Connect with us

Opinions

Conservative Picks for the California Primary

Published

on

Many Conservatives jokingly wish Lex Luthor succeeded. Alas, Superman saved the day in the most ridiculous way possible, and now we have to deal with California sending an insane amount of leftist politicians to DC. The state boasts 53 Congressional Districts with a good amount of gerrymandering to make California even bluer. As an added obstacle for Conservatives, California adopted a top-two primary system in which every candidate competes for a top two finish. This adds a certain element of game theory for Conservative Picks that wasn’t needed in the other states. California is a different animal. The opportunities for Conservatism to advance are limited mostly to vacated red seats, courtesy of Ed Royce and Darrell Issa. There are a few other races a strong conservative and skilled campaigner could find victory such as the 53rd. For the most part California, Conservatives are mostly playing defense at the federal level. It is more plausible for gains to be made at the state and local levels in the California Primary. But enough putting down California. California fields better candidates than most of the deep south has thus far.

Best Picks: Morgan Murtaugh, Erin Cruz, Tom McClintock, John Renison, Shawn Nelson, Omar Navarro, Kenneth Wright
Worst Picks(GOP): Rocky Chavez, Patrick Little
Best Races: District 4, District 8,
Worst Race: District 10, US Senate
Reading Guide: Read races with bigger paragraphs for ease and speed.

US Senate

There are eleven candidates for the Senate seat on the Republican side. This is especially unhelpful for the side of liberty. The Democrats are fielding to big money candidates with incumbent Dianne Feinstein and Kevin De Lion. So it is important the the Republican side unifies so that they have a chance come November. In 2016, the GOP failed to nominate a candidate. A repeat may be the most probable outcome in  this field.

In the past, NOQ Report has interviewed Erin Cruz. Cruz is a well articulated Conservative and the social media favorite among Republicans. In her interview, she held a steadfast principle position without delving into Trumpism or giving any indication of being a RINO.

The supposed frontrunner among Republicans is James Bradley. While he isn’t the social media favorite he does seem to be the preferred choice of OAN and Sean Hannity. He has a solid record and a similar platform to Erin Cruz. The last candidate worth discussing is Patrick Little. Little is an Israel-hating zionist conspirator. His anti-semitism got him barred from the CAGOP Convention. Needless to say his Jew-hatred would make him unelectable, by the old rules. Yet somehow, he may also be a frontrunner among republican candidates.

Cruz has the best chance in a general election and is a well articulated Conservative in the age of Trump.

Conservative Pick: Erin Cruz

District 1

Doug LaMalfa is an average Republican. He’s not to fiscally conservative, but at least he voted against Omnibus. His only Republican opposition is Gregory Cheadle. Cheadle would probably be worth a risk in a Republican only primary. LaMalfa has been in office five years and is one of the best Congressman, the state has to offer. Unfortunately, game theory must be accounted for.

Conservative Pick: Doug LaMalfa

District 2

Dale Mensing has tried and failed to win this seat on multiple occasions. He is the only Republican running.

District 3

Charlie Schaupp is another candidate looking for yet another rematch. He is unopposed.

District 4

Tom McClintock is the best Congressman California has to offer. He is opposed but his opponent is not worth the risk.

Conservative Pick: Tom McClintock

District 5

There is no option. Even the independents are leftists.

District 6

There is no Republican option, only two Democrats.

District 7

There are two GOP options for overthrowing Ami Bera. The first is a doctor, Yona Barash. He has no platform listed. The second is Andrew Grant, a veteran who could be decent.

Conservative Pick: Andrew Grant

District 8

Paul Cook is a RINO who has spent a lot of our money recklessly. He is opposed by Tim Donnelly again. Last time, Donnelly narrowly missed out on the top two. Donnelly, in practice would be more Conservative than Paul Cook. He is worth the risk.

Conservative Pick: Tim Donnelly

District 9

District 10

Jeff Denham is a lousy Congressman, but no better alternative can be found in Ted Howze who is running as a RINO for the most part.

Conservative Pick: None

District 11

John Fitzgerald is the only Republican. Unfortunately he is another conspiracy theorist on all things Jews.

Conservative Pick: None

District 12

Lisa Remmer has the laughably bold challenge of going after Nancy Pelosi. She seems like a run in the mill Conservative. She is unopposed.

District 13

No one is challenging Barbara Lee.

District 14

Rudy Peters is the only Republican in this race.

District 16

Elizabeth Heng is the only Republican in this race.

District 17

Ron Cohen is the only Republican in this race, and is a good choice.

District 18

Christine Russell is the only Republican in this race.

