Brad Green
Libertarian | Utah
Candidate Profile
Leans Conservative
BIOGRAPHY
Name
Brad Green
Party
Libertarian
Election Year
2023
Election
Special General CD2
Race
U. S. House Dist. 2
Incumbent
No
Links
EDUCATION
Southern Utah University, Cedar City, UT, CIS, 2003
Cedar City High School, Cedar City, UT, Diploma, 1998
Deep Dive Programming Boot Camp, Albequerque, NM, Certified, 2014
WORK & MILITARY
Candidate did not provide
AFFILIATIONS
Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-Day Saints, Missionary, Simon Fest Theatre Company
Chairman of the Board, Utah State Republican Party, Audit Committee Chairman
POLITICAL OFFICES HELD
Candidate did not provide
POLITICAL OFFICES SOUGHT
Candidate did not provide
Race
ENDORSEMENTS
OTHER (1)
Ron Paul
REPORTED BY CANDIDATE (8)
Ron Paul - Former Congressman
Eric Moutsos - Influencer
Michelle Tanner - St. George City Council Member
Tyler Melling - Cedar City Council Member
Ammon Bundy - Nevada Rancher, Influencer
QUESTIONNAIRE
RIGHT TO LIFE
Abortion providers, including Planned Parenthood, should not receive funds from federal, state, or local governments (including Title X grants).
Strongly Agree
Government's primary objectives are to defend LIFE, LIBERTY, PROPERTY, and CONSCIENCE. As such, they are obligated to defend life within their jurisdiction. Abortion is an act of violence against a person. As such, States are obligated to prosecute such crime as they would other violent crimes like murder, and empower municipalities to do so also. The Federal Government has such jurisdiction on Federal Land, in DC, and on bases. They have the same obligation to prosecute abortion as murder.
I support 'aid in dying' laws which legalize assisted suicide and euthanasia.
Agree
You have a right to determine how to sustain your own life, or not. However, I think claims need to be allowed to be brought against suicide "providers", to ensure that those ending their own lives are not doing so under coercion, mental illness, and that they can give legal consent. Regulation shouldn't be used to ensure this legal consent, because such would harm many others who would suffer from increased costs, regulation, and inspection. NO GOVERNMENT MONEY should be used for this ever.
Under what circumstances should abortion be allowed?
I think each jurisdiction should determine this for themselves. The Dobbs decision got it right, it's a State's obligation to determine the rules in their state, and the Fed. Gov. inside areas of its jurisdiction. I believe life begins at conception, and as such would only legally "allow" abortion in case of both the life of the child AND mother being imminently endangered. Government shouldn't be involved in regulating or inspecting pregnancy, but should investigate and prosecute murder claims.
ECONOMY
Redistribution of income is needed to lessen the gap between the wealthy and working classes.
Strongly Disagree
Income is used to sustain the life and pursuits of the person who has earned it. Stealing their income and giving it to another person is slavery, the degree to which it is used is the degree of slavery being employed. Pragmatically, you can never eliminate the gap between those who are wealthy and those who are not; because those who are wealthy generally got that way by providing a good or service for many people and getting paid for it. Consumers will always enrich producers, and that's GREAT
The government should cut spending in order to reduce the national debt.
Strongly Agree
I want a government small enough to fit inside the Constitution.
What changes, if any, should be made to the tax code?
Our Federal Government should abolish the Income Tax, repeal the 16th Amendment, shutter the IRS, and pass a budget before spending money. Before 1913, the Federal Government would first pass a budget, and then go to each of the States asking for their portion (according to population) of that budget. The States would gather money to pay that expense according to competing methods to best care for their citizens. Instead of States begging the Fed for money, it should be the other way around!
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
Religious liberty is at risk in the United States and deserves the highest level of protection in the law.
Strongly Agree
Individuals and businesses should be required to provide services even if it would violate their moral and/or religious beliefs.
Strongly Disagree
Government is not allowed to discriminate. Everyone else in the nation must have that right to ensure they are still free to choose actions that preserve their lives and satisfy their conscience. If one group is prohibited from choosing who they interact with, that group is being discriminated against by government; which is abhorrent and cannot be allowed.
What should be the relationship between the church and the state?
