Connect with us

Opinions

The most important races of 2018: Part 1

Published

on

The most important races of 2018 Part 1

I don’t normally do article series, but this time I must. I break this up not because of volume but instead because of metrics this because there are different measurements of importance that would yield different results. Both measurements have long term potential but for different reasons. The first one is the more immediate importance, and this focuses on personnel.

Primaries have the chance to nominate ideological champions over “practical” politicians. Nominating the next Rand Paul or Ted Cruz would be a major impact on the Senate, Congress or Governorship for perhaps decades to come, and also a major impact on the state and country. Therefore, much of the races mentioned in this session will focus on the primaries for their higher emphasis on the individuals running as opposed to which party holds or doesn’t hold the seat. This measure of importance brings more Senate seats while the second is more focused on states.

This isn’t about races that are hotly contested, rather it’s about races with a good chance to send a very strong candidate that will shake things up in some way shape for the state or nation as a whole.

US Senate – Missouri

Claire McCaskill won her seat in 2012 against a self imploding candidate. Now she’s in trouble in a high stakes Senate race. Her potential challengers are numerous. A lot of personalities are hedging their bets. Steve Bannon’s horse is State Attorney General, Josh Hawley. Hawley resembles Ted Cruz, in that they both were on the winning sides of a major SCOTUS decision. For Hawley, it was Hobby Lobby. Hawley won the Attorney General seat in 2016 and is already seeking election into a higher, easier, office. Perhaps that’s a character flaw, or perhaps a sign of great ambition. The biggest conservative objection on paper is his over-admiration of Teddy Roosevelt. He is a strong candidate; the only thing holding him back is Bannon.

Then there’s former Libertarian challenger to Gary Johnson, Austin Petersen, a darling of conservative Twitter. Petersen is a pro-life Libertarian who wanted to rebrand the party in the same way, Rand Paul wants to rebrand Republicans. Wanting the best chance at making an impact, he switched parties to run for Senate. Petersen is a disciple of Ayn Rand, and with that comes atheism. Petersen is a grassroots candidate to watch out for.

Other candidates, I wouldn’t suggest are as strong as these two. But also keep an eye on conservative prodigy, Courtland Sykes. Courtland Sykes appears to have conservatism and also a solid military background. The other likable campaign touch is his two term pledge. We’ll see if he has the drive and skill to campaign in a crowded field.

Missouri presents a chance to put a really good conservative in the Senate, something there is a massive shortage of.

US Senate – Wyoming

John Barrasso finds himself facing reelection. Barrasso is a conservative on matters of guns, but is hardly frugal in countering the deficit. Expect a challenger or two… Erik Prince is considering the run. He would be Bannon backed for his informal ties to the Trump administration transition team. Prince very wealthy and could pose a threat if money won races. Then there’s Foster Friess. Friess is a Christian who so happens to be a highly skilled investment manager. The Trump administration decision to betray the Iraqi-Kurds nudged him into teasing a Senate run. Freiss seems like an ideal candidate for conservatives in Wyoming should he decide to run. But odds are, one of these rich guys throws their hat in to upset the incumbent.

US Senate – Arizona

Arizona has sent some terrible senators to DC. Several attempts to primary John McCain turned fruitless. However, anti-establishment now need not campaign against an incumbent seeing as Jeff Flake would rather not seek reelection than lose. This leaves a hotly contested field. Kelli Ward is first to stand out. She lost to McCain but had her sights set on building her base for another try. Ward stands as the current frontrunner in a Flakeless primary.

Another possible name is Martha McSally. Big government republicans are seeking replace Jeff Flake with McSally. McSally is no ally of Trump and resides in swing district that could have her returning to the private sector come 2019 anyway. So a Senate run may the best way to avoid losing should Democrats mount a sizable attack for her seat, which they should.

Another GOP candidate is the extremely young looking Craig Britain is running on an ambitious “Taxation is theft”, end the Fed platform. Then there’s Nicholas Tutora a health care (repeal and replace) focused candidate.

The Democrats will look to compete in this race. Kyrsten Sinema is a more centrist democrat who is in favor of Kate’s Law but not withholding funding for sanctuary cities as the representative from D-9. Expect a more hardline liberal to challenge her. This race may not provide an ideal conservative or liberal but to Republicans, it is more about retaining the seat with an Arizona Senator who won’t be an obstacle.