District 19

Zoe Lufgren is unchallenged.

District 20

There is no Republican or otherwise liberty loving option in this race.

District 21

David Valadao is a RINO unopposed by his own party.

District 22

Devin Nunes is another big government Republican and the only GOP presence in this race.

District 23

Kevin McCarthy is making a career in DC. He done nothing to shrink the government and is a possible next Speaker of the House. There is no worthy challenger, but it must be noted, he would make a horrible Speaker of the House.

District 24

There are two Republicans vying for the seat. The first is Justin Fareed and the second is Michael Woody. Neither are overly impressive. Woody has a more articulated stance on issues and a less cliche campaign focus.

Conservative Pick: Michael Woody

District 25

Steven Knight is opposed by four Democrats. He is a hardcore RINO.

District 26

Republicans Jeffrey Burum and Antonio Sabado Jr. look to take down long time swamp monster Julia Brownie. On the issues, Burum has a clearer Conservative message. Sabado is not a bad candidate, but he comes with more ambiguity.

Conservative Pick: Jeffrey Burum

District 27

There is no non-Democrat option.

District 28

Johnny Nalbandian is the only Republican option in this race.

District 29

Benito Bernal is the only Republican running.

District 30

Mark Reed is the only Republican but is a solid candidate.

District 31

Sean Flynn is the only Republican in this race. He wrote Economics For Dummies.

District 32

Grace Napolitano is unchallenged.

District 33

Kenneth Wright looks to unseat the bumbling Ted Lieu. He is a solid candidate.

District 34

There’s not really a Conservative option here. There’s an anti-military Libertarian candidate.

District 35

Christian Valiente is the only Republican option in this race.

District 36

There are five Republicans running to unseat Raul Ruiz. The most serious contender is Kimberlin Brown Pelzer. She has the endorsement of  Ken Calvert, Paul Cook, and Ed Royce, all RINOs. But she isn’t in position to disavow a friendly endorsement. Her platform is rather weak, giving off the indication that she wouldn’t be a productive Representative on the issues of repealing Obamacare or dealing with DACA and illegal immigrants. Dan Ball is perhaps the RINO in this pack as well. It’s concerning that Pelzer is running to the right of him and he isn’t challenging her claim that he opposes repealing Obamacare. Then there’s Doug Hassett. His platform says a lot of Conservative things and then delves into a statist solution involving ore government.  The other candidates aren’t very serious. Robert Bentley is perhaps the most Conservative, but isn’t viable.

Conservative Pick Kimberlin Brown Pelzer (low confidence)

District 37

Ron Bassilian is the only Republican running in this race.

District 38

Ryan Downing is the only Republican running in this race.

District 39

Seven Republicans are running. Pete Libertore stands out as the most Conservative. He believes all the right things but his viability as a candidate is seriously doubtful. Young Kim has a was in the California assembly. Young Kim is reckless with money and one can’t help but conclude her governance would be the same way. In 2014, she spent $2.3 million on a Assembly seat and won. In 2016 she spent $2.8 million and lost. She sucks at campaigning and cannot be trusted in the top two.

The most threatening candidate seems to be Shawn Nelson. Nelson seems a bit to the right of Trump. While he not the most Conservative candidate in the state, he is particularly strong on the 4th Amendment and the 1st Amendment. We need more Republicans who would vote against government surveillance programs, as they are not only minimally effective but a precurssor for more nefarious threats to our freedom to come. Nelson has enough of a presence to warrant attack ads against him. This race represents the chance to upgrade from RINO Ed Royce. Nelson is the best chance at that.

Conservative Pick: Shawn Nelson

District 40

There is no Republican option.

District 41

Aja Smith is the only Repulbican in this race.

District 42

RINO Ken Calvert is the Republican incumbent. No Republican is challenging him.

District 43

This is Maxine Walters district. There are three Republicans running and the one most poised to defeat her is Omar Navarro. He is a “social media candidate” much like Austen Petersen in Missouri, Brenden Dilley from Arizona, or Bradley Manning in Maryland. He could have a lot of support or it could all be a front.

Conservative Pick: Omar Navarro

District 44

Jazmina Saavedra is the only actively running Republican. Stacey Dash was in the ring but withdrew. However she is still on the ballot and this race is a dismal feat. This isn’t about winning the seat. This is about advancing Conservatism is a place where Hillary dominated.

Conservative Pick: Stacey Dash

District 45

Mimi Walters is the incumbent Republican, another RINO. She is opposed by four democrats and an independent.

District 46

Russell Lambert is the only Republican running in this race.

