Blake Nobles

Abortion should be, and thankfully now is, a state level issue. Because the Constitution guarantees the right to life, the question the states now have to answer is "when does life begin?" For my part, I can see no other point in which life begins then at conception. By definition this is an extreme position, but the right to life is our most precious right, and no scientific, philosophical, or legal argument has convinced me that the person created at that time isn't a unique individual that will never have an opportunity at life again, and that person should therefore be protected by our laws. When abortion should be allowed is in the instance of rape. Our other primary right is that of liberty, and rape violates that right. If by the practice of liberty two people have created another person then they are and should be responsible for that person, but if liberty was taken from one of the parties involved, they should not be forced to bare the consequences, and in that case abortion should be permitted.

Disagree

I am sympathetic to people are facing extreme trials and often terminal illnesses in these situations, but I think in these situations darkness can obscure hope for many people, and cause people to give up long before their time. I've recently had family survive a situation that typically gives a 5% survival rate. And these laws can go to extremes, where otherwise healthy individuals seek aid in death. These instances, I believe, violate doctor's oaths to "first do no harm."

Agree

From a federal level, with forced participation for all, absolutely Planned Parenthood should be defunded. From a state level, it depends on the state's outlook on abortion. For my home, I want no part in it, but I recognize that other state's feel differently, and their voters vote differently. Under our system, that's their right, but for MS, I'll stand against our state and federal dollars going to something we stand against.

There are two taxes I'm in favor of eliminating: the income tax and the inventory tax, or the Personal Property Rendition tax leveraged against businesses. At a base level, I think taxing people for making money is abhorrent, and is governmental overreach at its finest. Every year we all have to navigate through the process of filing these taxes with a million carve outs most of us don't know and can't afford to pursue. For the inventory tax, businesses are taxed unequally according to what kind of business they are. A local clothing store that makes $100,000.00 a year could be taxed significantly more than the law office that brings in $500,000.00 a year simply for being a retail store. The burden to both is that they have to keep up with not only their inventory that they plan to sell, but the equipment that allows them to do so. Desk, tables, chairs, racks, ovens, and much more all fall under this tax. In speaking with our local businesses, I've talked to a restaurant owner that built his own tables but still pays taxes on them every year. I've spoken with an owner who brough an old chair from home and was told to count it as a new chair since the business just acquired it. And I've spoken to an auto-repair shop owner who is pushing off renovating his waiting area in part due to the added tax new chairs, TVs, and other equipment would bring to him. This tax stifles our smaller businesses, and at the same time I believe damages our reputation with larger businesses, making Mississippi a less likely place to establish a new business without special exemptions our local owners certainly won't see. In turn, those taxes are passed on to you, because that is how businesses survive these unfair taxes. In turn, to whatever degree the budget must be made up, it should be made up through sales taxes. Sales taxes are applied fairly across all products. Grocery store food and the like could be kept low, but other expenditures could be taxed at an increased rate, allowing the state to tax wealthier families and individuals more as they spend more money, while giving a break to those who are saving during hard times that they can control.

Answering honestly, I'm not familiar enough with the state budget to know how best to curtail it. In part this is my inexperience and not being in office to know the ins and outs of on a practical enough level for each of these individual departments. And in part, it's because these budgets are infinitely long and complex and I can just about promise the people that decide them aren't entirely sure of what's in them. Deciding things from the highest point that affects a large amount of people is one of the worst ways to actually handle any problem, and this is why government is horribly inefficient at most everything. It will overpay, pay for twice, and underfund just about everything on its list. This is why I'm for small government, and for us to get the budget right at the state level, Mississippi needs to go define clearly what we want to do for our citizens and what is not our purview. Then we need to restructure our taxes to meet that burden. Until Mississippi pursues a balanced budget the best we can hope for is to reduce redundances and cut out items that don't align with our values or goals.

Disagree

I believe the line should be drawn at how the business is structured and owned. If the business is individually/privately owned, then the business owner should have full control on whom they do business with. If the business is publicly owned, then the business should treat all people equally. In one case the business maintains its individual nature and in the other it has given up that nature for fundraising from the public.

None. People are capable of making decisions for themselves, and churches aren't in the habit of actively trying to kill their members. During Covid, we saw churches take steps to ensure their members safety, and we saw dramatic but ineffective overreach from numerous governments. Church leaders are capable of making decisions regarding their church, and I'll again say overarching dictates from the highest positions tend to lead to terrible policy. I feel the same regarding businesses.

E. A baseline of immediate medical aid for all people should be established and paid for by taxes (ambulance rides, heart attack care, etc.). Private companies should cover the rest with price clarity laws enacted. Medicare/aid needs to be reworked.

