Brad Murphy

Strongly Agree

The Federal Government has no business funding a procedure that is considered murder by those of us whose religious beliefs teach us that birth happens at the moment of conception.

Strongly Disagree

Life is sacred and the difficulty of passing from this life to the next should happen with as much dignity as possible. Our focus on end-of-life-care should be providing comfort to the patient and the family, not expediting death through assisted suicide or euthanasia.

Abortion should only be permissible when doing so is essential to saving the life of the Mother and in the event of rape or incest.

Strongly Disagree

The focus of governmental policy should be to expand equality of access to economic prosperity for all, not penalize those who enjoy the rewards of achievement. Having said that, there are some very real and growing dangers in the way a very small percentage of individuals control a larger and larger percentage of the worlds’ wealth. Some of this wealth imbalance is the result of economic policies that do NOT promote a flat, level playing field.

Strongly Agree

The national debt is a disgrace and both parties are equally to blame. The 30 trillion dollars of debt our country now carries is not only a burden on future generations, but if left unchecked, will dramatically reduce economic growth and threaten the retirement of many older Americans now approaching eligibility for Social Security.

Part of how we pay down our National Debt is to shape tax policies that will dramatically increase the economic growth and output of the U.S. economy, resulting in a windfall of increased tax revenues that do NOT burden individuals or businesses. To this end, I would like to radically reshape the tax code to employ a blend of Flat Tax for those making over 50K per year, a reduction in corporate income tax to ZERO, and a modest, complimentary asset tax on the ultra-rich ($100MM dollars and above) who often have no income to tax. This approach would result in an annual economic windfall of 1-2% in the annual GDP of the United States.

Strongly Agree

Religious liberty is foundational to our countries original founding and is under attack by both political and cultural forces. Our laws should preserve, NOT undermine this essential part of our country's constitution.

Strongly Disagree

With the exception of medical services essential to saving a persons life during a medical emergency, no private business should ever be required to violate their religious beliefs by serving those whose life-style choices violate their religious beliefs.

Our constitution is clear on two important themes. First, our fundamental human rights are given by our creator, not our government. Second, our federal government has no right or role in promoting, influencing, or enabling any particular religion or religious belief... Which also includes prohibition of the Government acting in any way that negatively impacts those living out their faith in accordance with their religious beliefs.

Many vaccines are safe, proven, and effective and warrant consideration. That said, I believe we all enjoy the right under our constitution to decide for ourselves what we inject into our bodies. This also means parents should have ultimate say over whether their children receive vaccines , not our government. Interestingly, no vaccine mandates exist in the UK (and never have)... yet vaccination rates for children and adults are similar in the UK as they are here in the U.S. without relying on government mandates. I believe with the proper and unbiased scientific evidence, Americans will make vaccine choices for themselves that are appropriate and prudent.

I support option C - Medicaid and Medicare should remain available, but no other taxpayer-funded programs are necessary.

I support option C - The United States has become too involved in others' policies and should remain focused on issues regarding our own sovereignty unless in imminent danger.

Disagree

The answer to the 2,000 year old conflict in the middle east is NOT forcing Israel to withdraw occupation, but instead, empowering everyday Arab-Palestinians to rid themselves of the Hamas terrorist organization that works to promote violence, instability, and political chaos. Once Hamas is eradicated, an authentic, and non-violent pathway for self-rule can emerge.

Strongly Agree

China represents America's greatest threat to both our democracy and economic growth. The Chinese are actively investing over 1 trillion dollars in African and Europe in order to displace the influence the United States has over these regions. Additionally, China is engaged in active cyber warfare in order to disrupt our democracy and provoke discontent. I will pursue policies that place severe consequences on the Chinese for such flagrant actions, both now and in the future.

The single biggest supporter and funder of Islamic terrorism is Iran. Without Iran's financial and military support, the global threat of Islamic terrorism would be a fraction of it's current size today. I believe that our counter-terrorism policies and proactive measures should both recognize and place priority on holding Iranian leadership accountable for disengaging in the pursuit of state funded terrorism. Today we have far ranging sanctions available to us for discouraging Iran from their pursuit of Terrorism... and no such sanctions should be "off limits" in order to encourage the responsible behavior we seek. Sadly, our current administration has pursued policies that are just the opposite of those I advocate. Instead of treating Iran as a pariah nation, we embolden them with access to money and nuclear options. I would ruthlessly oppose such options and pursue more strident policies to force Iran withdraw from sponsoring terrorism around the globe.