The State should not be allowed to discriminate against anyone on the basis of their religion, or against an organization because of its religious nature. Religion is a huge part of the "conscience" of most people, and as such, the ability of people to be safe in their religious beliefs and rights is of primary importance to government.
HEALTHCARE
Under what circumstances (if any) should a government, school, or employer be allowed to require vaccinations?
Government cannot be required to require a vaccination unless they can show IMMINENT and ACTUAL harm caused from one person to another person who does not consent to that harm, AND that there is no other way to mitigate the risk of that harm. Schools are an agent of government, so that same high standard applies. Individuals have a right to discriminate against anyone for any reason they want, and businesses by extension. As such, they can require a vaccine of those wanting to interact with those businesses or individuals. IT IS NOTEWORTHY that government should not be allowed to require businesses or individuals to mandate vaccines upon those customers or people interacting with them. Government mandates cannot be implemented through regulation of businesses, organizations, or individuals. If it is wrong for government to mandate something, it is equally as wrong for them to require someone else to mandate it. Persuasion is a powerful enough tool; in absence of actual or imminent harm, government has no authority to use force to achieve an agenda.
What most closely matches your view on healthcare: A) Healthcare for all should be guaranteed and funded by the government with no private healthcare option. (includes "universal healthcare," "medicare for all," etc.) B) Healthcare insurance funded by the government should be available for all who want it, along with private healthcare options. C) Medicaid and Medicare should remain available, but no other taxpayer-funded programs are necessary. D)Tax-payer funded health care should be abolished in all forms, and Medicaid and Medicare should be de-funded.
D. Government should get out of healthcare completely. The result of government-required healthcare has made it unaffordable for most people, and government providing of healthcare or healthcare insurance has made the industry less efficient and less responsive to market forces. -- End Obamacare immediately -- End Medicaid after a clear sunset period -- End Medicare after a clear sunset period -- Sell all VA Hospitals -- Put veterans on the same group health insurance as Congress -- Abolish the FDA and DEA, free medicine from political manipulation -- Prohibit States from blocking cross-state-line insurance policies -- Stop treating insurance as a security, abolish the SEC, make insurance companies accountable to consumers through widespread unregulated competition
NATIONAL SECURITY
With regard to America's foreign policy, which view most closely resembles yours: A) The United States should intervene whenever freedom is threatened. B) The United States should selectively help countries trying to grow democracy and fight tyranny. 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. D) The United States should stay out of foreign conflicts completely.
D. The United States should stay out of foreign conflicts and entangling alliances. Government involvement in foreign conflicts should be advisory and helping the American People with transparency of relevant foreign players. The State Department should maintain a list of foreign ownership or support of companies and organizations around the world, so that U.S. Citizens can vote with their dollars which foreign nations or businesses they want to support. Make it easy for U.S. Citizens to travel internationally if they want to join a war effort themselves, or enlist the physical or logistical help of others abroad. The State Dept. should maintain a list of organizations for Congress to vote on, determining foreign actors who are acting directly against national interests. Congress should decide how to maintain a financial blockade against those giving aid to America's direct enemies. That list should be public, and part of the public debate. The right of the people to decide who they themselves support should be maintained except under exceptions of the highest standard, and only after due process.
I support the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement to pressure Israel to withdraw from occupied territories, remove the separation barrier in the West Bank, allow full equality for Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel, and promote the rights of Palestinian refugees.
Disagree
I support Israel as an independent nation State; and think it's appropriate that they are a member international forums. Regarding the BDS, I support any group using persuasion to advocate for their interests. I do not support government pressure being applied through sanctions, or US governmental boycotts meant to manipulate foreign conflicts. I think every person has the same rights given them by God, and Arab-Palestinians are no different. Governments should not block them from commerce.
The Chinese Communist Party poses serious military, cyber security, intellectual property, and global economic threats to the United States.
Agree
The CCP poses a serious (but non-imminent) military threat because of its size, but they aren't actively engaged against us currently. Similarly, their nation is an economic threat because they are a strong economy. It is okay that others are successful and strong, let's be the best WE can! To the extent we can prove cyber-security attacks, we should pursue justice in international courts. Intellectual property rights are most vulnerable as a result of our broken USPTO. Let's fix US first.
