernie Sanders, and the Democrat Socialists showed that transforming a party’s goals from within can be accomplished, as they have taken a near-stranglehold on the Democratic Party and especially it’s younger members. That is why I am not running as a third-party candidate – I believe the best way to represent you is as a Republican, and I believe my ideas fit the Republican Party’s values. The Republican Party Platform states that we believe in a limited government, but in practice our government is becoming unlimited, and there have been no effective constraints imposed or advocated for. A limited government doesn’t almost triple the national debt in 12 years. A limited government doesn’t start at a voluntary “15 days to slow the spread”, and end up with unelected bureaucracies making legislative decisions like eviction moratoriums and vaccine mandates. A limited government has fiscal constraints like a balanced budget amendment. Not only will the scope of government be constrained by actual tax dollars, but the financial future of the country will not be put in jeopardy by reckless spending resulting in mass inflation and eventual financial collapse. A limited government would put simple checks on our agencies like requiring rules with new legislative power to be approved by Congress – otherwise laws as passed by Congress are not static, but are eligible to be expanded by the administrative state. As proponents of federalism and states’ rights we should welcome financial constraints on the federal government. Federal constraints would naturally lead to the states increasing their influence over matters, as the federal government is reduced in scope. We know the Republican solutions at the state level are the preferred ideas – people are voting with their feet and are moving from Blue to Red States at a high rate. Our economic freedom and a healthy economy are at risk when the debt is out of control and we cannot control our spending. We have mass inflation and are gambling economic collapse with our continued fiscal policies. Putting a balanced budget amendment on the constitution is a reasonable constraint on government that accomplishes many goals, so I believe the Republican Party needs to support this amendment. The Party Platform states that we believe in economic freedom and a strong healthy economy, and that we believe our economy is weak when there are static wages, and the people living paycheck to paycheck are struggling, sacrificing and suffering. What is economic freedom when our jobs are shipped overseas to our largest geo-political rival? Is it freedom to subsidize a regime that destroys the environment, commits genocide and human rights abuses, steals our intellectual property, controls vital supply chains, and allows our communities to be hollowed out, and beset by overdoses and suicides? That is not economic freedom for Americans – that is economic bondage, where we are subservient to globalist desires and we allow for our citizens to be sacrificed in the pursuit of cheap labor and materials. These cheap labor and materials are at the cost of human rights abuses, working conditions that are unacceptable in the US, and broad environmental damage, in addition to directly harming our citizens by destroying our communities. If we want to see our standard of living rise and help those living paycheck to paycheck, we need to bring good paying jobs back to our shores, and incentivize companies to do so. Relocation tax credits, 0% corporate tax rates on distributed profits and much more can be used – everything is on the table for the betterment of American citizens and our business climate since they go hand in hand. We will not be constrained and subservient to globalist agendas. We need to put America first, and sever ties with China. Putting China on the embargo list is not only directly beneficial for Americans in the long run, it is the moral thing to do – if we want to be seen as the most powerful and respected nation on earth, we must act in our interests and not subsidize human rights abuses, genocide, and mass environmental carnage. The Platform also states that we are an “exemplar of liberty for the world to see”, we affirm that we believe we have the inalienable right of liberty and we believe that economic freedom is vital. I believe it is clear we didn’t live up to these ideals in our COVID response. While more tempered than the Democrats, we too fell to excessive government intervention based on an over-reliance on experts and computer models without properly balancing life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We intrinsically know that all these values are of equal weight – that is why we are prepared to go to war in extreme cases – there are things worth risking dying for. A dangerous precedent has been set – the government will act without anything resembling full knowledge, if the situation is potentially dire enough. How long until the Democrats apply this logic to climate change? We didn’t know the full consequences of this disease but we knew it attacked the old, obese and infirm, but the response was broad, indiscriminate orders and policies that forced millions of our neighbors into unemployment and food lines. We arrested those who made a conscious choice to work while knowing the risks. We had unelected bureaucrats strip away the rights of millions with mandates that are far beyond the authority vested in those agencies. The government acted out of fear, and didn’t trust the citizens to make informed choices, when they too didn’t have enough knowledge. They act as if they are omnipotent, and any disagreement is insubordination worthy of jail. Closing bars, hair salons, and domestic travel restrictions and quarantines did nothing to effectively combat the disease, but they were painfully effective at advancing tyranny in America, in the name of safety. We need to have Republicans that are willing to fight for more individual liberty and less government power, and additional constraints – even simple things like having