Connect with us

Opinions

A Conservative Republican candidate’s plea to his own party

Published

on

Republicans join Democrats to spend more money and bankrupt America

I am extremely disappointed in the state of the Republican party. As the Republican candidate for California State Controller, it is difficult for me to make an argument on why people should vote Republican. I do not like the argument that the Democrats have gone so far off the deep-end that we have no other choice. I don’t like binary choices or picking the lesser of two evils. If I am going to be a standard-bearer for the Republican party in California, then give me a reason to be proud of my own party.

It is not easy being a Republican in California. Many times the R next to my name is more of a liability than a benefit, and it’s not because of what the Republican party stands for. It’s because many Republicans don’t believe in the principles of limited government, local control, economic freedom, and fiscal responsibility. People don’t like liars and hypocrites and if people can’t trust us, why should they vote for us?

You ask us to vote for you to limit the government, cut spending, and lower the deficit, and once we give you power, you betray us and pass one of the worst spending bills in Congressional history ($1.3 trillion omnibus bill). You demonize Obama’s trillion dollar deficits but once in power, you continue with the reckless irresponsible spending.

If the party wants to spend money like a drunken sailor (no offense to drunken sailors), then they should just come out and say conservatives are no longer welcome in this party. If that is the case, then I call upon the leadership of the GOP to call me and tell me to my face that I’m no longer welcome in the party. As conservative commentatory Steve Deace always says, “Don’t pee on me and tell me that it’s raining,”

As I have always stated, I’m a Conservative that happens to be a Republican, not a Republican that happens to be a Conservative. I’m a conservative because I seek to conserve that which history has proven to be optimal and economic policies grounded in reality, not wishful thinking.

There is not one example in history that overbearing centralized government, that recklessly spends, destroys the purchasing power of currency by printing money and accumulating debt has prospered in the long-run. Just like so many powerful empires and nations before us, they believed that they would never collapse, so do we in our pride and arrogance believe we can go down the same road and buck history and not become just another footnote in history.

We cannot continue down this path forever and I do not believe we are past the point-of-no-return, but if we do not change course soon we will become another footnote in history.

If you love this country as I do, then do the patriotic thing and stop destroying this country with your irresponsible spending. Learn from the mistakes of the past and realize that these policies might have short-term benefits but in the long-run what you are actually voting for is a slow and painful death by suicide, inflicted by you, those that we entrusted to protect us.

Therefore, I call on my own party to do what is right and once again embrace the principles our party was founded upon. Let us be the leaders the people can trust, let us be the leaders that would rather lose an election but in the end, save America from the looming disaster coming towards us. I beg you, become that which you once were.


Konstantinos Roditis is a candidate for California State Controller. You can learn more about his campaign at cacontroller.com, and you can follow him on Twitter & Facebook.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Opinions

Nature, an international journal of ‘science,’ makes ludicrous political statement on sex and gender

Published

on

Nature an international journal of science makes ludicrous political statement on sex and gender

Anyone who thinks science is objective would be partially correct. Anyone who believes scientists are objective hasn’t been paying much attention lately.

Let’s look at a single paragraph from Nature, the self-proclaimed International Journal of Science. I’m not cherrypicking a single bad paragraph. It just encapsulates the lunacy being promoted in the name of this “scientific” article.

US proposal for defining gender has no basis in science

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07238-8The proposal — on which HHS officials have refused to comment — is a terrible idea that should be killed off. It has no foundation in science and would undo decades of progress on understanding sex — a classification based on internal and external bodily characteristics — and gender, a social construct related to biological differences but also rooted in culture, societal norms and individual behaviour. Worse, it would undermine efforts to reduce discrimination against transgender people and those who do not fall into the binary categories of male or female.

Let’s start from the top and work our way down. The opinion of this “scientific” journal is that a proposed classification system designed to protect all people’s privacy and safety without the possibility for discrimination is a “terrible idea that should be killed off.” This, of course, has no basis whatsoever in the science they claim to promote. Don’t get me wrong. There are times when science and politics mix, especially when it comes to allocation of research spending. But this isn’t like saying, “Research dollars spent on curing individual types of cancer would be better used helping scientists understand the root cause of all types of cancers.” That conclusion would come from the mix of science and politics. On the topic of sex and gender, they’ve abandoned the scientific side of the argument and gone completely political.