Strongly Agree

Sovereign nations have by definition, sovereign borders. This is not a political idea, it's a fundamental definition of a nation state. If we do not have secure borders, than we are not operating a sovereign nation... simple as that. Once elected, I will pursue and support legislation that permanently funds the construction of a physical barrier at our southern border. I will also pursue expansion of funding for on-going surveillance and policing of the border.

Strongly Agree

I would aggressively pursue policies and legislation that de-fund ANY CITY flagrantly and willingly violating our countries border laws. However well intended, we are either a nation that is built on the rule of law, or we are not... There is no middle ground.

Despite my strong conviction that we fortify our southern border, I am also very enthusiastic about over-hauling our entire legal immigration policy. I believe our country needs to aggressively expand opportunities for legal immigration that encourage and reward those from other countries who bring the values, skills, and assets we so desperately need to maintain a vibrant, growing economy. We are and remain an immigrant nation built on a few sacred, shared values: belief in God, belief in family, respect for hard work, respect for our laws, the desire for freedom, the desire to integrate and be truly American, and a commitment to defend our country to the death. I welcome future immigration policies that allow us to dramatically increase the legal immigration of more families and individuals who possess these traits.

Disagree

Our constitution is clear that we all possess the right and freedom to pursue happiness. This does not however include the privilege to trample the rights of others. For example, should private employers be required to hire qualified applicants with a sexual orientation that violates their religious beliefs? I believe the answer is no. I also believe have parents have the right to withdraw children from schools & classrooms where teachers are promoting an alternative sexual orientation.

Strongly Disagree

Our countries history is well documented and full of both inspiration, and of past transgressions we now disavow. An honest and objective accounting of this history reveals a country learning how to live up to it's values as defined in our constitution. When we have veered from these values we have self-corrected. This is not a history of victim-hood, but of revelation. It is a history of learning and progress. I reject that we or our institutions are preordained with racist views.

I am a believer in one God who who breathed life into this world and into each of us. I am a born again Christian who believes that Jesus was God in the flesh and restored us into relationship with him. I also believe that spiritually engaged Jews and Muslims, despite our disagreement over Jesus as Messiah, should be free to workshop without fear of reprisal or violence.

Strongly Disagree

Short Answer - NO!!!! This is probably the single most stupid, divisive, politically exploited idea in the history of the United States. There is nothing of value in this world that can be obtained without a photo ID, yet somehow the requirement that voting be accompanied with an ID is a burden? You can't drive, fly, receive medical services, acquire insurance, buy a car (or house), or cash a government check without an ID. Why, because it ensures integrity. Voting should be no different!

I would seek to influence laws that expand the voting "window" making it much easier to show up in person, but this in-person voting would require a Voter Photo-ID. The only exceptions granted would be medical or military service overseas.

Strongly Disagree

We are a nation of immigrants... Every ethnicity represented in this nation was at one time (historically) subjected to the barbaric practice of slavery... Today, there is no person alive who is responsible for historical slavery, nor any person alive who has personally been subjected to the savagery of slavery. Pursuit of this policy only divides our nation and I do not support such an agenda.

Racism is NOT a threat to our domestic security... Instead, those with a socialist agenda who are eager to amplify and provoke chaos ARE a threat to our domestic security. As Americans we possess the values and virtues essential to combating racism in whatever form it takes. Unfortunately there are those among us who are eager to sow dissent and fan the flames of racism, under the false pretense of systemic, victim-hood. Their end goal is NOT the improvement of race relations and equality, but instead, they seek to provoke discord and strife... They do so in order to advance a socialist, big-brother government agenda... one I categorically reject.

Agree

When done effectively, fracking is a useful technology for increasing oil and gas well yields. I generally support the use of fracking, but also believe our Oil and Gas operators should be held accountable if they do not employ the proper safeguards and care for our environment when fracking.

