One of the goals in mind is to inform Conservatives of the most principally aligned candidates. Too many candidates campaign as Conservatives and turn RINO. To some degree, RINOs are avoidable through better vetting of candidates. It is my aim to inform Conservatives in all fifty states their options and evaluate the potential of a candidate to be a principled leader of the Conservative movement. Without further ado, I present the North Carolina Primary edition:
North Carolina is a red state, so there are a lot of incumbent Republicans. The surprise, however, is the amount of Conservatives representing the state. Sure there are some RINOs, but one of those RINOs may actually be dethroned. But overall, North Carolina has strong Conservative representation and an opportunity to expand in that.
Top Picks: Roger Allison, Mark Meadows,
Worst Picks: Gina Collias, Robert Pittenger, Virginia Foxx
Honorable Mention: Chuck Archerd
Best Races: District 11, District 9
Worst Races: District 10, District 3
Running unopposed is Roger Allison. He looks to unseat GK Butterfield. Allison surprised me on his stances. He starts off on gun control stating that he was not a member of the NRA, nor does he own a firearm, and then prededed in a very principled stance on the 2nd Amendment that included opposition to age requirements and limitations on the types and accessories to firearms available. On immigration he states outright that we ought not believe for a second that the Hispanic community supports sanctuary states. He then had a very informed approach on the issue. I can’t say for certain that Roger Allison is the perfect conservative but he’s no bumper sticker conservative and is capable of bringing fresh ideas to the table.
Conservative Pick: Roger Allison
Incumbent George Holding looks to hold on to his seat. George Holding is a fiscally responsible Conservative. He did not vote for Omnibus and has an excellent fiscal record. Having only held the office since 2013, he hasn’t exceeded a reasonable term limit either. Allen Chesser seeks to “drain the swamp” following up on Trump’s call to vote out the “establishment.” Chesser is running as a Trumpist, but I genuinely believe he is conservative. However, he has a weak case in attacking Holding’s record. He states without evidence that Holding has abandoned Conservative values. His swamp attribution to Holding is that he accepted a large amount of Super PAC money. This is a weak case for attacking the character of someone who has voted against the swamp in critical times such as the Omnibus bill. Chesser is grasping for straws against Holding. Nonetheless, I think he would have made an ideal candidate in a different race.
Conservative Pick: George Holding
This is a competitive primary race, something Conservatives need more of. Incumbent Walter Jones has held the seat for 23 years and has a 88% Liberty Score from Conservative Review. Why is he being challenged? It appears he voted against tax cuts. He abstained from voting on the most recent government spending packages, a possible sign of swampiness or cowardice because his votes on spending would be used against him. One of the key differences between Walter Jones and challenger Scott Dacey is Dacey’s relentless insistence of Trump’s agenda. Jones voted against the Trumpcare bill which was no true repeal of Obamacare. Dacey insists that he would have voted for this disappointing bait and switch. These appear to be the biggest distinctions between these two heavy weight candidates. Dacey has tapped the endorsement of Mike Huckabee and Hermain Cain. I would argue that Mike Huckabee decreases his chances of winning in
November May, not that this seat is in danger. The biggest overall concern is that Dacey is in no way a fiscal conservative because he would vote however Trump would. Career politician or not, Jones at least can think for himself, even if he thought tax cuts were a bad idea…
But there is a third option even with these heavy hitters, Phil Law looks to be the dark horse in this race. Law is a former Marine and a social media favorite in this race. He has the right positions and an emphasis on individual liberty. He is neither a career politician nor a populist. I think 23 years is long enough.
Conservative Pick: Phil Law
Steve Von Loor is challenging Democrat David Price. He is unopposed in the GOP primary. Von Loor is an immigrant from Ecuador and is apologetically pro-life. He has all of the signs of being a good candidate even if in a particularly hard race.
Conservative Pick: Steve Von Loor
Up until Omnibus, Virginian Foxx had a decent record. She’s being challenged. The first challenger is Courtland Meader. By no means is Meader a business-friendly candidate. While he would end an income tax and corporate welfare, he would impose and income tax on corporations and stricter regulations on executive compensation. I don’t believe he knows how a corporation works. Hard pass on Meader. Dillon Gentry is running a lax campaign to help inspire other young people to do the same. He has the potential to be a decent Congressman but is unlikely to be selected. I see Foxx winning this primary handily but would say Gentry is worth a vote to keep Foxx on her toes.