Their next statement is incredible. “It has no foundation in science and would undo decades of progress in understanding sex.” This isn’t simply inaccurate. It’s a bald faced lie. Of course sex is based on science. In the rare cases where sex is ambiguous or indeterminable, science enables doctors to help babies move along the path of least resistance while also allowing them the ability to self-determine their sex when they are older. Exceptions can and should be made in such cases. As for undoing “decades of progress understanding sex,” this is also a politically motivated lie. The HHS proposal has absolutely nothing to do with progress understanding sex. They aren’t changing textbooks or erasing research. Again, Nature is weaponizing their scientific credentials to give weight to a purely political statement. It’s a catchy use of words that could have just as easily been written by leftist speechwriters as alleged scientists.

As for gender, we’ll give that part of the statement to them. If we are to base sex on science, then we should accept that gender is a preference. We may not agree with someone’s preference, but that’s really none of our business unless it affects us directly. Thankfully, the rules proposed by HHS pertain to sex, not gender identity.

The last sentence of the paragraph is the funny one. Any hopes the editors had of not coming across as total political hacks masquerading as scientists can be tossed out the window when we read, “Worse, it would undermine efforts to reduce discrimination against transgender people and those who do not fall into the binary categories of male or female.”

Their entire article tries to ride the scientific high horse to the leftist finish line, but they can only do so by abandoning the science they claim to uphold and embracing the politics they claim to despise. This is why their best arguments revolve around discrimination. Unfortunately for them, being their best arguments does not mean they’re good arguments.

Let’s be clear about the charges the left likes to make about discrimination. By definition, there is nothing discriminatory about basing decisions surrounding sex on the biological physical components that determine sex. In fact, it’s the only way to NOT discriminate because it puts all people on equal footing. There are no advantages given to those who choose a non-biological sex as their gender and there are no disadvantages to people who abide by the sex they were born into. But the left loves throwing “discrimination” and “bigotry” into the mix any time there’s a perceived threat to their all-encompassing supremacy over accepted cultural norms.

Political statements disguised as science hurts both sides of the coin. It confuses the politics and dirties the science. Shame on Nature for weaponizing their credentials to push a political ideology. The credibility of this “scientific” journal is gone.

Continue Reading

Foreign Affairs

President Trump sends the wrong message about Saudi Arabia

Published

on

President Trump sends the wrong message about Saudi Arabia

It’s no secret I am not a fan of President Trump’s temperament, style, or morals, but I’ve been honest about supporting many pieces of his agenda. I fall into the same bucket as many conservative commentators who applaud when he does right while booing when he does wrong. His statement on the Saudi Arabia situation regarding the murder of Jamal Khashoggi is worthy of more than just boos. It’s an embarrassment to the United States because it sends the wrong message to any who read it, foreign or domestic.

I’m not alone in feeling this way, though fewer conservatives than I’d like to see are willing to speak out:

Let’s look at the President’s points one-by-one.

Iran

Preisident Response to Saudi Arabia 1

He led with his strongest point: Iran. Saudi Arabia is the primary counterbalance that keeps Iran from becoming the dominant regime in the Middle East. It behooves us to keep the Saudis better equipped, which also helps bolster our economy. Keeping the Saudis ahead of Iran should have been the only thing the President highlighted as reasons to not completely end our relationship with them. But it wasn’t. He added more points to his pitch.

Business

President Responds to Saudi Arabia 2

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. This tells Americans and the world that our loyalty is for sale. If you spend enough money, you can get away with murder. It wasn’t the President’s intention to deliver such a message, but that’s exactly how it came out. The consummate salesman saw it as a benefit to include in his message as if this was a value proposition. It should have gone unsaid.

A little punishment

President Responds to Saudi Arabia 3

This part of the message says, “we did something.” It wasn’t much, but at least there’s some action being taken against those directly responsible. However, it should have been noted that this is the initial response and as the investigation continues it’s very likely we will deliver harsher punishment to others responsible. He couldn’t say that, though, because we won’t deliver any more punishment. We won’t investigate further. As far as the White House is concerned, this is done. Mohammed bin Salman isn’t getting his hand slapped, let alone any actual punishment for his evil actions.

