Connect with us

Politics

Top Conservative Picks for North Carolina’s Primary

Published

on

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

District 1

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

District 2

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

District 3

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

District 4

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

District 5

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

District 6

Bradley Mark Walker has held the office for 3 years and has a decent record. He is unopposed.

District 7

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.

District 8

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.

District 9

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

District 10

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

District 11

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

District 12

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

District 13

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.

Advertisement

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment may take some time to appear.

Culture and Religion

The complete fraud that is socialism

Published

on

By

The complete fraud that is socialism

Once again we are witness to the age-old scam of socialism with Leftists making promises to attain power that can never be fulfilled.

Long before Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago exposed the systematic oppression, torture, incarceration and deliberate mass murder that are the hallmarks of socialistic slavery. James A. Michener documented the 1956 Hungarian uprising against communism in his book ‘The Bridge at Andau’. While both are great literary works, ‘The Bridge at Andau’ laid bare the complete fraud that is the collectivist ideologies in creating a ‘Heaven on Earth’ or ‘worker’s paradise’ that never comes to fruition.

The selling of socialistic slavery to a new generation tends to follow a certain type of ‘progress’. Promises are made for all kinds of largess ranging from Free Healthcare, Free Housing, Free College, Free food to even Free income. All paid for with other people’s money. Never mind that It’s impossible to fulfill all of these wondrous asseverations. Appearances must be made to at least begin the process, so the ever-present task of wealth redistribution begins at the point of a gun.

This is also why the Socialist-Left obsesses over gun confiscation and the suppression of free speech. It is imperative for the Leftists to disarm the people since they generally object to having their property stolen from them. However, we are getting ahead of ourselves, this is to document how this exploitation of the people has ‘progressed’ in other collectivist enclaves to better understand how this crime against the people is perpetrated.

Why do collectivist regimes always require secret police apparatus and the suppression of Liberty?

This question was detailed in The Bridge at Andau in the chapters on the ‘AVO man’. In which he discusses the secret police organisation of the Hungarian Communists, the AVO (Allamvedelmi Osztaly). He bluntly asked and answered the question:

Why must communism depend on such dregs of society?

No matter on what elevated plane communism begins its program of total dictatorship. it sooner or later runs into such economic and social problems that some strong-arm force is required to keep the civil population under control.

As is the case now as it was then, a nation’s Socialist-Left will promise just about anything to attain power over the people:

When communism is wooing the workers in Csepel, all kinds of exaggerated promises are made if they seem likely to awaken men’s aspirations and their cupidity. These promises are couched in such simple terms and such effective symbols that they become immediate goals of the revolution.

Review briefly what communist agitators had once promised the Hungarians who appear in this book: consumer goods such as they had never known before, increased wages. increased social benefits, shorter hours of work, improved education for everyone, a greater social freedom, and a government directly responsible to the working classes. Under communism such promises were never even remotely capable of attainment.

[Our Emphasis]
If all of that sounds eerily familiar, it’s because that’s part of a very old song and dance that has deceived many a generation into enslaving themselves under socialism. Consider this recent story from the Associated Press:

Democrats lurch left on top policies as 2020 primary begins

NEW YORK (AP) — Democratic presidential contender Julian Castro launched his campaign by pledging support for “Medicare for All,” free universal preschool, a large public investment in renewable energy and two years of free college for all Americans.
….

New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, who is expected to launch his presidential campaign soon, has sponsored legislation to create a federal jobs guarantee program in several communities across America.

The pilot program… could ultimately transform the U.S. labor market by providing well-paid government employment with benefits for anyone who wants it.

[Our Emphasis]

As Margaret Thatcher so aptly surmised, eventually they will run out of other people’s money. In our case in the states, that is already the situation given the enormous debt and unfunded liabilities reaching into the stratosphere of trillions of dollars. Of course, this hasn’t deterred committed collectivists such as Democratic mayor Bill de Blasio who recently stated that ‘There’s plenty of money in the world… It’s just in the wrong hands!’ Never mind that it is morally wrong to steal the property of others or that once a society turns down the dead-end of socialism there will always be more people wanting more money from those who have it.

Wealth redistribution scams will always wreck the economy. A socialist regime that nationalizes the economy can never function better than one of economic Liberty. Soon enough everything breaks down, the people see through the lies and the government has to start breaking heads. Thus it is imperative that they have previously confiscated the people’s guns and made it illegal to defend themselves.

The Takeaway

Socialistic schemes always run contrary to basic human nature. Rewarding someone for not working will always result in less work. Conversely, punishing someone for working will also result in less work.

This basic logic of human nature seems to be lost on Leftists. But perhaps it is not. They have to know their schemes have never and will never work. And yet they still try to impose them on everyone else. Perhaps they know of the epic fraud they are continually perpetrating on society, but they don’t care. That will be the subject of our next installment.


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

The real story here is that a radical activist took on high school kids

Published

on

The real story here is that a radical activist took on high school kids

The Covington Catholic School story has taken on a life of its own. What started as an attack against MAGA hat-wearing teens who supposedly went after a Native American Vietnam War veteran has turned into a witch hunt by leftist mainstream media to prove their righteous indignation towards the kids was justified.