District 47

John Briscoe and David Clifford are the two Republicans looking to unseat Alan Lowenthal. Briscoe has election experience winning at the local level. Clifford wasn’t to institute tax incentives aimed at small businesses instead of raising the minimum wage. Clifford is creative, but this is messing with the free market in a fiscally irresponsible way. Briscoe has a better grasp on liberty and experience in winning.

Conservative Pick: John Briscoe

District 48

District 49

This was a seriously crowded field. The 39th is a competitive race that the Democrats really want to enhance their fabled Blue Wave. However, this presents a chance to reinforce Conservatives in the house. The two most formidable Republicans are Rocky Chavez and Diane Harkey. This is a surprisingly easy choice. Chavez is a current Assemblyman. His record is unimpressive to put it kindly. He voted in favor of cap and trade and voted to bar landlords from reporting illegal immigrants and allows illegals to sue them if they disclose. Chavez has RINO written all over him. If polling is to be believed, Diane Harkey has pulled ahead of the pack. She has some RINO endorsements but also has Dana Rohrbacher on her side. She’s the most viable option for retaining the seat as it is conceivable that many Conservatives would abandon an illegal immigrant supporting candidate like Chavez in the general.

Conservative Pick: Diane Harkey

District 50

Duncan Hunter is the third best Congressman California has to offer via Conservative Review. To put it in perspective, third place here is surprisingly better in most of the red states so far this union. Hunter is not the most fiscally responsible, particularly because his priority is funding defense. It is also worth noting that he was probably more Conservative before Trump. Still he is the most viable candidate in a field of Democrat challengers.

Conservative Pick: Duncan Hunter

District 51

There are three Republicans in this race. Back for more is Juan Hidalgo Jr. He has lost this race in 2016 and seems to be coasting on the failed endeavor for this time around, as in same exact website and an unused since 2016 Twitter account. Louis Fuentes is another candidate without any real online presence. Lastly John Renison is looking to make the runoff. He has the most active and Conservative campaign in this race. He is strong on life, guns, and seemingly free market.

Conservative Pick: John Renison

District 52

Scott Peters has a giant war chest because this may be competitive. A field of six Republicans thinks they can stick it to him. The three most serious are Omar QudratJames Veltmeyer, and Danny Casara. Omar Qudrat is the choice of the regional GOP. However, his campaign is hardly Conservative and focuses almost exclusively on local issues.  James Veltmeyer is a highly skilled doctor with an emphasis on fixing the healthcare system. He adds ideas to the mix of ideas Conservatives are trying to fix our system with. Danny Casara seems like a good guy. His campaign is coming from the intent to limit government.

Conservative Pick: James Veltmeyer

District 53

The Republican that stands out the most in the 53rd is Morgan Murtaugh. She is 25 adding a youthful voice to the Conservative movement. In the era of Trump, like many Conservatives, she has found herself pleasantly surprised. She has a strong grasp on Liberty and could flip this seat red with the enough resources.

Conservative Pick: Morgan Murtaugh

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Culture and Religion

Snatching Defeat from the jaws of Victory: ‘Writing out’ Most Guns with the Bump-Stock ban.

Published

on

By

Bump Stock

The latest Liberty grabber wave has crested, but Trump is about to give them a tremendous victory over the 2nd amendment.

Now that the Sturm und Drang of the March for gun confiscation has ‘died down’ it has become evident that, much like previous movements of the past, it came to nought aside from some localised suppressions of Liberty. The problem is there a vestige of this assault of freedom that is still rearing it’s ugly head, that of the infamous ban on so-called “Bump-Stocks”.

Those who are rightly concerned about this assault on Liberty can still inscribe their opposition with the Moonshine, Cigarettes and Fire-sticks bureaucracy [Better known as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms – BATF]  pushing through a new ‘law’ that all by himself, Trump has taken to “Writing Out”.  The deadline is June 27, 2018 11:59 PM ET for everyone to post their opposition to this ‘Law’.

First they came for the Bump-Stocks.

For those who may not care about someone else’s concerns over freedom, just be mindful of a reprise of Martin Niemöller Poem starting with the line: “First they came for the Bump-Stocks, and I didn’t object – For I didn’t care about Bump-Stocks…. Soon enough, they get around to coming after the firearms everyone else cares about, and eventually that will be hunting rifles or shotguns. If you chose to remain silent those guns will be “written out” as well.

But don’t just take our word for it, listen to what the Liberty grabbers have stated in bragging about the subject:

Delaney Tarr [March for Our Lives]

When they give us that inch, that bump stock ban, we will take a mile.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.):

Upon being asked if the bill was a slippery slope toward further gun restrictions, she said, “So what? … I certainly hope so.”