Conservative Pick: Dillon Gentry
Bradley Mark Walker has held the office for 3 years and has a decent record. He is unopposed.
David Rouzer has been in office since 2015 and has become more Conservative as time passes. He voted against Omnibus but voted for previous spending measures. He is unopposed and well funded.
Richard Hudson is unopposed. He’s been in office for two terms and has the emerging horn of a RINO. He voted for Omnibus and for funding Planned Parenthood on multiple occasions.
Having lost in 2016 by triple digits, Mark Harris is making another run against Robert Pittenger. Pittenger is the type of Republican that runs on smaller government yet recklessly votes for spending. He’s only been in since 2013 and already sucks. Mark Harris also ran and lost trying to unseat Thom Thills, the RINO Senator out of North Carolina. Mark Harris seems like the guy who would vote the right way but has no idea how to run a campaign. But the right circumstances could give him victory over the disappointing incumbent. Those right circumstances: Mike Huckabee staying away from his campaign and good voter turnout. Under 27000 people voted this race for the 2016 primary in District 9. The three candidates evenly split the votes with Pittenger narrowly coming out ahead. Pittenger only won a single county and had a poor performance in the others. A quality campaign by Harris should land him a victory. The Conservative vote was split in 2016 but I can’t blame Todd Johnson’s campaign for he was probably the better choice. Nonetheless, the worst choice in this race is Robert Pittenger. If Mark Harris can’t win this race, he should give up on politics. This race is his for the taking.
Conservative Pick: Mark Harris
Patrick McHenry is busting out some cash to fend off his primary opponents. Perhaps this isn’t necessary. He has five to fend off and people blindly vote for incumbents. If you want a spender, Patrick McHenry is the choice. First to oppose him is Seth Blackenship. His campaign features a refreshing “Rebuild our Foundation” message backed by youthful Conservative. Looking to unseat McHenry for a second time and to run for Congress for and eighth time(!) is Albert Wiley Jr. He has a very good professional record and decent motives to run for office. But in unseating McHenry, I don’t see Wiley as the strongest candidate to do so. Running from the left of even McHenry is Gina Collias who is parroting leftist anti-gun propaganda. She says she’s running because the 2016 election “demeaned” the GOP. She also wants to reform Obamacare and provide citizenship to DACA. She is the most leftist candidate of the North Carolina and Indiana primaries on the Republican side. The MAGA candidate, his words, is Ira Roberts. He’s what you would expect. Tough on immigration, good on guns. On healthcare he talks more about repealing Obamacare than replacing it, which is good. His most unique stance is against news outlets misleading people with sensationalized headlines. He doesn’t offer solutions, rather he says he will take on the media. I don’t think Roberts is a bad candidate. Next up is Jeff Gregory who came in a distant 2nd place in the same race in 2016, ahead of Wiley. He says he’s Conservative and uses the bumper sticker language. I’ll believe it but no website and no social media presence. If he doesn’t take his campaign seriously, why should anyone else?
So this choice comes down between Blackenship and Roberts. Both candidates want to address the debt and regulations. However, Blackenship has a better vision and I think this is because he has a much more principled foundation as a Conservative.
Conservative Pick: Seth Blackenship
Mark Meadows is the Chair of the Freedom Caucus. He has a Liberty Score of 95, the highest out of North Carolina. On top of that he’s only been in office for five years. So who would challenge him? Some guy named Chuck Archerd. This is quite fascinating because Archerd actually hopes he loses. He is merely running as a place holder in case Meadows is appointed by Trump to some office. How strategic and what a team player. Meadows is doing a fine job and would otherwise run unopposed.
