Connect with us

Media

Conservative Picks for the Ohio 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. The Ohio Primary presents an opportunity to advance Conservatism in the state. Ohio is a red state that is plagued by unions and opioids. Leftists in Ohio are also more daring than in other states to run as a Republican because they know Democrats will lose. Nonetheless, Ohio had some principled Conservatives which the Freedom Caucus is helping.

Best Picks: Jim Jordan, Christina Hagan, Melanie Leneghan, Todd Wolfrum
Worst Picks: Samuel Ronan, Bill Johnson, Robert Blazek, Anthony Gonzales, Bob Latta, Bob Gibbs, Michael Turner
Best Races: District 12, District 4
Worst Races: District 1, District 6, Ohio Senate,

Ohio Gov

An interesting matchup here which deviates from the typical RINO vs Conservative. On one side we have Mike DeWine and Mary Taylor. Mary Taylor may initially stand out as the Conservative candidate with endorsement from Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Mike Lee. But she’s also backed by John Kasich the most leftist of all the GOP Presidential candidates. Mike DeWine, one may peg as a RINO but strong Conservatives such as Troy Balderson and Kevin Bacon have given him the nod. This race is filled with misinformation with both candidates accusing the other of being leftist. Sites like Breitbart are trying to make this a battle against the Establishment that this race really isn’t. Ted Cruz isn’t infallible with his endorsements as proven with Steve Montenegro early this election season. However a history lesson courtesy of the Buckey Firearm Association is the deciding information: Mike DeWine is anti-gun. He was formerly a Senator who favored gun control and when he was thrown out for it, sought other elected offices. This dude needs a place to rest his head. And for that reason he is out of consideration. Mary Taylor may be associated with Kasich but at least she’s not anti-gun.

Conservative Pick: Mary Taylor

US Senate

This race is believed to be one of the most easily flipped races for the Senate. Last month Trump added his personal touch on the race and endorsed Jim Renacci, Representative of the 16th District. After 7 years, Renacci has nothing to show for it other than a mediocre record. . It seems as though he is the hand selection of Cocaine Mitch. He also voted for Omnibus which discredits him from being a Conservative Pick. Renacci has many endorsements, but none from nationwide conservatives Those were received by Josh Mandel. Mandel was the race’s frontrunner before having to withdraw citing his wife’s help. And so the race seems as though it is between Ranacci and Gibbons. Mike Gibbons is a business man. He has gathered the second choice endorsement of Rand Paul.

Gibbons is running as a Conservative but he’s not the only one. Melissa Ackinson is an entrepreneur running as the pro-Trump grassroots candidate. She may in fact be more Conservative than Gibbons and Renacci but she is a Trumpist first. From her positions on trade and the language used in her campaign. However it does seem as though she is fiscally conservative. Next is Don Elijah Eckhart. In 2016 he tried to defeat RINO Rob Portman and lost. Again he’s trying but it doesn’t seem like a serious attempt. He’s a good person, likely a good Conservative, but a bad campaigner. Lastly Dan Kiley is running but is more of the same. All of the candidates support Trump’s tariff’s except Eckhart but he’s the least supportive of school safety measures. Whereas Mike Gibbons believes that tariffs can lead to better trade deals and a freer trade, the other three are parroting Trump on the issue. There is no good choice in this race, but Renacci is a McConnell puppet and Gibbons is most prepared to stop him. Also Rand Paul is supporting him.

Conservative Pick: Mike Gibbons (little confidence)

District 1

Steve Chabot is actually one of Ohio’s more Conservative Congressmen. But alas, he is another mediocre politician. He is being opposed by Samuel Ronan. Though I oppose politicians who voted for Omnibus, a rare exception must be made. Ronan is pragmatic. He knows people vote by party only and is a leftist living in a red district. So what’s his plan? Win as a Republican. Ronan is pro-abortion and believes healthcare is a human right. Hard pass.

Conservative Pick: Steve Chabot

District 2

Brad Wenstrup is an incumbent RINO who is unopposed. He stopped being Conservative when Trump became President.

District 3

Joyce Beatty is the incumbent Democrat. Two Republicans are running in opposition. There is Jim Burgess and Abdul Haji. Not much can be gathered about Burgess other than failed attempts at running for the local school board. Abdul Haji is a supporter of Mike Gibbons and his Conservatism shows on his twitter some.

Conservative Pick: Abdul Haji

District 4

The 4th is Jim Jordan’s. Jordan is a member of the Freedom Caucus and a strong Conservative. His name is floated for House Speaker in replacement of Paul Ryan. Opposing him is Joseph Miller who doesn’t really have an actual campaign.