US Senate – Texas

Ted Cruz doesn’t seem like he has all that much competition but nonetheless keeping him in the Senate is vital to conservatives. Losing him would spell death for conservatism. That being said, expect democrats to throw another Wendy Davis into this fight, not someone who can win, but someone who can diametrically oppose Ted Cruz.

US House – Paul Ryan’s seat

This 1st District of Wisconsin is safely Republican, for now. Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan faces general unpopularity and a big name primary challenger Paul Nehlen. Nehlen lost embarrassingly last time and is looking to try again, much like Kelly Ward, though not as bad. Nehlen is a hardcore Trump MAGA spout who has reportedly gone off the Alt-Right deepend even for Breitbart folks. The Paul alternative is Nick Polce. Polce is running on opposing career politicians, which Paul Ryan certainly has become as opposed to a hardlined MAGA approach. This more grassroots approach could make this primary quite interesting.

Governor of California

This race seems solidly in the hands of liberals as its gearing to be a competitive primary between union favorite, Lt. Gov Gavin Newsome, and former LA mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. Unless Peter Thiel runs or a Roy Moore sized scandal erupts conveniently before the election, one of these two is the likely next governor. This race is important because of California’s continued sprint into liberalism. Although perhaps this the years of Jerry Brown will make a republican candidate a viable option much like how Larry Hogan became Governor of liberal Maryland. It’s hard for people to knowingly vote for higher taxes. And with Trump tax cuts, an anti-tax Republican may find themselves in a more formidable position.

US Senate – Maine

This seat was won by independent candidate, Angus King, in 2012. The state of Maine politics is currently in a heated partisan gridlock. 2018 is a big year for Maine, and the Senate race could very well be wide open. Angus King won in 2012 with a majority vote likely due to his history as Governor. King may seek to straddle the partisan fence, but it won’t be as easy now that he has a Senate record of voting staunchly liberal. It would be strategic for Democrats to let their ally go uncontested but it seems a further left candidate could divide liberal voters. Zak Ringelstein, is pro medicare for all which is a further sign of the left moving left.

This opens the door for GOP candidate Erick Brakey. Brakey is a State Senator with a solid conservative record and is also a libertarian turned Republican. Brakey would be a solid conservative Senator for Maine to make up for the RINO Susan Collins. This race is early and has the capability of a three way split that favors Brakey the most since King can’t really run on a bipartisan record that appeals to Republicans.

US House – Illinois

Generally speaking, Senate races are almost always more important than House races. However, this Democratic seat looks like it could be upended by a leftist candidate. Rep. Dan Lipinski of Ill-03 is regarded as one of the most conservative Democrats in Congress. He faces a challenger whose pro-abortion and far more anti-Trump. Marrie Newman is a fearsome primary challenger getting loads of support including Daily KosYou don’t often hear about Democrats being primaried for being too moderate or conservative. The ideological splits in the Democrats are sure to increase as they veer towards socialism. This primary looks to be the first battle in a potential intra-party war.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Opinions

Woman, thou art silenced

Published

on

I am old enough to remember the days when being a feminist meant supporting equal rights for men and women. I also remember the moment I realized that I was no longer allowed to call myself a feminist, when I had officially been banned from the club.

I am a Christian and a conservative: feminist no-no’s. Yes, I am a woman, but I think and I say all of the wrong things.

Woman, thou art silenced.

“What a pathetic way of thinking. How arrogant of Progressives to think that my hopes and dreams mirror their hopes and dreams. What an absolute bore….”

– A.E. Samaan

Being a feminist is no longer about equality for men and women. Nowadays, any woman calling herself a feminist must desire to topple “the patriarchy,” whatever that means.

She must castigate capitalism despite historical facts: capitalism, after all, is what enabled women to go to work outside of the home, start their own businesses, and achieve financial independence from men.

Furthermore, to be a 21st Century feminist, a woman must worship the god of intersectionality. For those who do not yet know, intersectionality is basically a rating system for women based on their victimhood status and membership in a “marginalized” group(s).

In practice, intersectionality is a de facto, apartheid caste system for women.