Conservative Pick: Mark Meadows
In District 12, Alma Adams is the incumbent Democrat holding the seat. Running to represent Charlotte is Paul Bonham. Bonham is a Conservative supporting Obamacare repeal, border walls, and voter ID. He also supports a flat tax, of which I am partial. He has an interesting past, including a run-in with the law, that has inspired his push for criminal justice reform. Carl Presson is the next challenger. He believes in a nationwide “gun license” which is problematic when he began his stance by saying how great the 2nd Amendment was and ended with comparing it to cars and saying current gun owners would have five years to comply. Presson is also lax on illegal immigration and has a misunderstanding about what birthright citizenship actually is. To add to the confusion, he suggests that individual who make less than $50000/year (married couples $100000) shouldn’t pay taxes. This would mean income taxes are a punishment for being well off and would make poverty far more comfortable. Last is Paul Wright. He seems like a good Christian man but is very onetrack minded about stuff. This isn’t his first election. He’s running on the platform of reversing the “deChristianization” of America. My concern is that he has a very theocratic approach to governance that doesn’t seem to always coincide with individual liberties. He seems like a great guy but not a good candidate.
Conservative Pick: Paula Bonham
Last but certainly not least is Ted Budd. He has been in Congress for a year and has maintained a strong Conservative record on spending and other matters. He is running unopposed.
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.
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:
- May 2018 Esquire: Okay, Now I Actually Do Want To Take Your Guns
- November 2017 Boston Globe: Hand over your weapons
- October 2017 Plan A Magazine: Ban Guns. Amend the Constitution.
- December 2015 New Republic: It’s Time to Ban Guns. Yes, All of Them.
- May 2014 La Times: You say gun control doesn’t work? Fine. Let’s ban guns altogether.
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.
Legislators tell Allen West: Next version of First Step Act will cut loopholes
Last week, a handful of conservatives, including Lt. Col. Allen West and Conservative Review’s Daniel Horowitz, went after the bipartisan First Step Act, a criminal justice reform bill that has the backing of the President and many conservative lawmakers on Capitol Hill. Our complaint: why would the GOP support a bill that releases violent criminals and illegal immigrants?
According to legislative proponents of the bill, protections and benefits for both of these groups of felons have been eliminated in the next version of the bill that will reach the Senate floor. They reached out to West over the weekend to let them know they heard the concerns and are addressing them.
The First Step Act is supported by many conservatives and law enforcement groups, including the Fraternal Order of Police, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and the National District Attorneys Association. There are other proposals offered by those on the far left under the same banner of “criminal justice reform” that would release people from prison without regard to the danger they pose, including illegal immigrants and serious violent offenders. We must remember that there are some folks who are, well, as the ol’ folks would say, “just bad.” Additionally, some left-wing professors even propose abolishing all prisons partly based on their notion that the system is racist in nature. Hmm, I tend to believe that skin color or race has nothing to do with a person deciding to break the law. I just do not want us to go down the path of having criminals believe that there are no consequences, ramifications, for their actions and behaviors.
The legislators echoed our concerns and said the version that is currently available doesn’t reflect the changes that cut the loopholes. They say it will be impossible for these two groups – serious violent offenders and criminal illegal immigrants – to get the benefits of the bill. Many felons will be released early. Future felons will be given lighter sentences. That makes sense for many, but by no means should anyone in either of the two most dangerous groups receive sentence reductions, according to the letter to West.
Call me cynical, but lately I’ve changed my general rules regarding promises of politicians. It used to echo President Reagan’s stance on nuclear disarmament: “Trust but verify.” I now have to go with a more adversarial stance on political promises: “Show me proof, then we’ll talk.”
When the legislation is made available to the public, many will take a close look at it. I’ll personally be checking to see if there are any loopholes that would put violent offenders or criminal illegal immigrants back on the street sooner. If so, it’s a no-go for me.
So-called conservatives are confusing compromise with capitulation
If it wasn’t for the fact that I’m Always Right™, it would be easy to get discouraged by some of the reactions I get for taking so-called conservatives to task whenever they exchange their pusillanimous principles for their personal political purposes.
While not discouraging, it can be frustrating when members of various political factions put their so-called leaders on a pedestal to be lionized, almost worshiped, even when they break their promises or promote policies that are contrary to our conservative values.
An obvious example of what I’m talking about can be seen by the dwindling numbers of Trump’s cult-like sycophants who live not on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds from the mouth of their political god.
Lately, I’ve witnessed this same kind of unconditional loyalty for so-called conservative members of Congress who, despite their rhetoric to the contrary, are talking the conservative talk but not walking the conservative walk.