Congress approve new rules from agencies that have a legislative scope will have a large impact. We have seen the government’s size and scope increase yearly, we need to swing the pendulum back before it is too late. Lastly we declare that our standing in the world has declined significantly and that our enemies don’t fear us. This is still the case, so why do we keep having the same foreign policy approach? It is insanity to believe that funding globalist programs, foreign aid, blindly continuing with permanent alliances and globalist trade deals will increase our standing. Countries use us with impunity, look no further than Germany. They don’t meet their 2% defense spending requirement for NATO, they fund a pipeline with Russia against our and NATOs wishes, and then declare NATO needs to be ready to protect against the same Russian government they are subsidizing. What do we gain from this arrangement? Why are we willing to risk our soldiers and our treasure for Germany anymore? We get entangled in almost every foreign crisis without tangible results. Did getting involved in Afghanistan for 20 years increase our standing or help us domestically? Did getting involved in Libya or Syria increase our standing or pursue an American interest? There has been no increase in our standing globally, because we allow ourselves to be used. Have there been any legitimate consequences for Iran breaking the nuclear deal, Russia invading Crimea, countries breaking the Paris Climate Agreement, or China breaking their word on multiple fronts? Being the world police, binding ourselves to agreements others don’t, and attempting to nation-build have been disasters abroad and domestically, so it is time to end our interventionist foreign policy, and refocus ourselves on domestic issues. Focusing on America and moving on from dead-end foreign policy is a must, and we must recognize that the benefits of this change far outweigh any potential consequences from the international community. Anyone can fight the insanity of the Democrats and their party, but I want a Republican Party that is more than “the Lesser of Two Evils”. I want to represent you and a vision of America that is based on Liberty, Nationalism, Morality, and an empowered citizenry. We cannot stand by and watch our jobs being sent overseas. We cannot stand by and put an immoral debt on our children because our leaders lack the fortitude to fight for a balanced budget. We cannot stand by and allow our chief geo-political rival to grow in strength at our expense. We cannot stand by and sacrifice our soldiers for the sake of the world. We must fight for what matters, and that means fighting the status quo. We have the right beliefs but we need new solutions. We must change the party before we can restore the country. The Supreme Court The Supreme Court is the most trusted branch of our federal government overall, according to Gallup polls. This has been the case for a long time, but the trust in this institution has been falling significantly for the past 20 years, why? I believe the answer is two-fold, first - the court has not been responsive enough; and second – it has been seen to become more political. Before we dive in, let’s see what powers were given to the federal courts in the Constitution. The following are the two most important sentences in the Constitution in regards to the courts. First “The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution…to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party…” lists the areas where federal courts have jurisdiction and is interpreted to mean that the courts are not to issue advisory opinions - that there has to be an active dispute between parties which the court can reconcile. Second “In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction” specifically defines the areas where the Supreme Court is supposed to act first. In all other matters, it is important to recognize that the other federal courts would have original jurisdiction and the Supreme Court has appellate authority. This limits the number of cases that have original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court, but it makes clear that if the United States is a party to the controversy, and a state is the other party, the Supreme Court should have original jurisdiction – it is part of the Federal Court system since the United States is involved and it is explicitly in the Supreme Courts original jurisdiction since a state is the other party. This logic should be applied to nationwide injunctions – when the federal government offers a policy that a state, or states, sues for an injunction, it should go directly before the Supreme Court. The federal government should not have to defend potentially hundreds of lawsuits across multiple jurisdictions, and the states shouldn’t have the ability to shop for a judge, that is wildly political and more likely to meet their desire – that is not justice, but politics. The first nation-wide injunction occurred in 1963, and were rarely used for a few decades. In recent history, we have seen the number of injunctions escalate dramatically – 12 for President George W Bush’s 8 years in office, to 20 under President Obama’s terms, to over 55 under President Trump in just four years. Not all injunctions would have had original jurisdiction in the Supreme Court, but almost all of them would have, as they involve the United States government and at least one state, such as Trump vs Hawaii, United States vs Texas, or Department of Homeland Security vs New York. All of these cases involved the federal government and the actions it was taking, and the defendants were states looking for redress. In all instances, this would seem to be the Supreme Courts original jurisdiction, but it was not the Supreme Court that issued the injunction. This injunction practice has hit a new low, as we have just had one federal court overrule another federal court’s injunction on the OSHA vaccine mandate, and so states are now suing to the Supreme Court. The process for injunctive