I generally lean towards statement A - Stricter environmental laws and regulations, while well intended, often (but not always) result in outcomes where the benefits of the regulations pail in comparison to the negative economic consequences that come with heavy regulation. In other words, any governmental policy (health safety, etc.) should be guided by an understanding that choosing between limiting harm to our environment and encouraging economic vitality are NOT mutually exclusive. Our policies should result in a balanced and pragmatic approach... One that recognizes that extreme environmental regulations that cause severe economic hardship are fundamentally flawed. We need policies that promote smart and healthy outcomes for our environment while doing so in a way that limits economic hardship. Additionally, I believe the federal government should dramatically reduce the scope of EPA mandates, and instead, defer to State Agencies who are in a better position to regulate industry with more sensible approaches better suited to local values and practices. Over-arching federal "one-size-fits-all" regulatory frameworks are not only impractical, the over-reach by EPA and other federal agencies is crushing our countries economic future.

Conservative

Our forefathers and our constitution were crafted intentionally so that the role of the Federal Government would be limited to just a few key responsibilities, which include: the power to declare war, maintain armed forces, and regulate commerce. All other issues of governance are the responsibility of States to decide for themselves. Today I believe our federal government is grossly out of control, and is imposing controls that egregiously violate our forefathers original intent.

Did not answer

I have never committed, been charged, or convicted of either a misdemeanor or felony.

My legislative priorities are simple and include the following: Restore economic vitality through policies that promote American business competitiveness and innovation, placing America’s interests ahead of our trading partners and allies. Establish a smart, future-proof energy policy that encourages a pragmatic and appropriate blend of energy sources including Oil, Gas, Green, and Nuclear. This approach would focus on sustainable, long-term energy independence from other countries, even as our demand for energy rises over time. This policy framework would also balance the alarmist / socialist climate-change agenda with more pragmatic, evidence-based policies. Reduce the size and regulatory burden of our federal government with particular emphasis on shrinking most federal agencies; in particular, the IRS, the Dept of Education, the EPA, and the department of Commerce. Pursue legislative action that would require all new laws passed by Congress to include an expiration date. This would mean all laws must be cancelled in the future, unless Congress votes to renew specific legislation upon expiration. Transform education by advancing policies that promote greater school choice for all, with particular emphasis on minorities and those in poverty. Advance funding for policies that permanently fund the full and complete protection of our borders and strengthen our military. Pursuit of new economic frameworks that give the United Sates the tools to hold China accountable for its’ political, economic and military actions. Lastly, I seek to shape new mechanisms that restore the ability of Congress to uphold its’ duty of running our government. This means the ability for Congress to hold all agencies, and those who are employed by these agencies accountable. This should include all of the following: - The ability to cut back funding at the discretion of Congress - The ability to hire / fire key employees running federal agencies - The ability to establish key operating objectives by which an Agency is regularly evaluated - The ability to raise or lower agency funding based on performance

Strongly Agree

Police training and accountability are paramount if we are to have a functioning society. If police officers are conducting themselves consistent with departmental and federally mandated guidelines, they should be free to execute their duties without fear of reprisal or prosecution.

Strongly Disagree

If we truly care about restoring safety to our urban communities, we will do so by increasing funding both to both existing police departments and to additional mental health support services. We need greater investment in both police training and mental health treatment. One priority should not be funded by undermining the other.

I believe gun ownership should be accompanied by two restrictions in order to ensure public safety: 1st, background checks should be conducted to protect public safety, and while it is unpopular, I believe this should also apply to unlicensed firearm sales as well. While some unlicensed fireams dealers will object to the burden of such a pre-sale background check, I believe it's appropriate and sensible to do so. The second thing I would like to see happen is a more comprehensive background check for possible mental health challenges. While this idea is fraught with complexities, I think there's a pragmatic way forward to make this happen. A sensible and practical mental health check would help avoid placing a lethal weapon in the hands of someone not mentally equipped to handle their firearm safely and responsibly.

Strongly Disagree

Guns don't kill people, those who fire guns are the killers. Do we sue car manufacturers when crazy lunatics drive through crowds to intentionally cause mayhem and death? Of course not. That said, I do believe there should be accountability for firearms dealers who violate any required background check protocols before provisioning a firearm purchase to a customer.