There are certain vaccines that we know are safe and have proven records of having eliminated deadly diseases for generations. In these instances, it is reasonable for schools to require them for the safety of all children. Added to this, various businesses know certain vaccinees are needed pertaining to their line of work for the safety of their employees, so obviously they should be able to decide those. What shouldn't be allowed under any circumstances is a government telling its residents that they must take a newly developed or experimental vaccinees of dubious quality. Vaccinees take time, and again people are capable of making decisions for themselves. Those that don't trust others in times of crisis also make decisions for themselves, and stay away from others. And again, decisions from the highest levels applied broadly are often the most damaging, making those decisions in the heat of the moment with little understanding about many elements of the situation compounds the damage done. During events like COVID-19, truthfulness based on established trust goes a lot further than mandates, and what damaged the public willingness to go along with the mandates was the flip-flopping of the information and guidelines being told to the public. If the government can't get the basic information of what's occurring correct, people will not trust them with decisions regarding what is injected into them.

Regarding America, this seems to be at a low point in recent history. By no means should we get complacent but I believe we're on the right track, and have demonstrated America's willingness to engage those that threaten or harm our residents in any coordinated efforts. While events such as the recent withdraw did us no favors in expressing our capabilities, I think this is an area where we stay the general course. I can't think of any added efforts America needs to enact.

Strongly Agree

Mass illegal immigration and drug trafficking are some of the largest problems facing the U.S. today, and having a secure border is paramount in addressing both of them. A mixture of a physical barrier and added and empowered personnel is the most clear-cut answer to addressing these problems.

This depends on the structures in place across America for me. When immigrants are allowed obtain tax-payer support or are allowed to vote in elections through government issued IDs despite citizenship status as some states are pursuing, then immigration into the States needs to be highly controlled. On the other hand, if what is being offered is a chance to work or pursue education, and we as a nation aren't giving taxes but opportunity, then I'm rather for increased immigration. I understand people wanting to make a better life for themselves, I just also understand that a nation (or any entity or person) that allows itself to be taken advantage of will be taken advantage of. I do want immigration into the country to be legal immigration, and for us as a country to have a pretty clear understanding of who is coming or going. I also support prioritizing individuals with qualities the US finds valuable or is in need of, such as students, entrepreneurs, doctors, and the like. Concerning refugees, I think we should restrict access to those immediately around us. I don't agree that anyone anywhere should be able to seek asylum in the US if endangered in their home country. This is another avenue where America is being taken advantage of, where people from across the world are traveling to our border to come in illegally because the process is so broken down. Those residing four countries away from us shouldn't have us as their first and only choice to escape to. This, in general, seems less like seeking assistance and more like going to the most profitable place, and under our current structure, is just taking advantage of a weak border. We can provide economic opportunity to legal immigrants, and we can increase that number, but no country can continuously take on millions and millions of people every year with little control over that flow and suffer no consequences.

Strongly Agree

In Petal in particular we have a quality school district most are quite proud of, but there are many in other areas that want other options for their children. Allowing the funding to follow the student could put other options within reach and would serve as a signal to schools that there is something to be improved upon. Equally, state funds per student to different schools are varied, causing chaos in the funding. Appling an equal amount to each student will help treat all schools equally.

A & D. Mostly I think forcing students into one option makes failing institutions continue when, if given choices, parents would move their kids to other options if given the chance. Allowing options to grow where they are able gives those chances, while better school districts could attract growth, helping more students. I do think School Boards should be able to put a cap on capacity, so as to not overwhelm a district from the outside. I'm also open to E, but would want to see the specifics.

First C, with B being good supplemental policy. I don't think this needs a lot of explanation, don't give kids porn...

My personal theological belief tends towards B and C. Politically I've come to think that the State should limit its role in marriages, and its fine for this to reflect the culture of the individual states. The federal level has absolutely no business whatsoever dictating this topic.

Agree

It's pretty clear the foundation of our nation was built on principles derived from the Judeo-Christian tradition. I think as that tradition is slowly removed, the reason behind our practices are removed, and these practices fall for want of a reason to follow them that secular society has not been able to replace.

Strongly Disagree

First, I've encountered no argument that convinces me that gender and sex are two separate things. Secondly, I've come across no argument that convinces me that sex can be changed. Protecting these self-selected identities forces people and entities to treat others in ways that actively go against how they view the world and infringe on first amendment principles.