relief is not responsive, and leads to significant wasted court time and unnecessary burdens to both the states and federal government. “Justice Delayed is Justice Denied” is a recognized legal maxim, so why does it not apply to injunctive relief? We should go straight to the source as often as possible – and that is typically the Supreme Court. The pace of the federal government and the world has been increasing exponentially, and so it is time for the Supreme Court to start increasing their pace as well – How many jobs have already been lost or threatened due to the OHSA mandate uncertainty? I know personally the penalties associated with this mandate have impacted my employer, and thus my position at the firm. In addition, prospective employers have made it clear the penalty is what matters to them – so my future employment is also under duress, I would be unwelcome in a job or not depending on this result of the case/controversy before the courts. I just want to know if I can keep my job or if I have to look for a new job, where I can find one that doesn’t go against my beliefs. Being unresponsive is a step the court can remedy by itself, as it is a problem of its own making. However, changing the perception of the court is not easy. In a perfect world the Supreme Court is to be an independent arbiter of the law, and they are protected by the Constitution for that purpose – they are not up for election and they have a guaranteed salary. In practice however, the Justices are put through a political process to become confirmed, and the Senate voting record shows this. There was a long history of voice votes (no objections from any Senators) and lopsided votes in favor of the Justice to be named, but that traditional history has gone away. Of the 9 current Justices on the Supreme Court, 5 of them couldn’t even get to 60 votes in the Senate, and almost all of these votes are along partisan lines, so are we shocked that partisanship is part of the perception of the court? When you add to that The Judiciary Act of 1925 which granted to Supreme Court certiorari over the cases it wishes to hear and the legal theory of Stare Decisis, the Supreme Court can effectively insulate itself from politically controversial court cases and not choose the topics of most importance to the country. Both of these are good in theory, but in practice they have created mass controversy which adds to the Courts political look – cases that are of the highest contention in politics (like abortion, or election law) can be pushed aside. What if the court had stood by the Principle of Stare Decisis and never challenged prior decisions? We would have “separate but equal” segregation still on the books, state tax nexus would be significantly less, and gay marriage would still be outlawed. To fix the partisan nature of the court, I believe that there needs to be a law amending the certiorari process – where Congress (both majority and minority members) gets to choose a portion of the cases the Supreme Court will hear in a given session. While there is risk that this can be abused by rehearing similar cases and coming to different conclusions over time, it would force hot button issues to the forefront to be resolved. I believe the specter of politicization will always be on the court, since the Senate is a political body. However, if the Supreme Court was to be more responsive calling balls and strikes in real time, and were to hear cases of the most importance to each party, the stigma of politicization would start to be removed and the trust in the court would increase. 2nd Amendment When it comes to firearms, I am pretty much the average American – I own a few firearms, I enjoy going to the shooting range, and while it’s been a few years, I also enjoy hunting. As Republicans we have always valued the 2nd Amendment and the protections it enshrines. We believe that citizens have the right to defend themselves at all times, and we know the government is not always able or willing to provide the necessary protection. In addition, we know that this amendment puts an effective restraint on the government, and protects our individual liberty. The importance of the right to bear arms was never more evident than a year and a half ago, when riots and destruction swept across the nation’s cities. Like many of you I held tight to my guns and my Bible when rioters attacked our cities and made threats to attack the areas where we live. Thankfully we were lucky here in our neighborhoods, but not everyone was so lucky and escaped unharmed. How many lives were lost and how many businesses were destroyed during the season of riots? It may sound cliché, but good guys with guns are necessary in this world to ensure personal safety and your property rights – the government can’t do it alone. The second amendment is also one of the greatest restraints the citizens have on the government, and the greatest protection citizens have from tyranny. If the COVID response has shown us anything, it is that the government will continue to move beyond its intended scope and infringe on our lives in unforeseen ways. How much farther would the government be willing to go if the citizenry was defenseless? We saw Venezuela begin to pass gun control laws in 2012, and we have seen them fall into a dystopian regime within a decade. Evil regimes in this world from China to North Korea all have strict gun control laws for a reason – so they can control the citizens of their nation. We need the most robust 2nd Amendment protections possible - citizens need the ability to protect themselves at all times, and we must continually put constraints on the federal government which protects our individual liberty. We must ensure that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, and that this constraint on the federal government is strengthened. Patent Protections Inventors produce new innovative products that grow the economy and create jobs for Americans. Unfortunately, the America Invents Act of 2011 and multiple Supreme Court cases