Conservative Pick: Jim Jordan (For House Speaker)

District 5

Bob Latta is the incumbent and is a RINO apart of the problem. Opposing him is two contestants. Todd Wolfrum is a local public servant looking to go to DC. His campaign promises include joining the Freedom Caucus, banning funding for abortion agencies, and prohibiting foreign aid when there is a debt. Seems like a strong Conservative. Running from the left is Bob Kreienkamp who is anti-gun and against tax cuts. But this is what the Republicans invite.

Conservative Pick: Todd Wolfrum

District 6

Bill Johnson is the incumbent in District 6. Hardcore RINO. He has voted for nearly every reckless spending bill in the last few years. But of course Ohio has already had a few leftist sneak their way in as an R so. Unfortunately Robert Blazek also sucks. He wants to tx entertainment because he thinks theirs a connection between violence and media (there’s not). We don’t need to blame video games ay more than guns. These are scapegoats.

Blazek also said he has a plan to help deal with the mental illness and violence, which are causing school shootings and other horrific acts. He would propose a mental health tax of 1 percent on all violent video games and movies. Those movies rated PG-13, R and NC-17 would qualify, as well as games rated for violence. Blazek said he believes the tax would raise about $400 million and the money would then go toward mental health.

Conservative Pick: None

District 7

Bob Gibbs is another RINO. He’s yet another big spender. Two candidates oppose him. Patrick Quinn is a hopeful. He doesn’t hold many positions other than wanting to settle immigration once and for all. Terry Robertson is the other, stronger opponent. In 2016, he failed to unseat Gibbs. Now he’s back. He seems to have a good grasp on all things Trump. He campaigns voter ID and going after activist judges. As the Democrats are salivating over the 7th, its best to nominate a candidate they are less prepared to attack.

Conservative Pick: Terry Robertson

District 8

Warren Davidson has had a brief year in DC without blemish. He is unopposed.

District 9

Three Republicans are scrambling to replace Marcy Kaptur. First up is Keith Colton. My biggest concern is that he is pro-union in a state made less competitive by unions. All else aside he seems like a typical campaign conservative. No joke, the second contestant is W. Benjamin Franklin. Because of his name, his candidacy cannot be found. Steve Kraus was ousted from a state office for a felony charge. He seems just as Conservative as Colton. Colton’s record is cleaner, thus, he is a more formidable opponent.

Conservative Pick: Keith Colton

District 10

Michael Turner is the incumbent. Another hardcore RINO. But he is opposed. First up is John Anderson. He has a “contract” platform. It includes restructuring the tax code to be almost entirely consumption based. It also includes ending foreign aid and preventing the federal government from controlling healthcare. Anderson failed to defeat Turner in 2014 and 2012. John Mitchel is the newcomer in this race. He has a unique set of ideas. He opposes the Convention of States for fear of something else entirely coming out of it. He is also for term limits like every not incumbent. Mitchel opposes UN taking our sovereignty and is pro-life and pro-gun.

Conservative Pick: John Mitchel

District 11

Marcia Fudge is an incumbent Democrat. Two Republicans seek to unseat her. Gregory Dunham is the first candidate. Although he opposes abortion, he believes in banning semi-auto guns. He is running on a national debt platform but doesn’t realize tax cuts don’t reduce government income. He doesn’t have a good grasp on the constitution or finances for that matter. He is another “fiscally responsible, socially inclusive(leftist)” candidate. From past experience we know that these politicians don’t exist. They will most certainly increase government under the guise of common sense. Beverly Goldstein tried and failed in 2016. Her platform is about jobs and crime. She is more set up to be a local politician but she’s preferable to Dunham.

Conservative Pick: Beverly Goldstein

District 12

District 12 is a free for all with eleven candidates. The Democrats have a similar situation. There is no incumbent because this is a special election situation. In large fields it is often beneficial to trust endorsements. Such was the case in the Texas 21st. In this election however the most prized endorsements of Jim Jordan and Mark Meadows belong to Melanie Leneghan. The power of the Freedom Caucus is coming to her aid. That must mean she’s a strong Conservative. However she’s not the only strong Conservative. There is also Troy Balderson. Balderson is on of the staunchest Conservatives in the Ohio Senate. Unlike most Republicans, he has an actual record of defunding Planned Parenthood. There’s also Tim Kane who is likely a RINO if elected. Another strong Conservative in the Ohio legislature is Kevin Bacon. But the race is between Leneghan and Balderson. Both would make fine Representatives and a clean one is needed if the GOP wants to keep this seat. The winner must win two elections to get to the next term.

Conservative Pick: Melanie Leneghan

District 13

Tim Ryan holds the seat as a Democrat. Christopher DePizzo is the only Republican. He’s probably a RINO but it’s not like he’ll win.

District 14

RINO David Joyce is unopposed.

