Connect with us

Opinions

Conservative Picks for the Kansas Primary

Published

on

I was interested to see if Kansas would look more like Nebraska or Oklahoma. By far Nebraska won. The Kansas GOP is in disarray. The Democrats are in such bad shape in Kansas, they ran as Republicans and won. Every Representative in the House is a RINO. Only one has a Conservative challenger. Each race however, is interesting in some respect. The 2nd District takes the cake for having the best chance to send a real conservative to DC. And that’s only because its a vacated seat. This seat could be in trouble because Paul Davis has $1000000 and a unified front to in the fabled blue wave to help him. The Kansas Primary has little chance of unseating any incumbents, nor would it really be of use to unseat the third or fourth district representatives.

Best Picks: Caryn Tyson, Nick Reinecker
Worst Picks: Roger Marshall, Ron Estes (both)
Best Race: District 2
Worst Race: District 4

District 1

After one term, Roger Marshall has proven to be an establishment hack. He is by no means Conservative. He is being challenged by Nick Reinecker. Reinecker’s first impression is strong enough to cast few doubts on his ability to be a better Representative than Marshall. He even comes with a promise to not vote for any bills with pork in them.

Conservative Pick: Nick Reinecker

District 2

District 2 is the race with the most action in Kansas Primary. A strong red district with a vacant seat is sure to create a feeding frenzy for Conservatives and big government Republicans alike. But Democrats have a million dollar candidate looking to make this seat competitive. The GOP has a trio of “young guns” vying for the nomination. On the outside, they all look strong, two state senators and an engineer. Steve Fitzgerald and Caryn Tyson are both in the State Senate. They are both more conservative than the average which says more about the Kansas legislature. Both are willing to buck the party line, but Caryn Tyson’s record is stronger. Enter the outsider, Steve Watkins. Watkins is claiming to be the outsider. He has the endorsement of RINO Roger Marshall, a red flag in a race such as this. He has no political history, and his positions are vague, which is less helpful when there’s no track record. Aside from being an outsider, its hard to see Steve Watkins as the pick in this race. Caryn Tyson presents a much safer option. She knows how to operate in the midst of several RINOs.

Conservative Pick: Caryn Tyson

District 3

Kevin Yoder has the highest Liberty Score of any Kansas politician. Yet he voted for omnibus. He is running against a RINO, Trevor Keegan. Keegan claims to be fiscally conservative and socially moderate. In politics, this is just a fancy way of saying you support a entitlement and defense spending. He would not uphold the Second Amendment. He doesn’t realize, as a challenger campaign finance reform has drastically reduced his chances, and is leftist on healthcare, immigration, and reversing the tax cuts. Tell me how believable his claims of reducing spending are.

Conservative Pick: Kevin Yoder

District 4

This race was spooky from the start. It features incumbent Ron Estes against Ron Estes. Incumbent Ron Estes is a RINO politician. Now will the real Ron Estes please stand up? That is what Ron M. Estes calls himself. But he’s a bigger RINO than the fake Ron Estes! He’s a Never-Trumper that went left like Rick Wilson and does nothing but complain about Trump. He supports Obamacare and gun control. he’s smart though. Running against the Congressman with the same name will surely give you a confusion bump, even if the ballot mentions the fake Ron Estes is labeled incumbent.

Conservative Pick: None

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Economy

To those who don’t care about the national debt, consider this

Published

on

To those who dont care about the national debt consider this

The national debt has been growing dramatically for decades. It’s so great that most Americans seem to dismiss it altogether; if we haven’t been harmed by it already, it obviously can’t hurt us, right? This sort of “head in the sand” thinking is why lawmakers refuse to tackle it. As long as the people don’t seem to care, why should they?

It’s time to care. It’s been time to care for a while but the collective ignoring of it has brought it to the level that now, in 2018, we are nearing the point of no return.

Why? Because the astronomical interest is now going to noticeably affect how the government operates. We’ve spent years pretending like the interest isn’t a big deal even though it was growing to unsustainable levels during the Clinton administration. Now, we’re seeing it reach levels that are tangible. Why? Because the cost to cover it is now great enough that other areas are going to need to be cut.

In 2017, the interest on our debt was $263 billion. That’s 6.6% of federal government spending. We’re on track to spend more on interest than Medicaid in 2020 and more on interest than defense by 2023. Let me repeat that:

By 2023, we will spend more in interest on the national debt than we spend on national defense.

Normally, we can take CBO predictions with a grain of salt because they’re usually off (see Obamacare predictions for CBO’s epic failures) but this one relies on simple math. Even in a humming economy with the best case scenarios in play, you can’t overcome interest without paying down the debt.