What should the United States do to help eradicate the threat of Islamic terrorism?
Bring our military home and have them defend OUR borders. We need to be able to ensure that our nation is not being invaded by those who want to do us harm. By making the USA energy independent, and stopping our foreign meddling, the threat of Islamic terrorism is greatly reduced, and our example of success through freedom will again persuade the barbaric interests in the world to reform their cultures and societies into the type that seeks peace and progress. Our peaceful example in the world can be a powerful influence, when accompanied by widespread success and prosperity for the masses. Those successes, and that peace, only come through shrinking the size of government to empower the productive labors of our people by them taking advantage of free-market systems that reward service and productivity.
IMMIGRATION
The U.S. should do more to physically secure the southern border.
Strongly Agree
Let's bring our military home and defend OUR BORDER. Then let's simplify our immigration laws so that we get LEGAL immigration instead of illegal immigration.
State and federal funds shall be denied to any public or private entity, such as a sanctuary city, that is not in compliance with immigration laws.
Strongly Agree
State and federal funds should only go to companies contracted with those governmental entities. The standard should be the highest for those entities, and that includes FOLLOWING THE LAW (novel concept, I know).
Who should be allowed to immigrate to the U.S. and under what circumstances?
Anyone should be allowed to immigrate to the U.S. as long as they: 1) are not a fugitive from the law (not a criminal) 2) are not an invading force 3) have a plan to live in the U.S. and be law-abiding: a) have a place to live b) have enough money to live, survive until finding a job, or until returning home c) have their own ID or ability to get one in the US 4) do not break the law, for a period of time (3 years?) any conviction with a victim should result in deportation
VALUES
Sexual orientation and gender identity should be protected classes in non-discrimination laws.
Strongly Disagree
Government has to treat everyone equally. They are not allowed to discriminate against anyone. The concept of "protected classes" undermines that basic concept of non-discrimination. All are equal under the law. Non-discrimination laws should be limited to prohibiting government discrimination.
I agree with Critical Race Theory (CRT) which asserts that the institutions in the United States are fundamentally racist.
Strongly Disagree
Briefly describe your spiritual beliefs and values.
I believe that God is real; that we call him different names, and have different beliefs in His nature. I believe that God knows our actions, whether in public or private, and will reward us or punish us for those deeds either in this life or in a future life, or both. I know that God is aware of us individually, and that He intervenes in the affairs of man. I know that God can and does provide response for prayers, both immediately and sometimes later. I believe that we are spiritual children of heavenly parents, and that we are spiritual beings having a physical experience. I believe that sometime after our death our bodies will be resurrected in their most perfect form, and we will stand before God and be judged of him; and that our eternal existence will be determined by both the "grace of God" and our "works"; and that without grace we cannot be "saved", or live with God for eternity. I believe God is good, and that morality governs Him as it governs us; God is great because God is good. I believe that morality is determined at the fundamental level of agency vs force; agency leads to life, liberty, and prosperity, and force leads to captivity, death, and destruction. I believe Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ as foretold by the ancient prophets, and that he is the Savior and Redeemer of the world.
ELECTIONS AND VOTING
People should be able to vote without photo identification.
Strongly Disagree
Election integrity is a key element to democratic forms of government. The ability of people to prove they are who they say they are, and that they vote only once, and only where they live is crucial to ensuring election integrity.
What laws would you propose to change present voting practices?
I would propose any vote have an immediate paper record, that can be proven by the individual voting, and can be verified by a future audit. Chain-of custody should be required for all ballots cast, unless explicitly waived by the voter as has been done for military personnel voting from abroad. Chain-of-custody waivers should not be allowed above 5% of total ballots cast, and any election results with a margin of difference of votes less than that threshold should have a required full audit of all ballots, including verification of vote for those ballots without a verifiable chain-of-custody. A return to paper ballots (pre-2000 systems) seems the simplest way to achieve this, but I favor a blockchain voting mechanism where paper ballots may be entered (with ID) at polling locations, and the voter shall immediately verify that their ballot was cast properly onto the blockchain, and those digitally casting their vote have to provide biometric proof of ID to vote. The blockchain votes should all be transparently available to the public, but the ID of each vote cast should only be verifiable by the voter, or an approved audit of each vote with adequate due-process to protect privacy.
