Connect with us

Opinions

The Conservative Picks for the Indiana Primary

Published

on

In keeping with my commitment, I am searching the nation for the top Conservative options in order to prevent RINOs from betraying their campaign conservative stances. In the past primaries, specifically Illinois, it was incredibly disappointing how Conservatism performed at the ballot. In neighboring state, Indiana, things look a little more hopeful.  A common theme in this edition will be the opposition of incumbents who voted for Omnibus. Indiana is a red state and its districts change slightly once in a while. Nonetheless, I don’t see any blue seats flipping while the Blue Wave will likely target the 2nd and the 9th most heavily.

Best Picks: Jonathan Lamb, Diego Morales, Steve Braun, Trey Hollingsworth, Richard Moss
Worst Picks: Luke Messer, Jackie Walorski, Larry Bucshon, Jim Baird
Best Race: District 4
Worst Race: US Senate

US Senate

Here we have a three way race between Mike Braun, Luke Messer, and Todd Rokita. Messer and Rokita are current Congressmen looking to upgrade to the less accountable Senate office. That being said recent events have made the vetting process rather easy for this race. Luke Messer is a complete and utter RINO, endorsed by RINO Rep. Susan Brooks. Messer voted for the Omnibus spending bill thus disqualifying him from consideration. Todd Rokita is far more fiscally responsible and has remained strong in the era of Trump. Rokita voted against Omnibus and measures that funded Planned Parenthood. Mike Braun is a current State Rep. and very wealthy outside of politics. In politics however, he isn’t that conservative. His voting record shows that he isn’t the most free market friendly; for instance, he voted against decreasing regulations on hair braiders and voted to increase regulations on car dealerships (probably a bill made in response to Tesla). I wrote an entire article on this race in particular. This race sucks because the only actual Conservative is Todd Rokita and he is a bumper sticker. I have a hard time seeing Mike Braun as the more favorable option. He has the smell of a RINO and is a cronyist. I don’t really like the options at-hand but my gut says Todd Rokita is the safest bet.

Conservative Pick: Todd Rokita

District 1

Democrats have a stranglehold on the 1st with David Visclosky running for reelection. The GOP has six potential challengers. John Meyer had a failed 2016 election run and perhaps that is reason enough to discard him. Roseann Ivanovich is an attorney running on business focused issues. However, she offers problems on her website, not solutions. And I am skeptical of candidates that focus on student debt. They usually aren’t that strong. In 2014, Mark Leyva lost to Visclosky, though he at least made it to election day unlike Meyers. What is really likable about Leyva is his detailed platform and stance on the US Constitution. I believe he would make a strong candidate. The other candidates aren’t formidable enough to go into detail on.

Conservative Pick: Mark Leyva

District 2

Jackie Walorski is seeking reelection as a Republican. She has an F Liberty Score and participated in the Omnibus Spending Bill. Mark Summe, is a graduate student at the University of Notre Dame, and is a Ph.D. candidate in the department of chemical and biomolecular engineering. He also isn’t running a serious campaign. Nontheless, a losing shot in the dark is a message to send to Walorski.

Conservative Pick: Mark Summe

District 3

The incumbent, Jim Banks is running unopposed.

District 4

With Todd Rokita looking to upgrade, he’s leaving a hole to be filled and this is a tight race to fill it. The biggest candidate in this race appears to be Steve Braun. Braun is running as the Conservative. He has a good standing with the NRA and the endorsement of Indiana Right To Life. Also running from the right is Diego Morales, businessman and political outsider. Morales is well educated and well versed in international affairs. In dealing with immigration, Morales speaks with personal experience as an immigrant from Guatemala remaining firm against amnesty for DACA. This was in sharp contrast to Jim Baird. Baird is a State Rep with underwhelming Conservative credentials voting against pro-life and pro-gun measures in 2017. RINO watch initiated on Baird. Enter Jared Thomas who looks to be the low funded grassroots option pledging to cap his campaign at $50000. Though claiming to be Christian his stance on abortion is incredibly weak and his stance on gun rights suggests that he would compromise them in face of crisis like Rick Scott. There are other candidates such as Tim Radice but I don’t think he stands much of a chance against the others. Nonetheless, everything about him indicates, he’s a principled candidate. This is a good race with the good problem of multiple good candidates.

Conservative Pick: Steve Braun or Diego Morales

District 5

Shamefully RINO Susan Brooks is unopposed.