have decimated the previously strong patent rights our Founding Fathers included in our Constitution. Inventors are under attack by Big Tech and the Chinese who steal patents, and by a tribunal within the patent office, The Patent Trial and Appeal Board, which has invalidated over 84% of the duly issued patents brought before it. The current system is one of costly and near endless litigation, no injunctive relief, and the stripping away property rights which has ruined lives and businesses across this nation. We cannot continue to sit back and watch Big Tech and the Chinese abuse our patent system at the expense of our small businesses and inventors. I strongly support independent inventors across America and, if elected, I will be proud to co-sponsor the Restoring America's Leadership in Innovation Act put forth by Representative. Thomas Massie. This Act will eliminate the PTAB and restore America to the pinnacle of global innovation once again. Foreign Policy & Permanent Alliances Our foreign policy does not serve the best interests of our citizens, nor does it enhance our standing abroad and most Americans would agree. Gallup has consistently asked the question “On the whole, would you say that you are satisfied or dissatisfied with the position of the United States in the world today?” and the public satisfaction is currently at 37%, and has averaged around 40% since 2004. Except for a brief moment under President Trump, the majority of the public hasn’t been satisfied with our position in the world since 2004 either. We need to undertake a new approach to foreign policy, that focuses on the American citizen and the best interest of our nation. The globalist and interventionist approach that has been a staple of foreign policy is a failure and the American people are ready for a change. For too long we have been the world police. For too long have we tried nation building. For too long we have been used by countries claiming to be our allies and friends. For too long we have focused on overseas issues and international organizations, at the expense of our domestic issues. We cannot continue down this path and have a healthy and prosperous nation. The Party Platform states “As Americans and as Republicans we wish for peace — so we insist on strength. We will make America safe. We seek friendship with all peoples and all nations, but we recognize and are prepared to deal with evil in the world.” These are great ideals, but how does our current foreign policy accomplish these goals? I would argue that in many ways it doesn’t. Insisting on strength is a combination of things, but it includes military strength. We have the strongest military in the world, but we insist on spreading it across the world indefinitely. This weakens our military and depletes our resources. We have been in Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and many other places without war being approved by Congress, and what benefit has been gained for our nation? Did decades of being the world police and getting involved in every international dispute do anything to increase America’s standing in the world or increase our standard of living? Did our involvement lead to a clear and decisive winner in these conflicts? No, we have been sending our troops to the far reaches of the world for no discernable reason at a massive cost to lives and our national debt and it must stop. Why do we have hundreds of military bases in NATO countries? If we are allying ourselves and risking our soldiers in a military alliance like NATO, we must ensure that all parties are meeting their spending pledges so they can defend themselves, and so we don’t have to. Approximately 2/3 of NATO members do not meet their defense obligation, so the entire military strength of the alliance is compromised and we as Americans have been expected to pick up the slack, that is unacceptable. We need to seriously reconsider the alliance if we are going to risk our military and spend our treasure for nations that don’t meet their basic obligations. Our current foreign policy has done a good job keeping American’s safe from foreign nations militarily and large-scale terrorist threats, but there are many other threats like being reliant on China for vital Supply Chains, and being the frequent target of Cyberattacks. Bringing back industry and production to our shores and defending against Cyberattacks are vital to our long-term health as a nation and are not met just by increasing military might. How does a soldier fight empty shelves, inflation and economic failure? Will the next generation of bomber defeat a cyberattack? The need to fund traditional military and the innovation that brings is still present, but military strength is no longer enough to keep us safe from all threats. Bringing our industry and production home while re-prioritizing our defense spending to focus on cyber threats and forcefully countering all cyberattacks are vital for our nation. Seeking friendship with all nations of the world doesn’t mean we have to be an ally to them. Our very first foreign policy as a nation was laid forth by George Washington – “It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world”. It is more important than ever to be friends and not allies I believe – let’s just look at our complicated relationship with Germany. They don’t meet the 2% spending required by NATO, and they are going forward with the Nordstream 2 Pipeline with Russia over the objections of the US and NATO nations. There are valid security threats with the construction of the pipeline, from physical surveillance devices, to the pipeline being used as leverage on the Germans, to the Russians deploying ships along the route in the name of protecting the pipeline. The worst part is the Germans are the first to say that they need to be able to rely on NATO against Russian aggression - the German defense minister just said they wouldn’t be able to defend themselves without our protection for decades! What are we gaining from this alliance? It sure doesn’t seem