Neutral

Theologically I agree. Politically, I can't pretend that the Church didn't give over the institute of marriage to the state. Marriage has long been defined and protected by the state, and if this is the case, states get to decide what marriage means to them based on their culture. Mississippi has that right too, and it should be culturally decided, but personally I would remove marriage from the purview of the state.

Strongly Disagree

America was founded at a point when deep seeded racism was the norm in the world. Even at that time, the fundamental words that expressed the value of all people were written into the constitution. Though America took time live up to those values, and our shortcomings along the way should be taught, our systems of government are not based on the subjugation of anyone, nor, in today's time, is racism looked upon with any form of favor, for which I am grateful. I see CRT as a reverse of this.

I am a Christian, and I attend a Southern Baptist church. My background/education is actually in missions and ministry, having served as an intern and minister in a few churches and having worked on the mission field in various countries across the world, most recently Germany. And then I became a politician... so... I'm pretty sure the Lord has abandoned me. Still saved, but I doubt Christ is moving any of us up to better seats at the table.

Strongly Disagree

Government ID is readily available with there being plenty of forewarning on elections for people to secure their identification. If there are any hinderances presented by the state or local government, then that should be reported or shouted to the public immediately, up to the point of a lawsuit if necessary, but for the ability to keep track of everyone and to keep fair elections, an official photo ID is necessary.

I'm partial to A, as long as the amendment is constitutional and with a 2/3rds vote.

Strongly Disagree

Wrongs are not solved by wrongs. There are plenty of people who would be paying reparations whose family never owned slaves, and a few who owned slaves who would be paid reparations. Many inequalities of today can be tied back to recent policy such as the New Deal, before which the gap of inequality grew where it was once nearly overcome. And most importantly, I think the practice of treating anyone in any way based on immutable characteristics is the evil we're trying to rid ourselves of.

No. There are absolutely still racist in the U.S. today, there are people who judge others based on their characteristics, and truthfully I do think it's on the rise from all sides. I have no idea where this trend will lead, but I don't believe it leads to the destruction of the United States as a whole. I think as these practices become more common, they will equally have voices speaking out against them from all sides. As anything becomes more common, people form opinions on them and speak out against what they see as evil, and I believe despite the sensationalism created by interested parties, America is a uniquely united placed, and we're able to call out and resist evil when we see it. I'm very sad for the degree in which things have gotten recently, and I hate that people so easily fall into tribes against one another, but I absolutely still believe the majority, even a large majority, of people will stand against racism if it grows.

C. The technologies being forced to address these stricter environmental laws are themselves often more damaging to the environment than the practices they sought to correct. Renewable energy resources are incredibly damaging to the environment and to the people that have to mine the materials that go into them. I have mentioned once or five times now that broad government intervention from the highest levels often creates damaging outcomes, and this is one area that definitely falls into that category. Prices for energy skyrocket in countries that have shifted too deeply into renewable energies. Solar panels and wind farms both take up incredible amounts of material and acreage destroying the environments where they are mined and where they are set up. Often times governments set up incentives to curtail practices they deem unacceptable while having little knowledge about the effects of the solutions they've deemed necessary. I'm absolutely for protecting the environment, but ideology has to be removed from the process, and progress has to be honestly measured. For energy, I think the best answer is nuclear, but politicians have done a terrible job in showing people the progress that field has made. For environmental impacts to land from industrial byproducts and the like, businesses cannot cause damage to others property, including public property, and are responsible for incorrectly disposed of materials. We can keep things clean without destroying our progress in other areas, so I guess in this regard I'm closest to A.

The federal government should be there to protect the fundamental rights of individuals, establish laws based on the very narrow powers given to it by the constitution, and to protect its citizens from outside threats. A part of this is the nation's relationships with other nations. I believe state government is where most of the authority to affect our lives should lie. Equal states taking different approaches to solving similar problems is how we grow and learn how best to address those problems. At the state level is where culture and answers to issues should be enforced. And our states are responsible to us to protect us from overreach from the federal government.

Conservative

Truthfully, depending on the topic, I range from very conservative to libertarian. Historically conservatives have shown willingness to push their power in ways I find objectionable, but in today's time it seems to be the liberal side of things trying to force national decisions. I'm not a huge fan of Republicans or Democrats, but on most of these issues would find myself in the traditionally conservative position.

I'm fairly new to political office, so I don't have a wealth of content to point people towards. I can point to my personal Facebook page where I've written some short articles on various topics just to get my ideas down and practice some writing. There aren't a lot as I remember, but what's there helps demonstrate my stances and my typical thought process behind whatever issue I'm tackling. Beyond that, while being in office for a short time, I'm proud to say I spearheaded the Central Business District for Petal in partnership with the ADP in order to give businesses a break from City and County taxes when building new businesses or remodeling current ones. We're pursuing this in order to revitalize our downtown and to assist our business owners create a space where our residents are excited to go. Beyond this, I can just say, get to know me. Either call me up or email me, ask whatever and I'll be happy to give you my honest answer, be that on policy, general outlook, or any other issues you might have.