District 6

While Todd Rokita abandoned his seat to pursue the Senate, likewise so did Luke Messor. This race is another feeding frenzy. The biggest name in the race is Greg Pence. You might recognize the last name because he is the older brother of the Vice President. Naturally, Greg Pence is snagging all of the major endorsements. Surprisingly this hasn’t gotten a whole lot of attention. The David facing off against this Goliath is Jonathan Lamb an entrepreneur and political outsider. Lamb is running independent of Trump focuing on Conservative values and policies. This approach is refreshing as Conservatives hate being caught in the middle of a Trump Establishment vs Big Government GOP battle. Lamb’s positions are that of a Constitutional Conservative. Greg Pence may be a fine Congressman, but it seems as though he’s running because of dynastical politics and not so much his own accord. Also, if he’s older than Pence, maybe he ought not run. Jonathan Lamb is a youthful face to add to the Conservative movement, and is a top pick.

Conservative Pick: Jonathan Lamb

District 7

District 7 is in the grasp of Democrats and the GOP is responding with little vigor in this race. Donald Eason Jr. seems like the best candidate in this race given his lack of history campaigning for this seat in the past along with his wholehearted small government stances.

District 8

Incumbent Larry Bucshon is a very fiscally irresponsible Republican. Unsurprisingly he voted for Omnibus and funded Planned Parenthood on multiple occasions. The good news is, he faces two challengers. Enter Rachel Covington. She doesn’t seem all that conservative, but she does offer unique solutions including tackling the national debt. I ultimately wouldn’t recommend her because by her own admission she’s a utilitarian, a philosophy that regards collective happiness over individual rights. Richard Moss is the other challenger, a more aggressive one at that. He is actively campaigning on Bucshon’s leftism. Moss is a Conservative and the best option against Bucshon.

Conservative Pick: Richard Moss

District 9

Trey Hollingsworth has been representing the 9th since only 2017. In this time he has remained fiscally conservative opposing Omnibus and other fiscally irresponsible debt deals. His opponent, James Dean Alspach was documented supporting universal healthcare at a debate sponsored by a pro-single payer organization. Hollingsworth didn’t attend that debate. Considering that Alspach is running from the left, Hollingsworth is a nobrainer for a second term.

Conservative Pick: Trey Hollingsworth

 

Continue Reading
Advertisement
2 Comments

2 Comments

  1. Dallas Halcomb

    May 8, 2018 at 12:18 pm

    Rokita is the Conservative choice? Good Lord, Smarmy RINO is the best we have for this seat? He has a D Liberty score. And I don’t know (or really care) what his NRA score is, because the NRA only cares about Gun Issue voting, and ignores everything else, even if it would ultimately affect gun rights in the long run. (And I’m a Life Member, and have signed up 12 others as Life Members). I’m almost willing to risk it on Braun, just because he’s no worse than Rokita

    • Ray Fava

      May 8, 2018 at 8:26 pm

      I can understand the appeal of Braun. Businessman background and not currently part of the swamp, but the more I learned the less I liked. If he has a D rating at the end of one term, I’d consider it a win for his fans. But he’s a RINO. Either way Conservatives in the Senate aren’t getting any reinforcements from this state. On the plus side Greg Pence is surely better than Messer and the winner from IN04 won’t be worse, hopefully.

      Thanks for the comment!

Leave a Reply

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

Conspiracy Theory

The Liberty grabber Left has nuked its own argument over guns. Part I

Published

on

By

The Liberty grabber Left has nuked its own argument over guns Part I

The Left can’t argue that you don’t need a gun because the government won’t turn tyrannical while threatening that the government will turn tyrannical.

In what has to be the ultimate and game-changing tweet, Representative Eric Swalwell (D-CA) threatened nuclear annihilation to anyone who refuses to give up their right of self-defense. The ensuing ‘fallout’ seeing him resort to damage control tactic of saying that thermonuclear gun confiscation was just a ‘joke’. After all, Who hasn’t chuckled at the prospect of the government going tyrannical with an H-bomb? One can easily see the bumper stickers now: Vote Swalwell 2020- or I will nuke your…

One of the Left’s favorite little tactics is to accuse those of the Pro-Liberty right of being ‘terrorists’ as their usual method of demonizing their opponents. Take note of the Oxford English Dictionary definition of the word Terrorist:

Adjective [attributive] Unlawfully using violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

Origin
Late 18th century: from French terroriste, from Latin terror (see terror). The word was originally applied to supporters of the Jacobins in the French Revolution, who advocated repression and violence in pursuit of the principles of democracy and equality.

The long train of demands for gun confiscation

Perhaps Eric ‘Nukem’ Swalwell doesn’t realize his tweet was the ultimate in the listing of demands for gun confiscation by the Liberty grabber Left. A long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, as Thomas Jefferson termed it in the Declaration of Independence. That his erstwhile ‘joke’ he, Piers Morgan and others have made is the nuclear straw that broke the camels back. They, along with all the other Leftists who have demanded gun confiscation have initiated a sea of change in the debate over the common sense human right of self-defense.