District 15

A super-RINO Steve Stivers is running unopposed.

District 16

The race to replace Jim Renacci is surprisingly tame, but the choice is clearer than others. This is a classic Republican Civil War battleground. In the Big Government Corner we have Anthony Gonzalez. The RINOs have come out in full force. Marco Rubio, Rob Portman, Bob Gibbs, and Mike Turner have all endorsed Gonzalez. In the Conservative Corner we have Christina Hagan. Mark Meadows and Jim Jordan have come to her side as well as several Trump administration names. The NRA endorsed Hagan. THe lines are drawn and it would be beneficial to prevent another RINO from gaining the seat.

Conservative Pick: Christina Hagan

 

Advertisement

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Culture and Religion

Matt Walsh speaks out on #CovingtonCatholic students and the fake controversy surrounding them

Published

on

Matt Walsh speaks out on CovingtonCatholic students and the fake controversy surrounding them

When white Catholic students wearing MAGA hats are caught on video face-to-face with Native Americans on one side and Black Hebrew Israelites on the other, they’re definitely bigoted white supremacist hatemongers who went out looking for minorities to persecute. At least that’s how mainstream media and a good chunk of social media reacted when they saw the initial videos and images of smirking MAGA children.

But that’s not how it went down. It was the exact opposite of how it went down.

When the story first broke, I saw many of my fellow conservatives on Twitter scolding the kids while the progressive gangs attacked them. I held my tongue. It’s not because I don’t speak out against bigotry regardless of which side of the political, religious, or cultural aisle it comes from, but something seemed fishy. Other than having a disconcerting smirk, I didn’t see anything in the kids that resembled the type of bigoted outbursts we’ve seen in the past from actual white supremacists, Antifa, or other hate groups.

It seemed staged. As it turned out, it wasn’t quite staged, per se, but it was manufactured by the two “victim” groups who went after the MAGA kids, not the other way around. As political and religious commentator Matt Walsh asked, were they supposed to drop down to the fetal position when approached by the two groups?

Hot takes on social and legacy media are often based on incomplete pictures. Before people get outraged and attack others over perceptions based on partial evidence, perhaps we should wait until the whole story comes to light. Just a thought.


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Foreign Affairs

NY Times invokes Martin Luther King Jr. to attack Israel

Published

on

NY Times invokes Martin Luther King Jr to attack Israel

When a nation the size of New Jersey is surrounded by enemies and is the subject of incessant condemnation from the United Nations, it’s natural to assume thoughtful people will take a complete look at its circumstances before deciding which side of a contentious debate to support. This is why many Americans still choose to support the nation of Israel despite mainstream media’s efforts to frame it as evil.

Unfortunately, the debate is so complex, most Americans form their perspectives based on very limited data. Passions are so strong on both sides that it often comes down to which side’s message is loudest in the ears of those deciding who to support. The Israel-Palestine debate has been ongoing since the tiny nation was first formed and ramped up greatly following the attacks on Israel in 1967 that resulted in necessary expansion.

Today, the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Golan Heights are all considered “occupied” territories by a majority around the world, at least among those who are paying attention. Despite clear evidence that the very existence of Israel would be threatened if these lands were “returned” to the Palestinians, most of the world calls for the two-state solution as the path to peace.

On top of the disputed lands, the way that Israel maintains peace within its own lands is labeled as oppression against Palestinians living there. The core of the BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) movement’s message is that the Palestinian people are being persecuted. To support this premise, an activist at the NY Times is invoking Martin Luther King Jr and his opposition to the Vietnam War as the roadmap by which BDS activists should muster their own courage and build more support to fight the nation of Israel.

Time to Break the Silence on Palestine

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/19/opinion/sunday/martin-luther-king-palestine-israel.htmlReading King’s speech at Riverside more than 50 years later, I am left with little doubt that his teachings and message require us to speak out passionately against the human rights crisis in Israel-Palestine, despite the risks and despite the complexity of the issues. King argued, when speaking of Vietnam, that even “when the issues at hand seem as perplexing as they often do in the case of this dreadful conflict,” we must not be mesmerized by uncertainty. “We must speak with all the humility that is appropriate to our limited vision, but we must speak.”

To be clear, King was opposed to a war that resulted in the deaths of 1,350,000 people, which is nearly the same amount of Arabs living in Israel currently. King was opposed to a war in which no Americans were attacked prior to us getting involved. Israel is attacked regularly from multiple groups in and out of the nation who support the Palestinian movement. King was opposed to a war that took focus and resources away from his cause.

As he said, “We were taking the black young men who had been crippled by our society and sending them eight thousand miles away to guarantee liberties in Southeast Asia which they had not found in southwest Georgia and East Harlem.”