EQUALITY
Reparations should be given to people on the basis of race.
Disagree
I believe in restitution, when a direct line of beneficiary can be established. I can support reparations only in cases where proof can be established, with the highest standards, that a current person has direct monetary benefit that has resulted from a direct action of an ancestor (or benefactor) historically against another current person who was directly burdened by the benefactor's actions made legal as a result of their race. Otherwise, it would be racism itself.
Is racism a threat to domestic security in the United States? Why or why not?
I think not. Bigotry is real, and should be eliminated whenever possible. However, I think the US legal systems are capable of being utilized to fight against racial discrimination from within government systems, and that in the Internet age we are capable of exposing bigots and racists adequately to counteract their prejudice. The worst possible scenario for racism is when it is condoned by government, and victims are not able to seek relief through the justice system. I see that threat and horrible scenario most capable of causing harm against those with lower financial means, more so than those with certain racial origins. Regardless, we should be working to find ways to neutralize bias in our legal systems by making sure all races, religions, creeds, and those of differing financial means, can equally obtain relief from injustice.
ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT
I support the use of hydraulic fracking to extract oil and natural gas resources.
Strongly Agree
The USA mines oil significantly more cleanly, and with less environmental impact than any other nation in the world. We should all support doing it here in the USA, because if we don't, then others will; and they'll do so in a less environmentally-friendly way.
Which comes closest to your view? A) Stricter environmental laws and regulations cost too many jobs and hurt the economy. B) Stricter environmental laws and regulations are worth the cost.
A Environmental laws inefficiently manipulate a free-market's ability to respond to the interests of those participating in that market. As someone who lives in a state that is remarkably well preserved, it is clear that those in Utah are better stewards of natural resources than those in big cities who are generally the people who want to regulate our land. Compare the results! Stricter environmental laws have made things worse, and we can't expect that trend to change. Persuasion and market awareness are the most beneficial to ensuring environmental protections, and we should empower that persuasion and those market forces.
ABOUT YOU
When you consider your views on a wide range of issues from economic and social matters to foreign policy and religious liberty, which of the following best describes you overall?
Conservative
I consider myself a "classical liberal", which by today's standards makes me an anti-war conservative.
Please provide publicly available information, including interviews and media reports, validating your answer to the previous question (other than your website).
https://open.spotify.com/episode/0wBjudF69LbK5hzIX7yvpv?si=HnaqGfLiQ8mOYoMExq80mg
Have you ever been convicted of a felony or been penalized in either civil or criminal court for sexual misconduct? If so, please explain.
no
What else would you like voters to know about you, including your legislative priorities?
I want to abolish the income tax, return federal lands to State control, and restore the separation of federal power protecting co-equal branches of government as established by the US Constitution.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE & PUBLIC SAFETY
Police officers should be personally immune from prosecution for conduct consistent with departmental policy (qualified immunity) while on duty.
Disagree
qualified immunity has become a way to neutralize claims of harm by victims of government abuse. I could support qualified immunity only in the case that the department or municipality be accountable for all damages when an officer is deemed to have conducted themselves consistent with department policy.
I support redirecting funds from police departments to mental health and community programs.
Strongly Disagree
I want more mental health and community programs, but I want them to be effective and efficient; neither of those things come from government funding. I want to decrease the demands we put on police, and the restraints we put on citizens. And I want citizens to voluntarily contribute to effective mental health and community programs.
2ND AMENDMENT
What restrictions on gun ownership are needed to protect public safety?
The government should be restrained from making any law regarding guns. I believe that the word "infringed" in the Second Amendment references the "fringe" or farthest-out part (as in the fringe of a blanket) of the right. Government SHALL NOT mess with even the fringe of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. All federal gun laws should be repealed, and the ATF should be shuttered.
Victims of gun violence should be able to sue firearms dealers and manufacturers.
Strongly Disagree
As a survivor of gun violence myself (seriously look it up), it is absurd to think that gun dealers and manufacturers were responsible in any way for that violence. The person using that tool (firearm) is responsible, and should be pursued for their violence to the maximum extent reasonable given the considerations of the crime.
