Joshua Tucker

The result of a medical procedure not intended to kill the child, but to save the life of the mother. The doctor should not be an abortionist (doctor whose primary practice is abortions), and an effort should be made to also save the life of the child.

Strongly Agree

All funds are fungible, which means that funding earmarked for some things, and not others (like abortion), will just leave a larger budget for the things that aren't covered by the earmarked funding. This is done by freeing up money that would have had to otherwise be used for the things that were earmarked. So increasing their budget in any way will contribute to their overall ability to perform abortions. This isn't the government's role.

Neutral

It's a tough question, but I don't like the government getting involved in a person's choices if they aren't going to physically harm others. People have the right to govern themselves. A person who wants to die will find a way. Maybe if it were legalized, an avenue would be opened up for greater access to counseling, maybe a prerequisite, and instead the person may turn away from the idea. Ultimately this is fairly similar to Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) orders, which I think isn't controversial.

I believe you know best how to spend your own money, not the government. So the less taxes the better. Spending should be cut as well in order to avoid deficit spending. Deficit spending is just a future tax.

A lot of what governments do is outside the boundary of what they are delegated to do by We the People, in the Kansas Constitution, which defines the role of government in the state of Kansas. I'd start by focusing on unconstitutional spending, and try to go after lavish or profligate spending.

Strongly Disagree

Guaranteed money from the government is the reason why higher education costs so much. Colleges can raise tuition because there is no real risk of not getting paid. The complaints of many college graduates that they have difficulty finding a job is proof that the degree they received isn't worth the money they paid. The return on their investment isn't there. Someone other than the government should bear the immediate risk, like the individual or a private lending institution.

Strongly Disagree

Compelled labor is slavery. The 13th Amendment should have settled this.

If their rituals violate natural law/natural rights. The government's primary objective is to secure rights. From the Declaration of Independence: "...that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed (which would be the Constitution that defines said government)..."

D) Socialism creates scarcity, which increases costs on everyone. People should be able to buy health insurance like they can buy a candy bar in a neighboring state. The added competition would significantly decrease costs, and expand coverage. Aside from this, there is no provision in the US Constitution to provide healthcare to private citizens. People reliant on Medicare should have the government's promise fulfilled to them because it was the system they relied upon, however there should be an age cutoff and those people shouldn't have to pay the taxes associated with those costs any longer. And Medicare patients should be switched to a private insurance of their choice commensurate with medicare. Government should also stop outlawing treatments. Regulatory capture is a real phenomena and it is significantly abused in the medical sector.

Health Freedom is paramount. No person should be forced, compelled or coerced to put something in their body they wouldn't otherwise put in their body being free to make the choice.

US involvement in centuries old foreign entanglements will only make America less safe, while likely not accomplishing much in the process. We didn't beat Vietnam with force of arms, but rather through trade was Vietnam converted into a more westernized, capitalistic society. Setting a good example is better at changing the hearts and minds of a people than trying to force them to live a life by standards they don't agree with, and would resist if compelled. This is a complex topic, but predominately we should stop stirring up the hornets nest. Much of Islamic Terrorism is retaliatory. Professor Robert Pape proved, by analyzing all suicide bombings in a fairly lengthy time span (like 15-20 years) starting in the late 1980's or early 1990's (I can't recall exactly), that the motivation was due to revenge by someone who was radicalized (google the CIA term Blowback) and made angry by interventions made on their home soil. If memory serves, even former Deputy SecDef Paul Wolfowitz cited a US Military Base on Saudi soil as a motivation for 9/11.

Disagree

I support Israel's ability to defend and protect it's citizens the best way they see fit, but a significant effort should be made to respect the rights of all citizens and inhabitants of Israel.

Agree

Without borders we don't have a country. Financial incentives, like welfare programs etc should be for US Citizens, if they are going to be for anyone. Incentives like this help to draw people from foreign countries into the US. The entire welfare system should be audited for fraud and non-citizens.

People who originate from war zones that the US is involved in should NOT be allowed. Trump's "Muslim ban" so-called, was actually a protective measure, under Article 4. Section 4. in order to prevent retaliation within the United States. The regulation of Immigration isn't a delegated authority found within the US Constitution (you are thinking of Naturalization, which is the process of becoming a citizen and earning the privilege to vote as well as other privileges afforded to citizens), however welfare is also not a Constitutionally delegated authority. As long as these programs, which attract immigrants for the wrong reasons, are in place, immigration should be regulated to some degree. However, this highly bureaucratized process needs revamped badly.

Strongly Agree

In Kansas, government schools, aka public schools, are doing a disservice to 1/3 of students according to state assessments. We need to realize that public schools aren't the best environment for all students to learn, and we also need to realize that competition will strengthen education, making a better outcome for all. States need to reclaim education from the federal government. Since the inception of the federal Department of Education, student performance has gone downhill.

Strongly Agree

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." wrote John Adams. I think what he meant by this, is that Liberty is a gift and the Constitution created a system that supported Liberty. It can be, and was abused, as stated by Samuel Adams “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin."

Strongly Disagree

All should be equal under the law. Propping up some, creates second class citizens of the rest. It is repugnant to everything this country was founded on, and which made this country great.