Finally, for a woman to be a feminist, she must relinquish all her knowledge of biological reality, her human integrity and her sense of womanhood to men who believe themselves to be women. No longer can she recognize the uniqueness of the female sex or acknowledge the physical experiences she has in her own body.

She must carefully watch her words. Even the word “vagina” is now deemed exclusionary, not inclusive; some “women” don’t have lady bits. She must balance a tight rope of conformity, and she must be oh-so careful not to offend any men who think they are chicks.

The toxic marriage of the intersectional hierarchy with the inclusion of “trans  women” (men) as real women has created a bizarre, regressive, injurious phenomenon that many women have been unprepared with which to grapple. Women who have (rightfully) spoken out against men being considered women and, thus, gaining entry into women-only spaces, have been chastised and shunned, often publicly.

Woman, thou art silenced.

In December 2017, Quebec’s largest feminist organization elected its new president: a “trans-woman” (a man) named Gabrielle Bouchard. To reiterate, a man is now the president of a women’s organization.

A man now holds a position that was reserved specifically for a woman. 

The Federation des Femmes du Quebec represents around 300 feminist groups and approximately 700 individual members.

Bouchard’s election has generated dismay and concern. The media, however, has remained strangely quiet on these concerns, a phenomenon Campagne-Quebec Vie’s president, Georges Buscemi, refers to as “an awkward silence.”

Buscemi believes “most Quebecers agree with him, and that’s why local media are ‘tiptoeing’ around the event” (lifesitenews). “It’s kind of a polite and embarrassed silence… I think everybody thinks, ‘This is ridiculous, but we can’t say it,’” he continued.

Commenting on the media silence regarding concerns surrounding Bouchard’s election, feminist writer Denise Bombardier stated, “We are all prisoners of a terrible political correctness since it forbids us to express any doubt about the validity of such a reality.”

Woman, though art silenced.

Gabrielle Bouchard, who ran for the presidency unopposed, has stated that his mission as head of the Federation des Femmes du Quebec is “about not leaving anyone behind” and fighting “for a more inclusive interpretation of womanhood,”(ctvnews).

Although claiming to represent all women, Bouchard is quick to attach derogatory labels to any women, especially feminists, who have expressed concerns regarding his ability to lead a women’s advocacy organization (as a man), and has claimed that these women are guilty of “trickle-down feminism.”

His feminist detractors, Gabrielle Bouchard accuses, are transphobic and sexist, and at least one online publication has branded these women “bigots.”

Bouchard told The Canadian Press, “They are saying we’ll tolerate trans women as long as they are not in a position of power.” Criticism, he complained, “presumes the identity barriers I face, the risk of violence I face, the risk of unemployment and not finding housing are illegitimate and not based in sexism.

Rather than on women, Bouchard’s focus is clearly on himself.

All the barriers I face are actually based in sexism. They also happen to be based in transphobia. I am living at the intersection of trans identity and being a woman, and it creates a marginalization that some women don’t face,” (emphasis mine).

Woman, thou art silenced.

Still, Canadian women have reason to be wary.

In 2013, Bouchard was the coordinator of peer support and trans advocacy for the 2110 Centre for Gender Advocacy. In an interview that year, Gabrielle Bouchard stated, “I don’t want to be an activist for whatever identity I have, because I’ve been transitioning for long enough to know that [my identity swings] from one month to another, one year to another, (emphasis mine). 

[To date, Bouchard has not stated whether he plans on identifying as a man during part of his tenure as president.]

When asked what types of support were needed in the trans community, Bouchard responded, “If I had to say one thing, [it would be that] we need the right to choose. And if I want to be radical, I would say that we need people to leave us the frack alone and stop caring if I have facial hair or not, a penis or not, boobs or not.”

According to feminist writer Denise Bombardier, there are greater issues, more pressing concerns surrounding Gabrielle Bouchard. In a December article, Bombardier wrote, “No debate can be held on what should be called a transgender offensive to explode the reality of both sexes to impose a breathtaking vision where there is no longer man or woman.” 

Specifically, Denise Bombardier pointed to a comment made by Gabrielle Bouchard during a public hearing (April 15, 2015): “It would be fun to abolish the sexes, but it is not something that will happen.”