Apparently we’re not supposed to notice when the Liberty grabber Left broadcasts their intentions to the world. We’re supposed to let them get a foot in the door of a pretext for further bans before objecting.

Giving up the question.

David Deming over on the American thinker, Made the very important point that sacrificing one more time to the Liberty grabbers of what seems to be nothing is in essence:

If we agree to ban bump stocks because they facilitate rapid firing, we have given up the question. We have agreed in principle that any dangerous gun can be banned and confiscated by an arbitrary executive order. All guns are capable of rapid fire, and all guns are inherently dangerous. Pump-action shotguns can be rapidly fired and reloaded. Jerry Miculek can fire five shots from a double-action revolver in 0.57 seconds. High-capacity magazines most certainly facilitate rapid fire, so they also will have to go. A writer who wants to ban all “private individual ownership of firearms” recently argued that “even bolt-action rifles can still fire surprisingly fast in skilled hands.” He’s right. All magazine-fed guns will be outlawed.

Automatic redefinition.

In point of fact, the ATF previously ruled that Bump-Stocks [and presumably other ways of ‘bump-firing a gun – Fast fingers, Rubber bands and Belt-loops] don’t actually convert ordinary semi-automatic firearms to a “Machine gun” because the trigger has to be pulled for every shot. Now with the President’s authorising this linguistic legerdemain, this definition codified in the law has been blurred to the point that any gun that can be ‘Bump-fired’ could also be banned. However, they can’t very well ban fingers, belt-loops or rubber bands, so they will just ban each and every gun that can fire too fast.

Just ‘Write-out’ this legal requirement and Voila! Any gun that can be fired too fast for the sensibilities of the Liberty grabbers can be thought of as a “Machine Gun” and banned instantly – converting most of the 120 Million gun owners into instant felons. With a bit of training,  most guns can be fired faster, so in essence, letting them change this legal definition could have them ban just about every gun in existence.

The Takeaway.

One might not care about the fate of thousands of inert pieces of plastic or what happens to those who have them. One might not care if someone won’t be able to bump-fire a weapon in this particular way. But we on the Pro-Liberty Right will rue the day that we let this go through in exchange for nothing.

If we let the powers that be arbitrarily proclaim that some guns with these pieces of inert plastic are “Machine Guns’, the day will soon dawn when ALL guns are dishonestly ‘written out’ as the same. It will then just be a slippery slope to everyone having to undergo a background check, registration and of course – TAXES – on guns that we already own. Followed by the inevitable confiscation of those guns.

Those who remain silent now will only have themselves to blame when this happens – so now is the time to stop this dead in it’s tracks. The comment window is only open for a few more days [Jun 27, 2018 11:59 PM ET], make the best of it.

 

Continue Reading

Opinions

Conservative Picks for the Colorado Primary

Published

on

There isn’t too much action in the Colorado Primary, but the race to watch seems to be out of District 5. Colorado is a state that can embrace the grassroots. Doug Lamborn seems to have lost touch with the grassroots due to his struggle at getting on the ballot. As a result of temporarily not being on the ballot, he finds himself in a contested field and is a more vulnerable incumbent. If Lamborn’s reputation can’t recover, Darryl Glenn is poised to capitalize.

Best Pick: Darryl Glenn
Worst Pick: Doug Lamborn
Best Race: District 4
Worst Race: District 3, District 6

District 1

Casper Stockham is the only Republican in this race.

District 2

Peter Yu is the only Republican in this race.

District 3

Scott Tipton is an incumbent RINO. He is unchallenged.

District 4

Ken Buck is Colorado’s most Conservative Congressman. He is unchallenged.

District 5

The first impression from this race is that incumbent Doug Lamborn badmouthed Trump. But rather, Lamborn is in a fight because he had some ballot issues because he was using nonresident signatures or something like that. He survived that court battle but that is only the first battle for in this swamp creature’s quest to stay on top. Looking at his record, he was more Conservative under Obama.

His most serious challenger is Darryl Glenn. Glenn is a candidate with a strong grasp on federalism and separation of powers. He is also running as a fiscal hawk who seems as though he would align with the Freedom Caucus on spending issues. It’ll be interesting to see if Glenn’s Youtube campaign is matched by his ground game. If so, he just might have this.

Conservative Pick: Darryl Glenn

District 6

Mike Coffman is an unchallenged RINO.

District 7

Mark Barrington is the only Republican in this race.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Is Mike Pence too political for church?