But at the core of the story is something that most seem to be missing. Nathan Phillips isn’t a random activist. He’s an outspoken radical who intentionally inserts himself into situations to draw attention to his cause. We saw this clearly the day after the viral video was shot (but before it went viral) when he tried to storm a Catholic church to disrupt worship services. Those are not the actions of a peace-seeking, mild-mannered activist for Native American rights. They’re the actions of someone seeking trouble for the sake of attention.

Then, there’s the question of claims that he was a combat veteran who fought during the Vietnam War. To be fair, these are not necessarily his assertions, though I haven’t read everything he’s said about that period in his life. But mainstream media has painted him on multiple occasions as essentially a war hero. His claims have been that he was a “Vietnam times veteran,” which is obviously meant to insinuate he participated.

Thankfully, many of the publications that painted this picture of Phillips have since started editing their stories. Nevertheless, the damage is done. His reputation as a Vietnam War hero is still prominent in the eyes of those who read the initial stories and haven’t gone back to reread them since the corrections were made. We can assume that means nearly none of them have learned of the correction. That’s why he’s still being widely labeled as such on social media.

One of his claims to fame is that he starred in a Skrillex video that depicted armed opposition against law enforcement as a potential solution for those who are being forced from their homes by a land developer.

The sum of the parts of this story paint a very strange picture of Phillips. There is absolutely nothing wrong with activism for the sake of Native American rights. The cause is a righteous one and most activists are doing their part to properly bring awareness to the American people while working with governments in their plight.

Phillips doesn’t fall into that category. His stories keep changing, but the truth is still a mystery.

As our EIC noted yesterday, he claims to be a hero but he’s not.

Nathan Phillips claims to be a hero, but he’s the reason “MAGA kids” are now being demonized

http://noqreport.com/2019/01/22/nathan-phillips-claims-hero-hes-reason-maga-kids-now-demonized/There have been multiple shifts of the narrative being pushed by mainstream media about the Covington Catholic School “MAGA kids” since it first went viral. Each shift further demonstrates the far-left’s unhinged nature and mainstream media’s desire to attack conservative Christians no matter what the facts of the matter say.

All of this goes back to Nathan Phillips, the Native American who sparked the incident by trying to march through the group of kids. It wasn’t necessarily his actions that should be condemned, but how he portrayed the whole situation and his role in it have perpetuated the falsehoods that are being reported by mainstream media even today.

This all brings us back to his “opposition,” or at least the people he apparently opposes. By no means do I believe these kids are innocent. They’re kids. They were thrown into a situation they didn’t know how to handle, but even in those circumstances they handled it fairly well. Nick Sandmann, the “smirking MAGA kid” who was literally at the center of the initial controversy, is having to go on air to defend himself, his school, and to try to prevent the threats that have hit their community.

It’s a disgrace that these kids couldn’t just go to the March for Life unscathed. The trashy people who continue to dig into their pasts, shame them, and threaten their lives are being driven by the progressive worldview that is intolerant of the hats they wore.


Subscribe on YouTube

Continue Reading

Democrats

Democrats will use “Mexico is going to pay for it” more than they used “Read my lips, no new taxes”

Published

on

Democrats will use Mexico is going to pay for it more than they used Read my lips no new taxes

America needs a border wall. This is evident to anyone who is honest and has an ounce of common sense. We need to pay for it as well. But that’s not what we were promised. During the 2016 presidential campaign, then-candidate Trump repeatedly said he was going to build the wall “and Mexico’s going to pay for it.”

To be fair, only idiots believed him. It was one of those campaign promises that most conservatives assumed meant restructured trade deals or foreign aid changes that would siphon money from Mexico back into the United States, but that’s not how it’ll be positioned by Democrats in next year’s Presidential election. They’re going to make as many Americans believe that it was a literal promise, one the President hammered continuously. They will say it was a blatantly broken promise and Americans shouldn’t trust any of his campaign promises going forward.

The President will counter with statistics and talking points showing how America is getting money from Mexico in other ways. They may not have written a check for the wall, but they’re paying for it in other ways. That will be the storyline. Will it stick?

To answer that question, we’ll need to see if the Democrats are able to make their narrative prominent without turning it into a joke. If they don’t hammer it enough, it won’t be effective. If they hammer it too much, it’ll be viewed as a repetitive talking point, in which case the President will be able to reverse it on them by demonstrating it’s the only argument they have against his reelection.

In 1992, candidate Bill Clinton was able to drive home the message that President George H.W. Bush lied to Americans when he famously said, “Read my lips, no new taxes.” These words, which played extremely well during the 1988 campaign, came back to haunt him. Most historians attribute H. Ross Perot’s candidacy as the reason the elder Bush wasn’t reelected, but the adamant pronouncement followed by an inability to fulfill it didn’t help Bush’s cause.

For the President to overcome this 2020 election talking point, he must get wall construction started and he must demonstrate that jobs and businesses are coming back to America from Mexico. For America’s sake, as well as for the 2020 election, BUILD THE WALL.


Subscribe on YouTube

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report