like prestige or much input in international affairs at quite the cost – risking our soldiers and paying the most of any alliance member for the alliance upkeep. The Germans just expect us to defend them against the very same nation they are strengthening with the Nordstream pipeline, and that NATO nations are opposed to. We have to reconsider our alliances when they are not serving our best interests, and have not done so for years. We must be willing to reach out our hands in friendship to nations that are currently our rivals, but only on our conditions. Presidents Reagan and Trump showed this is a successful US foreign policy as it was a major reason for breakthroughs with the Soviet Union under Reagan and North Korea and China under Trump. Germany, Italy, and Japan were all enemies of ours not too long ago in World War II, and now all of them are amongst our friends and allies. Russia and China were once allied with us in World War II, but now they are our greatest rivals while also being important trading partners. The world is always in flux, and our goal is to ensure American interests are being pursued – we cannot become too rigid in our thinking and turn rivals into enemies. We should keep an open mind and continually extend a hand of friendship to all nations, as long as we protect American interests. Lastly the platform states that we are prepared to deal with evil in the world. We consistently fail to live up to this ideal with our dealings with China – arguably the most evil regime in the world. Not only is China our largest geo-political rival, they commit genocide, abuse human rights, destroy the environment and want to dominate their neighbors – many of whom are our friends. We are not dealing with evil when we directly subsidize it with all of our investments and purchases in China. We are not dealing with evil when they influence a large portion of the country - Big Tech, Media, Hollywood, Pro-Sports, Universities, some Politicians, and many other leading institutions bend the knee to China. If we want to be an example of liberty and restore our prestige in this world, we must confront China on their genocide and human rights abuses, enforce a full embargo on China and bring jobs back to our communities. These communities have taken the brunt of the pain caused by our deals with China – rising suicides and an opioid epidemic in addition to the joblessness. We must eradicate our dependence on the Chinese market and their goods that are purchased at too high of a cost - unacceptable environmental conditions, human rights abuses, and importing Communist ideals into various facets of our nation. Our new foreign policy needs to be unapologetically nationalistic and pursue the interests of the citizens. It is in our interest to bring our troops home from all over the globe and not risk their lives and our treasure in alliances unless there is a direct threat to American interests and sovereignty. No longer should we be involved in other nation’s wars, regime changes and nation building when we should focus on our domestic issues. Focusing on ourselves and our domestic issues doesn’t mean we abandon our friends, like in the Ukraine and Russia conflict. We can show our strength by selling arms, food and supplies to the Ukraine and also providing vital intelligence. We can also apply pressure on Germany to end the Nordstream pipeline, or use our economic might to attack Russia’s oil & gas industry (a major source of their state revenue) if their aggression continues. Until there is a direct threat to the United States, we do not need to risk our soldiers and our fortune in foreign entanglements – we will only continue to exhaust resources. Nations continually breach international agreements. Nations are manipulating currency, failing to meet the 2% defense spending, failing to live up to environmental deals, breaking the Iran Nuclear deal, committing human rights abuses, and even invading Crimea - we have accepted unacceptable behavior by the international community, so why are we shocked when it continues? We will show strength by standing up to China and placing them on the embargo list. If we won’t stand up to China and pursue our interests, of course no one will respect us. If we won’t leave or modify international alliances and agreements that don’t serve our interest, of course our nation will continue to be used by those partners. We need to pursue our interests and not be beholden to international organizations that do not provide us value. We continually fund the UN and organizations like the WTO and WHO, yet our standing in the world is low, trade disputes and currency manipulation continues all over the world, and the COVID-19 origins are still not being fully investigated – so what do we get for this investment? Are these organizations doing enough to justify the billions we spend each year? Our foreign policy is broken and the American people know it. We yearn for a foreign policy that pursues American interests, regardless of consequences from the international community. The status quo of the past twenty years, globalism and interventionism, does not serve our nation. A new approach is needed. We can support our friends without risking our troops and treasure. Bringing our troops home and focusing on domestic issues take precedence over an interventionist role in the world. Strength at home is the most important aspect of strength abroad. COVID-19 Response Green Energy & Climate Change Pro-Life vs "Pro-Choice" Immigration & Birthright Citizenship Criminal Justice China Congress Economic Inequality Drug Policy Big Pharma Student Debt Healthcare in America Education Media / Big Tech[2] |
” |
| —Gregory Thorne's campaign website (2022)[3] | ||
See also
2022 Elections
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ Information submitted to Ballotpedia through the Candidate Connection survey on December 30, 2021
- ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Gregory Jonathan Thorne for Congress, “22 Issues,” accessed January 20, 2022