Published

on

There have been a lot of talk lately about Mike Pence speaking at the SBC. Many complained claiming it was divisive and political. Jonathan Leeman wrote an article for The Gospel Coalition criticizing the very idea of Mike Pence speaking. I will address this article in greater detail on the points that I agree and disagree with. But first, let me answer the very question I posed: Pence isn’t too political to address a congregation, but his speech was.

In short, Mike Pence’s address offered zero substantive theological content. It was merely about his privilege as serving as Vice President. While acknowledging this privilege merited a short section in the beginning, it needed no more continuation. Instead, Mike Pence droned on and on about his experiences and the administration’s accomplishments.

I think there’s only one way you can sum up this administration: It’s been 500 days of action, 500 days of accomplishment. It’s been 500 days of promises made and promises kept. 

Pence’s address followed a pattern of praising Trump with loosely intertwined references to God and praising his hosts as guest speakers often do. The intertwined religious language while praising the accomplishments, not of God, but of the President is the briefest summation of Pence’s speech to the SBC that can be offered. The only biblical passage cited was Psalm 126 in reference to a story that served as praise to the Trump administration. God wasn’t working though Trump in Pence’s speech. Instead, Trump was working. At the end of his speech, Pence did offer a superficial message about praying for America with a quoting scripture.

Mike Pence had an opportunity to address the leaders of many churches. He blew it. But would all politicians do the same?

Politicians Should Be in the Pew, Not the Pulpit?

Jonathan Leeman’s article for The Gospel Coalition draws this conclusion. He has five reasons for not allowing politicians to address a church event.

  1. No reason to give attention to a politician’s words over a plumber’s or an accountant’s, at least not in our assemblies or associations.
  2. Having a political leader address our churches or associations of churches tempts us to misconstrue our mission.
  3. Undermines our evangelistic and prophetic witness.
  4. Hurts the unity of Christ’s body

Reason one is most certainly true. However, I believe we ought to separate the person from the profession. On the basis of spiritual maturity and calling should a politician or any notable guest address an assembly. This first reason is the one I believe to have the most merit in regards to the situation at hand. Inviting a politician to address a Congregation is wrong if the only reason is that they are a politician. However, if the politician is a member of the church, what is wrong with having a fellow member speak?

Reasons two and three are certainly tied together in there logic. I believe these reasons hold merit for Pence’s sacrelidgious speech but are not inherently true of all politicians who accept such similar offers. Reasons two and three open a multitude of separate issues both independent and dependent on the circumstances. Meaning, yes this could happen, but the degree in which we can mitigate the temptation are limited for Satan is the tempter. In the case of Pence, reason three was definitely true. Many would see that the SBC tied itself to Trump. But that is not the fault of the SBC per se. But that is Pence’s fault for giving a campaign rally speech instead of a message. If Pence gave a theologically sound speech there should be little temptation to misconstrue the mission. The third reason is inevitable. Since the beginning, Christians witness has been undermined by the lies of Satan. The original Christians were thought to be cannibal and even atheists. We can’t always prevent these lies, but it would be good not to validate them which Pence did.

Now hurting the unity of the body of Christ is a weak point. Leeman’s fourth point is basically saying that Pence is too polarizing, because Trump is… Trump, on a National level to address a church. Pence is polarizing, but he was polarizing before Trump. The polarizing premise is true but, assuming Pence is indeed a follower off Christ, this would be the result of living a Christian life. Here’s another polarizing figure: Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cake Shop. Would polarity disqualify him from speaking? If we are to apply national likability to our church speakers, we’re going to end up with a lot of TV personalities who don’t comprehend dyophysitism.

Like Jack Philips, Pence has taken a lot of flak for being a devout Christian. Isn’t this the kind of person who may have a good message to the assembly? Seemingly so. Again Pence under-delivered. To be fair, Leeman clearly states he doesn’t blanket outlaw politicians from speaking.

I can envision a few circumstances where there is some measure of mission overlap that could justify it. Maybe a group of Christian college presidents asks the secretary of education to address them. Or a Christian conference on work asks a Christian congressman to talk about working as a Christian on the Hill, so that attendees can apply the principles to their own settings.

But while it’s not an outlaw, such an unwritten policy places constraints on the church that are not inherently necessary. Leeman supposes some similar justification was used when The Gospel Coalition had Ben Sasse speak. In 2017, Ben Sasse addressed The Gospel Coalition and gave a theological speech. He was noted for sounding more like a pastor than a politician.

To me only two things matter:

  1. Theological substance
  2. Correct theological substance

On these two requirements I think the body of Christ would remain unified with a clear picture of its mission.

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.