To be fair, the author of the NY Times article, Michelle Alexander, was using his anti-war speech to demonstrate the courage King displayed as inspiration for the courage she feels BDS supporters need today. Had she left it there, then there wouldn’t be much of a need to respond. However, she continued in the article to speculate King may not have been happy with Israel back then. Worse, she implied that he could have been a supporter of the BDS movement today.

This opinion is beyond questionable. King’s motivations for not wanting to outwardly support Israel’s actions following the Six Day War were for the sake of his movement, not based on personal feelings on the matter. It made sense to not take a side in a debate in which many of his supporters of African or Middle Eastern descent may have objected.

It is becoming increasing common in the BDS movement to point solely towards the actions of the Israeli government while ignoring the reasons for these actions. They often talk about homes being bulldozed, but they ignore the fact that punitive demolitions are a result of terrorist attacks. I am not in favor of these demolitions, but I would never hide the facts to support my claims. The BDS movement realizes calling out Israel for bulldozing Palestinian homes is most effective if the reasons are never mentioned.

As pro-BDS articles go, this one was strikingly coherent. This is a bigger problem than the unhinged hate articles we often see from BDS supporters. It’s easy to see how this one-sided portrayal in a publication as strong as the NY Times that invokes an icon like Martin Luther King Jr can garner support for the movement from those who would otherwise never consider it. The article is very careful to cut off cries of antisemitism and is written for rational thinkers rather than emotional feelers.

But therein lies the problem. It invokes King and his famous speech knowing full well few will actually read it. If they take the time to read or hear it, they’ll wonder what any of that has to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The NY Times is betting on the easy odds that nobody’s going to take the time.

None of the seven reasons King gives for opposing the Vietnam War could be applied to Israel. Invoking the speech and insinuating he would have been a BDS supporter is a disingenuous attempt to equate his righteous activism to the BDS movement itself.


Subscribe on YouTube

Continue Reading

Media

PolitiFact demonstrates pure partisanship declaring Trump’s physical barrier claims as “Mostly False”

Published

on

PolitiFact demonstrates pure partisanship declaring Trumps physical barrier claims Mostly False

Pulitzer Prize winning fact checking agency PolitiFact has been accused of leaning dozens if not hundreds of their fact checks to favor the Democratic perspective on most issues. In one of the most egregious examples of partisan hacking, they declared a statement made by President Trump during his televised address to the nation as “Mostly False.”

Here’s the statement: Senator Charles Schumer “repeatedly supported a physical barrier in the past along with many other Democrats. They changed their mind only after I was elected president.”

This is undeniably 100% true. It’s demonstrable that Schumer and many Democrats have supported physical barriers along the border in the recent past. Their support for changed sharply once then-candidate Trump started talking about needing a border wall, so technically speaking that portion of President Trump’s statement wasn’t entirely true. He said their support changed after he was elected, but it started changing a few months after he first entered the race.

Here’s a graph from Cato Institute that shows support from Democrats at over 40% in October, 2015, when it still seemed far fetched that he would win the nomination, let alone the general election. From that point, it took a nose dive.

Democratic Support for Border Wall

The portion of the PolitiFact article in which the author tries to justify the “Mostly False” rating attempts to distinguish between the differences in security barriers proposed by the President and accepted by Democrats in the past.

Did Democrats reverse border wall position after Donald Trump was elected?

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2019/jan/09/donald-trump/trump-democrats-reverse-border-wall-position/Schumer, along with tens of other Democrats including former President Barack Obama, voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which authorized building a fence along about 700 miles of the border between the United States and Mexico. That’s the majority of the barrier in place today along the southern border.

However, the fence was mocked as a “nothing wall” by Trump in the past and was far less ambitious, both politically and physically, than the wall Trump wants to build now.

This logical gymnastics is farcical when we read the statement that is allegedly “Mostly False.” The President did not suggest nor has he ever believed the Democrats supported the type of wall he’s requesting. That’s why he was very specific in stating Schumer and the Democrats “repeatedly supported a physical barrier in the past” instead of saying they supported his wall. This is important because for a fact-checker, the details are important.

They have repeatedly judged against conservatives for the tiniest nuance in their statements to attack. But when the statement is properly worded, as the President’s was, this fact checker decided to dig into intent rather than fact checking the statement itself. He penalized the statement as being false because he reconstructed what the President said as meaning something different. This is convenient selective inference on their part. But they’re completely unbiased. Just ask them.

When even the “trusted” fact checkers are willing to abandon ethics and call an obviously true statement false for the sake of political expediency, it’s no wonder so many Americans are frustrated with the entire mainstream media mechanism.

This is why we humbly request you support us with a donation so we can try to counterbalance the horrid leftism present in mainstream media.


Subscribe on YouTube

Continue Reading

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report