Last week I enshrined Senator Mike Lee in the Gutless On Principles (GOP) Hall of Shame after his repeated support of Ivanka Trump’s socialist feminist agenda. Even though he has developed a reputation of being 100% conservative, his political infatuation with Ivanka’s extremist agenda is a diametrically opposed to the conservative values he claims to hold.
Just as I’m often told by the Trump cult, Lee’s groupies have informed me that he is beyond reproach and that only a “George Soros-loving Hillary supporter” would dare call him out because “nobody’s perfect.” Check out a couple of the comments from my Facebook page:
Brady S. – “If you’re waiting for perfection, keep waiting, you’re never going to get it from any person. You can disagree with a person on an issue and policy, that doesn’t negate the rest of decisions they’ve made or who they are as a person. Basically, you’re virtue signaling, piggy backing off the backs of other conservatives to show how much more supposedly principled you are. One conservative once said “The person who agrees with you 80% of the time is a friend and an ally not a 20% traitor.” Ronald Reagan. Nobody is going to agree with you 100% of the time on everything, you’d be wise to learn that lesson.”
MaryAnn P. – “Well – no one is perfect.”
Ah, yes. The “nobody’s perfect” card. The classic defense of indefensible behavior.
While we are indeed imperfect beings, we aren’t supposed to use that as an excuse to settle for less than perfection. Instead, we are to press on toward the goal of perfection and continue reaching for those things that will bring it to pass. And we are also instructed to “judge righteously” the deeds (actions) of others.
Those who incorrectly believe that there is no place for judging the deeds of others are wrong and/or lazy. Such thinking is what inspired a recent Babylon Bee satirical story about how evangelicals would vote for Satan himself if he had an “R” after his name.
But let’s put voting for Republican Satan aside for a moment.
I also hear a lot about compromise — a word as equally misunderstood as the word judging — but compromise only applies to how we achieve the goal; it doesn’t apply to the goal itself. When you change the goal instead of the methodology, that’s capitulation, not compromise.
For example, so-called conservatives promised to defund Planned Parenthood and could have compromised on how to get it done in a myriad of ways. Instead, they capitulated by passing spending bills that fully funded the baby butchers in exchange for defense spending and keeping the government open.
To quote a well-known insurance commercial, “That’s not how this works. That’s now how any of this works.”
When their rhetoric fails to match their results, and when they capitulate on our goals and call it compromise, I will call out faux-conservatives regardless of what faction they belong to.
And despite accusations from supporters of Trump, Cruz, Lee, and other so-called conservatives, not every politician needs to measure up to my standards . . . but they should.
Originally posted on StridentConservative.com.
David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is distributed by the Salem Radio Network and is heard on stations across America.
South Korean named Interpol president in blow to Russia
What makes a great movie villain great?
Nature, an international journal of ‘science,’ makes ludicrous political statement on sex and gender
Democrats flip Utah House seat as McAdams tops Rep. Mia Love
OAN’s take on Kamala Harris and 2020 is epic
What makes a great movie villain great?
OAN’s take on Kamala Harris and 2020 is epic
Can the DCEU be fixed?
Leftists to white women: Either you agree with the radical left or we will paint you as evil
Fred Savage owns Deadpool in Once Upon a Deadpool trailer
President Trump won’t punish Saudi Arabia over Jamal Khashoggi
Newt Gingrich calls for release of information regarding Imran Awan
Tim Cook’s quote on technology sounds true, except that it’s a total lie
Benjamin Netanyahu replies to calls for an early election in Israel
Hey Kansas: If you get Les Miles, the funny quotes come free
Democrats23 hours ago
The great ideological divide in the Democratic Party is artificial
Guns and Crime23 hours ago
Newt Gingrich calls for release of information regarding Imran Awan
Guns and Crime14 hours ago
Gunman in California mass shooting showed warning signs
Guns and Crime13 hours ago
Americans need a public hearing on the First Step Act
Entertainment and Sports21 hours ago
Can the DCEU be fixed?
Economy20 hours ago
Why we won’t see Medicare-for-All legislation until after 2020
Entertainment and Sports12 hours ago
Amazon’s Homecoming shows Sam Esmail may be the best writer-director on television
Immigration23 hours ago
Judge bars US from enforcing Trump asylum ban