Strongly Agree

I'm a strong proponent of the Freedom of Association, that being said Marriage is a Religious Rite, not a individual right. Churches, Temples, Mosques etc, should be able to decide what is best for what they interpret of the Bible or their holy books. Government should be left out of the marriage discussion altogether for the above reason, and people should decide which churches they want to support based upon what they believe. The non-religious should be able to make up their own ceremonies.

Strongly Disagree

Some institutions may have been at one time, but that was then, not now. History shouldn't be covered up, but it should not be remade for political reasons either. People today should not be made to feel bad for what was done by others in the past. Collectivism is foolish, everyone is an individual and should be judged based on the content of their own character, not as a part of a monolithic body based upon immutable characteristics. Individualism is progress, collectivism is retrogression.

2nd Corinthians 3:17 "...where the Spirit of the Lord is there is Liberty." And with Liberty the ultimate Truth can be made known and realized. Reading the rest of 2nd Corinthians 3, a veil of blindness is spoken of which will be done away with in Christ. God gave us our Rights, and we are made in His image. Therefore it is our duty to protect our rights, so that all will have the Liberty and opportunity to know Jesus. This is paramount! Ultimately realizing that the only way to the Father is through the Son, Christ Jesus. Maybe this is off on a tangent a bit, but it isn't the government's job to promote those ideas, however it shouldn't prevent anyone either. So much is hidden by governments, to them Truth is not a virtue, but it is my virtue. Justice is ultimately the discovery of truth in pursuit of righteousness, so without Truth we cannot have justice, and I don't believe there is much truth in politics these days. The veil must be lifted in order for real justice to prevail.

Strongly Disagree

Have you seen 2000 Mules? The shenanigans that went on in the 2020 election were enough for me, but 2000 Mules should be the incontrovertible proof anyone needs, or at least the probable cause to start an investigation into organized crime that took place, and to determine our voting system needs to be taken much more seriously, with stricter controls in place. 1 fraudulent voter negates 1 honest voter. Being properly identified prior to voting will go a long way toward securing the election.

Paper ballots, but if not paper ballots, redundancy across multiple independent systems, with a receipt that will show a person's vote back to them. Nothing is foolproof, but redundancy in counting, and a receipt to prove one's ballot (which could verify to the voter that their vote was counted correctly) could help a lot.

No. Most people of all races get along, unless a race hustler tries to create something out of nothing. The overwhelming vast majority of America has rejected the notion of racism. If there was a racial threat to domestic security, or domestic tranquility rather, it would be those on the left trying to promote racial division.

Strongly Disagree

No one alive today was a slave in antebellum America, no one alive today was a slave owner in antebellum America. Collective guilt is foolish. People from all kinds of backgrounds can do well in America regardless of their current situation or the situation of their parents/ancestors, which answers what seems to be a predominate argument for reparations.

A. Energy is what makes the economy go. The cost of everything is tied to the cost of energy. We should strive for cheap energy, not make it more expensive. The economy is the largest part of what creates our standard of living. Americans are learning about the damage that a president, who thinks they have the unilateral authority to shut down a massive energy pipeline, can have. More refineries should be allowed to open, onerous regulations should be reviewed/repealed or overcome with technology (which likely won't happen if the government prevents the necessity in the first place). More Nuclear plants, nuclear recycling instead of storage should be made available if possible. Innovations for safety and reliability need to be made in these areas, not regulations to preserve the current standard practice which may not be as safe or reliable as they could be. Innovation, not regulation.

Agree

Sometimes fracking is necessary to get otherwise difficult to extract resources from the ground. Like everything though, it needs to be done responsibly.

"...that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..." - the Declaration of Independence

Very Conservative

Very Conservatarian. My personal conservative conduct isn't how everyone wants to live their life, which is where Liberty comes in. I don't need to force people to live the way I think is best, as long as they afford me the same respect. "Do unto others" so to speak. Government via the Golden Rule.

The best I can do (my apologies) is my personal facebook page (joshua.j.tucker), which should be public. I have had this account since about 2005. On there I have a long history of promotion for Constitutional Conservatism. I couldn't fake that much content. I'm actually pretty happy about how my views have been refined/solidified over the years. Liberty is written on my heart, and is at my core. My 2014 campaign slogan while running for US House or Representatives was "The Constitution is my Special Interest"

Nope.

Just to summarize, my legislative priorities will revolve around a return to Constitutional governance. The goal will be through wise and prudent strategy, but I'm under no misconception that it won't be difficult. I just need your support and I'll fight for your Liberty!

Disagree

Yes, from what I've read it creates a lot of gray area for wrongdoing. Cases should be weighed on an individual basis.

Disagree

Every problem isn't a nail, so a hammer isn't always the right tool for the job. With that said many states have social work programs which intersect, at the very least, with mental health issues. Mental health training, while not foolproof, should be provided to help better identify situations when they come up. Instead of redirecting funds, taxpayer money should be reserved for the most important expenses, like security. Citizens should carry their own protection as well.

Shall not be infringed! Gun laws are not constitutional, which means not legal, so gun laws are illegal. Punishing law-abiding citizens for the actions of a criminal is collective guilt, which is foolish.

Strongly Disagree

Intent is everything. Mens Rea. People should be responsible for their own actions, not the actions of others.