The old approach by the Left that denied that confiscation was their ultimate goal

It used to be that the Left would hide behind a mask of support of the 2nd amendment. Never mind that each move they made was towards their final solution to the gun problem. Their tired refrain to most arguments about guns was that ‘No one is talking about gun confiscation’ or ‘No one is talking about repealing the 2nd amendment’ or some variation thereof. This was a way to short-circuit the debate to one of incremental or ‘progressive’ steps negating any of their ill effects.

Pointing out that some new law would punish 120 million gun owners for the deeds of a few criminals would see the abject denial of ‘no one is being punished’ or ‘No one is talking about gun confiscation’.

Mention that a new restriction on freedom infringing on the 2nd amendment and those who pretend to be Liberal on the Left would answer back ‘No one is talking about repealing the 2nd amendment’.

Talk about Intergalactic Background Checks [or Universal, enhanced or ‘Common sense’] would place government control over your personal property while acting as a stepping stone to confiscation would be met with the assertion that you must believe in conspiracy theories and that ‘No one is talking about gun confiscation’.

The disturbing trend in Leftists demands for gun confiscation.

We have previously established that the Left wants to ban and confiscate all guns with over 70 documented instances of those demands. Leaving out the multiplying effect of the excerpting and reprinting of those demands.

This arduous task was under taken to prove a point, that the Left has dropped the mask on this subject. But it has also revealed a disturbing trend over the years. What began a few years ago as few and far between calls for gun confiscation has morphed into far more strident and frequent demands. Demands that were only made in obscure far-Left online publications have found their way into the mainstream and supposedly Liberal media sources. The rate on the number of demands made per ‘serious crisis’ have accelerated to the ultimate demand made by Eric ‘Nukem’ Swalwell. This has manifestly changed the debate in favour of the Pro-Liberty Conservative side.

Consider a sampling of these demands:

What began as mere calls to amend the Constitution – removing a fundamental human right in the process – or banning certain ‘types’ of guns. Have become threats to turn over all of our guns or to ‘comprise’ and lose some of them with incremental steps.

Then the Left became impatient, unable to restrain it’s ‘collective’ hatred of Liberty.

For at least the past several years, to say that those two talking points [or a variation thereof] were a complete and total lie would be an understatement of epic proportions. But even now that hasn’t stopped Leftists from denying the obvious.

But now the Nuke comment has changed all of that, everyone is now seeing that the Left has been making their demands for gun confiscation in every corner of their echo chamber. This is part of the reason many have undertaken the task of documenting these demands such as Here, Here and of course here.

Their open demands for gun confiscation and for the suppression of other types of Liberty have changed the dynamic. It is now a question of Liberty versus tyranny – with the Left being on the side of governmental oppression to the tune of nuclear annihilation if one does not comply.

In part II we will examine the debate in terms of the new paradigm of Liberty versus Tyranny.

Continue Reading

Immigration

3 migrant caravan claims Jim Acosta made to President Trump that have been debunked… by the migrant caravans

Published

on

3 migrant caravan claims Jim Acosta made to President Trump that have been debunked by the migrant c

CNN’s Jim Acosta has been at the center of the news cycle for 12 days. It’s not his reporting that landed him there. He’s the center of attention after the Secret Service suspended his hard pass to the White House. His pass is back and most seem to be moving on from the story. But something has been lost in the mix. The statements he made while badgering the President on November 7 were spoken with authority and certainty.

Less than two weeks later, all three of his claims have been proven wrong by the migrant caravans themselves.

“They’re hundred of miles away, though. They’re hundreds and hundreds of miles away.”

Around 3,000 migrants arrived in the last few days, doubling the total number of migrants waiting to be processed at the San Ysidro border crossing to 6000. Thousands more are expected in the coming days.

They certainly walked “hundreds and hundreds of miles” very quickly.

Tijuana border crossing shut as Mexicans protest against arrival of migrant caravan

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/11/19/tijuana-border-crossing-shut-mexicans-protest-against-arrival/An estimated 3,000 migrants have arrived in recent days in Tijuana, which sprawls into San Diego in southern California.

On Sunday several hundred Tijuana residents took to the streets to protest against the caravan, which set out from Honduras on October 13.

“Your campaign had an ad showing migrants climbing over walls and so on, but they’re not going to be doing that.”

A picture can say a thousand words, but in this case it only has to say two words to Acosta: “Wrong again.”

Migrants Climb Border Fence

“As you know, Mr. President, the caravan was not an invasion. It’s a group of migrants moving up from Central America towards the border with the U.S.”

How many criminals need to be among the migrants for it to be considered an invasion? 50? 100? 200?

How about 500?