Later during that same hearing, Bouchard also stated, “There are some guys who will give birth. So, to say ‘mother’ to automatically mean that it is the person who gave birth to a child, already there, that too, it is a step that must also be deconstructed because there are fathers who will give birth. To call it a maternity is to make it (sic)…”

“Maybe that parent, who is the person who is going to give birth, well, maybe he’ll have a beard there, or maybe have a big voice,” (emphasis mine).

Such statements from Bouchard appear to be fully in-line with a significant area of his advocacy: his goal is to open women’s shelters to “transgender women” (men).

In 2013, while serving as Centre 2110’s Peer Support and Advocacy coordinator, he claimed that the practice of identity/sex verification at women’s shelters is discriminatory. “In women’s shelters, if you don’t look the part, then questions are asked. These questions can be fundamentally discriminatory,” he said.

In August 2017, he stated “Most shelters refuse to even acknowledge that they have a problem with this, that there is strong transphobia amongst these organizations and that they need to move to stop that.” 

Perhaps worst of all is what Gabrielle Bouchard believes to be the root cause of the women’s shelter issue: myths that “trans women” make “cis women” (regular women) uncomfortable or that “trans women” may be unsafe additions to women’s shelters. These myths, Bouchard believes, must be debunked.

Here, what are presented as “myths” are no myths at all.

Women seeking refuge in shelters are often fleeing various kinds of abuse at the hands of men. Forcing traumatized women and children to share living quarters with biological males is both frightening and risky.

Still, Gabrielle Bouchard, who claims he will represent all women, is intent on victimizing and silencing the most vulnerable women in society.

This man insists on telling traumatized women that they must accept men into their shelter. This is the height of selfishness and idiocy.

Woman, thou art silenced.

But you don’t have to be…

 “It took me quite a long time to develop a voice, and now that I have it, I am not going to be silent.”

 – Madeleine Albright

Woman, be thou loud.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Hollywood is posturing, not repenting

Published

on

Hollywood is posturing not repenting

This whole #MeToo campaign is no different than the Red Ribbon campaign in the 1990’s. Hollywood has always been good at posturing, and actually not being a solution to any problem. If Hollywood or any entertainment industry machine in the world truly wants to clean up their act, they should look at themselves in the mirror and admit that they are flawed human beings, and throw some more men and women under the bus that hinder.

Never mind Harvey Weinstein or even Bill Cosby (who might have taught us certain moral scruples). How about Roman Polanski who raped then 13-year-old Samantha Gailey and is a fugitive from the law? At this rate, justice for Samantha will not prevail. It’s going to take God and God alone to finally rain down judgment on Polanski, I say right now he should get his affairs in order for that. Otherwise, another lost soul for Lucifer to claim. Kudos to Ben Shapiro for calling out these posturing punks, who just seek their personal interests still and still thumb their noses not only at God but middle America as well:

The Virtue-Signaling Anti-Virtue Crowd

https://townhall.com/columnists/benshapiro/2018/01/10/the-virtuesignaling-antivirtue-crowd-n2432171Imagine it’s late 2011. The world just found out about Jerry Sandusky, former assistant Penn State football coach who would be convicted of repeatedly raping children in 2012. Penn State higher-ups, in an attempt to turn the focus of the scandal away from the school, decide to turn an annual banquet into a celebration of those fighting child rape. They call up head coach Joe Paterno. They call up President Graham Spanier. They call up athletic director Tim Curley. All of them give long, brave speeches about the evils of sexual exploitation of children resulting in rousing applause from all the Penn State boosters. All the attendees wear pins showing their solidarity with molestation victims. The event is nationally televised.

Kevin Swanson’s Generations podcasts on January 10 and 11 2017 dealt with the entertainment industry in America here and now.

The January 10 podcast focused on the movie based on the life of P.T. Barnum (“The Greatest Showman”) and truly valued family especially his own and showing that he was not just seeking suckers “born every minute.” Barnum might have had freaks of nature in his show but deep down, he valued them as any human being. That being created in the image of God. He wanted to provide entertainment to families especially with women and children in mind. Also, the program points out how the degeneration of entertainment actually began in the roaring 1920’s and depression 1930’s starting with Mae West and her sexual flaunting and even the pushing bounds of transgenderism and adultery in the hit records way back in the day.