Classic Trump

President Responds to Saudi Arabia 4

This paragraph tells us either the President wrote the statement himself or someone is excellent at mimicking him. It’s classic Trump in style and function. Say something bad about the victim but temper it by saying the victim’s affiliations had nothing to do with his decision. Then acknowledge the possibility that MBS was involved; “maybe he did and maybe he didn’t!”

He did. Despite weak protestations from the Kingdom, every piece of evidence and every action the Saudis took all point unquestionably towards MBS.

The close

President Responds to Saudi Arabia 6

The last two paragraphs were for his base. They’re intended to justify the decision and remind his supporters that he’s doing this because it’s in the best interests of the United States. It’s his closing of the sales pitch and it will work on most Republicans who embrace him.

For me, this is all a bunch of nonsense. It’s a smokescreen to keep us from seeing the reality of the situation, which can be summed up in one paragraph:

A decent ally that does lots of business with America just got a free pass because the man responsible happens to be very friendly to the administration. We are abandoning our values in the same way President Obama did on numerous occasions with his foreign policy. The message to the world is that our silence on human rights issues is for sale.

The message should have been, “We will punish MBS for murdering Jamal Khashoggi, but we will not let this bolster Iran’s foothold in the Middle East.” Instead, the message was, “It is what it is, but we need the business.” Very sad.

Continue Reading

Entertainment and Sports

Amazon’s Homecoming shows Sam Esmail may be the best writer-director on television

Published

on

Amazons Homecoming shows Sam Esmail may be the best writer-director on television

Fans of Mr. Robot can point to many things they love about the show. The original storyline, impeccable acting, sharp direction, and stunning twists make it fun throughout its first three seasons. But it’s with Homecoming, the Julia Roberts series on Amazon, that creator-writer-director Sam Esmail shows he’s more than just a guy with cool story ideas.

Don’t worry. No spoilers.

Before we get into Esmail, let’s get the cast out of the way. Roberts, Stephan James, Bobby Cannavale, and Shea Whigham are all perfectly cast in their roles. That’s rare for television; even Mr. Robot had a few casting miscues, but Rami Malek made up for those. In Homecoming, it’s hard to imagine anyone doing better at playing the four major characters.

Now, onto Esmail. This psychological drama is set in two different time periods that Esmail frames perfectly, literally. He shoots the past in widescreen and the present in a square frame. If anyone has ever used this clever differentiating device, that’s news to me.

But beyond his trademark camera cleverness that leans heavily on visual storytelling, Esmail does something extraordinary. He makes a somewhat interesting story premise absolutely enthralling. With Mr. Robot, it’s easy to get engulfed by the story because it’s huge. There are worldwide implications to every machination of multiple good guys and bad guys. The premise is easy to play with, and while Esmail made it his own and told the story brilliantly, the sheer magnitude of the stakes are enough to keep people interested.

With Homecoming, there aren’t insanely talented hackers taking on the biggest corporation in the world with vast criminal organizations intermingled into the plot. Instead, we have a waitress, a low-level government pencil pusher, a creepy mid-level executive, and a soldier. Esmail takes this humble premise and somehow keeps us immersed in intrigue. I can’t say much more without spoiling it, so I won’t.

Season two is already green-lit. We don’t know how well the first season did since Amazon doesn’t report viewing numbers, but the critical response has been strong, scoring a 99% on Rotten Tomatoes. Reports indicate we can expect the next installment in fall, 2019.

One note to those who will watch it – pay attention to the visual mastery. Small screen directors often overlook the nuance of the visual components of their work, but Esmail lives in the nuances. His mastery over shot selection, lighting, and a Fincheresque control of camera movements had me rewinding several scenes in order to absorb it all.

We are seeing the early stages of what could end up being a tremendous directing career. I can’t wait to see Homecoming and Mr. Robot carry on, but I’m even more excited about any new projects Esmail brings to the small screen.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report