Nope

First I want to speak on the kind of leader I hope to be if I am entrusted with the State Representative position. To begin, I believe our elected officials should be present at the various board meetings that occur in the areas they represent. In that spirit, I plan to attend the board meetings of the city and the school board at least once a quarter for the time that I'm not in legislative session. I also plan to continue attending Petal Chamber of Commerce meetings and to stay active in the community. In the same spirit, I want to plug in to Brooklyn and participate in their community in ways that I haven't as an aldermen. Leaders should be available to those they lead, not just from their constituents reaching out, but continuously. I've been disappointed by the lack of presence all our elected officials have had until the election season started, and while I know the support will be put to good use all the same, it's disheartening to see money moving primarily on election years. Our leaders need to be present, and that is not the trend that I've seen since getting into office. Equally, it seems to me many politicians lead from the issues that they know well with personal experience. I don't entirely fault that, and good work has been done by many due to their knowledge. But I believe political leaders deal with issues far too vast for anyone's personal knowledge and experience. I want to be the kind of leader that offers their authority and experience in legislation to experts in fields I don't fully grasp but understand need work. This is another reason I want to be present in our board rooms and our community: I want people to engage with me in legislation that needs to be introduced, rather than me going to them and letting them know about what might concern them. Our school board has far more insight on what our schools need than I do, and I want to be a familiar enough of a face that they discuss those ideas with me openly. Equally, I want to reach well outside of our state to help expertise in various fields develop laws that would be beneficial to Mississippi but have no traction in the U.S. yet, such as Right to Repair issues. Our legislatures rely too much on people coming to them, and very often have huge gaps in their knowledge because of this. As far as legislative priorities go, there's quite a lot I want to tackle, and clearly these are issues that would be worked on over the long term. I've spoken about some of the core issues I want to pursue early on with many on the campaign trail. Repealing the inventory tax is high on my priorities, I consider it a highly unjust tax with no justification besides the money it rakes to the state. I want to address teacher shortages we experience through our retirement system, and give more strength to the legislation that was proposed this past session but was tabled with only one sponsor backing it. I want to push for restructuring the funding our schools get, as Mississippi tend to value growth, leaving both the schools that do well and have no place to grow and the schools that struggle with less funding. And I want to pursue a "right to repair" standard for Mississippi, giving our residents access to independent repair to everything from their phones and computers to the tractors that farm our land. Truthfully there's more that I could talk about that I'm disappointed in, but focusing on these issues at the front is a rather large task in and of itself, so these will be my starting priorities. Beyond that, I plan to lend an ear to any who want to point me in the direction of legislation they think would be important.

Disagree

I want more education in this area, but I'm hesitant to say officers should have immunity when it comes to violating our rights, even in the line of protecting us. Now I don't believe they should be held personally responsible, but in the same way truck drivers are contractually protected if they make a mistake, the residents shouldn't be blocked from pursuing damages from the government when their rights are egregiously violated. This would need to be a long and careful conversation however.

Strongly Disagree

With numerous friends that work in these fields, I have great respect for the value of mental health and community programs. I would be great to see how they can be better integrated and our laws could better utilize these services. That does not come at the expense of our officers or our support to them. What they need, they need to be safe and do their job well. Integrating another approach to certain circumstances shouldn't necessitate stripping support from the police.

I've not heard of a proposed law that isn't already in place that would add to public safety. People so broken that they've set out with the intent to cause tragedy will cause that tragedy no matter the means. Guns have always been prevalent in American society, but gun mass shootings have become an issue only recently. There are areas where gang violence is high, and the answer for that is not to take away other people's rights to defend themselves from that violence that is already very much illegal. Most importantly, the Constitution is not remotely unclear about this issue, gun rights are not to be infringed, and yet it is the most broken constitutional right we have. For the sake of protecting our second amendment rights, as well as all the other rights the Constitution guarantees that can equally be infringed as we go down this path, the only way to initiate gun restrictions should be by a Constitutional Amendment, and I don't believe there are any proposed laws that would actually accomplish the goals of protecting citizens, but they would absolutely strip them of their rights.

Strongly Disagree

This isn't how any product that I'm aware of works, and the goal of this approach is simply to do damage to gun rights, not seek justice. We don't allow suits against manufacturers when their products are misused, intentionally or otherwise.