P.T. Barnum The Greatest Showman | Generations

https://www.generations.org/programs/839A recent motion picture release, “The Greatest Showman” features the early history of P.T. Barnum.  Last year, the Barnum and Bailey Circus shut down after 146 years.  We take a look at the history of circuses, zoos, and wholesome entertainment in America.  Then, we look at how it degraded quickly in the 1920s and 1930s.  Here is an analysis for Christians on what constitutes good family entertainment.  Is amusement biblical?  Is entertainment a good use of your time?

Swanson tackles the 2018 Gloden Globe awards on the January 11 podcast and points out how shameless they are in elevating depravity especially when it comes with sexuality and nihilism, and how it could be the end of society as well know it. Plus Swanson deals with how Hollywood handles and agrees with Margaret Atwood’s novel “The Handmaid’s Tale.” The current TV series and streaming service Hulu won two Gloden Globes including for Best Television Series-Drama. It already has won eight Emmys awards at the respected ceremony last year. Swanson calls Hollywood a dystopia which was allowed to spiral out of control who shows no shame to mocking God and his law.

They just proving Proverbs 8:36, 14:12 and Romans 1:18-32 correct.

​​The Golden Globe Awards 2018

https://www.generations.org/programs/840This year’s Golden Globe Awards glorify the absolute lowest forms of sexuality and nihilism, while trashing Christians at the same time. Here’s another first, in that we have the first television program to receive major awards whose sole function is to caricaturize R.J. Rushdoony, Greg Bahnsen, and Gary North.   The mass culture is spinning out of control, now.  We also visit Teen TV offerings for 2018.  The WSJ calls it “darker than ever.”

Continue Reading

Healthcare

Please disregard all other interpretations of the President’s Tweet on CHIP

Published

on

Please disregard all other interpretations of the Presidents Tweet on CHIP

Reports are flying across mainstream media that Republicans in DC are “baffled” by the President’s Tweet this morning about Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). To be fair, there’s definitely room for misunderstanding.

Republicans are using CHIP funding as a negotiating tool to push forward a stopgap measure to keep the government funded. It’s a PR move; Republicans want to be able to say the Democrats voted against helping needy children if they oppose the stopgap measure.

There are three reasons the President would have Tweeted this:

  1. He isn’t aware that GOP leaders on Capitol Hill are using the 6-year extension as leverage to keep the government funded.
  2. He wants a government shutdown.
  3. He doesn’t believe they need to play that particular “chip” for a 30-day extension and would prefer they save it for a long-term government funding deal.

Most in the media and apparently a handful of Republicans on Capitol Hill are going with option 1:

Trump baffles GOP with tweet scrambling shutdown talks

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/369545-trump-baffles-gop-with-tweet-scrambling-shutdown-talksPresident Trump undermined his own party’s plan to avert a looming government shutdown on Thursday after tweeting that a key Democratic bargaining chip shouldn’t be attached to the funding package.

The 17-word tweet threw Capitol Hill into a state of confusion ahead of what is already expected to be a tight vote in the House on Thursday night. Republicans on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue were trying to decipher what exactly the president meant by declaring that a popular children’s health-care program should be part of a “long term solution” as opposed to a “30 Day, or short term, extension.”

A handful of pundits on both sides of the aisle are going with option 2. They’re taking into account past comments by the President saying a shutdown wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing. Some conservatives support this idea. Most Democrats think it makes him evil (though they didn’t have the same reaction when the government was shut down during President Obama’s watch). They see the President as truly trying to undermine the process and force a shutdown.

The truth is option 3. He believes a 6-year extension on an extremely popular program is being wasted on a 30-day deal. He wants to save the “CHIP chip,” so to speak, for a long-term government funding deal that would extend beyond the election.

To some extent, he’s correct. The challenge is in logistics and uncertainty. Had the GOP pushed forward a 6-month CHIP funding extension as part of the deal with the understanding that a longer extension would be worked into the long-term funding plan, they’d be in better shape. In fact, making it a 6-month extension puts it in the spotlight ahead of the real push for a long-term plan. It would add a sense of urgency. Now, they’re wasting it to buy themselves another month. Unfortunately, the 6-year promise is already on the table. It would be difficult to pull it back now.

Once again, the media completely misses the point the President is trying to make and hopes others will fall for it. The sad thing is many Republicans in DC are among those falling for the media’s trickery. Just get the deal done and stop worrying about the President’s Twitter account.

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.