Migrant caravan at US border is harboring more than 500 criminals, Homeland Security claims

https://www.foxnews.com/us/migrant-caravan-may-be-in-tijuana-for-the-long-haul-while-u-s-shuts-down-san-diego-area-crossingMore than 500 criminals are traveling with the migrant caravan that’s massed on the other side of a San Diego border crossing, homeland security officials said Monday afternoon.

The revelation was made during a conference call with reporters, with officials asserting that “most of the caravan members are not women and children”. They claimed the group is mostly made up of single adult or teen males and that the women and children have been pushed to the front of the line in a bid to garner sympathetic media coverage.

By now, any thinking person regardless of political ideology should realize Jim Acosta is an idiot. In the short time he held the mic at the press conference, he made three debunked statements. Journalists are supposed to expose the truth, not spread lies.

Continue Reading

Democrats

Beto 2020 is real and Republicans shouldn’t ignore it

Published

on

Beto 2020 is real and Republicans shouldnt ignore it

Any time a candidate for one office says they will not run in for a different office later, don’t believe them. It’s a pre-election narrative to dispel rumors from their opponents that the first office is just a stepping stone. It also gives a sense of urgency to the candidate’s potential voters. Put me in office now because you won’t get a chance later, or so the story goes.

If anything, someone saying they won’t run for a higher office later is a sure indicator they will consider running for a higher office later. That’s why when Representative Beto O’Rourke (D-TX) said he wouldn’t run for President in 2020 whether he won his Senate race or not, I took it as a sure sign he would definitely run if he did well in Texas. I figured if he got blown away, he was done. If he won the Senate race, he’d probably wait until 2024 if President Trump won in 2020 or 2028 if a Democrat won in 2020.

The only way he’d run in 2020, by my estimation, was if he lost but came close. He lost to Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) by just over 200,000 votes. Cruz won in 2012 by over 1.2 million votes.

What I considered the trigger scenario for a Beto 2020 presidential run happened. Now, we’re seeing stories like these:

‘He’s Barack Obama, but white’: Beto O’Rourke blows up the 2020 Democratic primary

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/19/beto-orourke-2020-democratic-primary-995353Sparked by his narrow defeat in a Texas Senate race, Beto O’Rourke is scrambling the 2020 presidential primary field, freezing Democratic donors and potential campaign staffers in place as they await word of his plans.

Even prior to O’Rourke’s meteoric rise, many Democratic fundraisers had approached the large number of 2020 contenders with apprehension, fearful of committing early to one candidate. But the prospect of a presidential bid by O’Rourke, whose charismatic Senate candidacy captured the party’s imagination, has suddenly rewired the race.

Before anyone comes to the conclusion I think I “called it,” I’m acutely aware that I missed Beto by a mile. Yes, I believed that the scenarios were aligned so that a close defeat would propel him to a 2020 presidential bid, but I also had assumed until about a week before the election that he was going to lose by a wide margin. Even on election day I predicted 7.5%. He lost by 2.6%, which in Texas means I missed it by nearly half a million votes. No, I didn’t see the risk he represented properly.

I see it now.

He has three major things going for him that, to me, make him the person to watch over the next year at least.

  1. He’s the best fundraiser in the nation. Period. For a Senate race, he was able to raise $38 million in the third quarter alone and nearly $70 million total. This is small fries for a presidential run, but the only other Senate candidate to come close was Rick Scott in Florida. The #3 and #4 fundraisers – Claire McCaskill in Missouri and Bob Hugin in New Jersey – were able to raise $63 million combined. If he raised that much for a Senate race, he would be able to easily eclipse Hillary Clinton’s 2016 totals. The only person who is arguably better than O’Rourke at fundraising is Barack Obama, and he’ll surely be helping O’Rourke if he gets the nomination.
  2. His national appeal is similar to Barack Obama’s. To be more accurate, his national appeal far exceeds Barack Obama’s appeal when he ran for the Senate in Illinois. These are different days so we can’t assume his head start on appeal will translate into more popularity than the former President if he were to win the nomination, but it bodes well for O’Rourke that he’s still getting a ton of attention two weeks after losing an election. At this point in 2016, even Democrats were begging Hillary Clinton to go away. But they haven’t had their fill on Beto yet.
  3. He has nothing better to do. When the incoming representatives are sworn in next year, he’ll be a free man. Free to hang out in Iowa and New Hampshire. Free to attack Republicans over policies and Democrats over failures. Free to talk to bundlers, strategists, journalists, and voters. While his competition will be sitting in Senate committee meetings or running their business, O’Rourke will be in 2020 mode without having to hide it. Losing may have been a blessing in disguise.

The midterm elections demonstrated opposition to Trump is as rabid as his support. It’s hard to imagine someone as far to the left as O’Rourke winning. Then again, it was hard to imagine him getting over 48% of the vote in Texas.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report