Neither Democrats nor Republicans have any intention of paying off the debt. This is why candidate Trump went from promising to pay off the national debt in eight years, then ten years, then paying part of it off, then finally proclaiming himself the “king of debt” – all within the period of one month on the campaign trail.

To get the national debt in line will require an ironclad commitment backed by irrevocable legislation that spans two- to four-decades. It means entitlement reform, budget limits, cutting entire agencies and possibly even departments, and commitments to rein in all forms of discretionary spending.

In other words, the only way to get the national debt to a manageable level – not even getting it to zero but somewhere much lower than it is – would require commitments by politicians that none of them are willing to make. Oh, there might be a couple of Senators and a handful of Congressmen who would embrace such measures, but even those ones won’t buck the system to the point that they’d push hard for it without a mandate by voters.

We are the only hope for the very near future. If Americans don’t care that our tax dollars are being used to pay interest on the mountainous debt that has been accumulated in recent years, let alone the debt that preceded it, then we shouldn’t expect politicians to care, either. This can has been kicked down the road for decades, but the road is coming to a very abrupt end soon. It’s beyond unsustainable. We’re on the verge of collapsing under the weight of our own mistakes.

As long as voters ignore the national debt, neither party will pay attention to it, either. We will drown in our own ignorance if we don’t act soon. In the past, they said the debt will affect our children and grandchildren. Now, the debt is starting to affect us.

Continue Reading

Opinions

Orange County didn’t turn blue because of Trump. It turned blue because of fiscal irresponsibility.

Published

on

Orange County didnt turn blue because of Trump It turned blue because of fiscal irresponsibility

The “angry suburban backlash” against President Trump is what many analysts and commentators blame for the reversal in control of the House of Representatives. It’s partially correct, but there’s a bigger challenge for the GOP: red-leaning population centers like Orange County that seem to be shifting blue as well.

The suburbs may have the voters the Republicans need, but heavily populated affluent areas like Orange County have the money Republicans need.

Orange County just went from mostly red to totally blue in the House of Representatives. It has as many or more congressional districts than over half the states in the country. And until this year, four of them could be counted as “leaning-” or “solid-Republican.”

Now, they are all blue.

Democrats Complete Sweep of Orange County, Once a GOP Haven

https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/democrats-sweep-orange-county-once-a-gop-strongholdWith Democrat Gil Cisneros’ victory in California’s 39th District, Democrats have defeated all four Republicans in Orange County, an area former President Ronald Reagan once referred to as the place “where the good Republicans go before they die.”

Cisneros, a Navy veteran and lottery winner, defeated former GOP state Assemblywoman Young Kim in the increasingly diverse 39th District. He had garnered 50.8 percent of the vote compared to Kim’s 49.2 percent when the Associated Press called the race nearly two weeks after Election Day. He won by roughly 3,500 votes.

This is a bigger deal than most realize and has national implications. It demonstrates two things quite clearly. First, the organizational structures of the party in California and the local area are abysmal. They have been for a while, but Orange County survived their bumbling because the GOP held a favorable fiscal reputation here. Second, President Trump’s influence is limited in areas where higher education and income levels make up the bulk of voters.

Tax cuts weren’t the big winner in places like Orange County because they weren’t accompanied by spending cuts. Fiscal responsibility is more important in areas like Orange County than other Republican strongholds. Local publications lambasted Congress and the White House when they passed spending bills that would make President Obama blush.

In California, we live with a state government that spends incessantly. We don’t want a federal government that does the same.

If the GOP doesn’t start acting like the party that wants lower spending, they have no chance of regaining a foothold in areas that are less concerned about kneeling football players and more concerned about budget deficits and the national debt.

Continue Reading

Guns and Crime

Gun rights activists: Stop acting like we don’t hold every high ground

Published

on

Gun rights activists Stop acting like we don't hold every high ground

Forgive me if I offend any of my fellow gun rights activists. It’s my intention to educate, not irritate. But I’ve become increasingly annoyed by arguments that play into the leftist agenda. We have the high ground. When you have the high ground, you don’t go down to the enemy’s level. We hold the high ground.

We hold the moral high ground. For every mass shooting incident that takes lives, there are dozens of stories that don’t get nearly the same attention but demonstrate how gun owners prevent crimes. They’re out there defending themselves and others from people who would do them harm.

We hold the intellectual high ground. Where do most gun crimes occur? Where gun laws are obtuse. Chicago is the shining example of how obtuse gun laws prevent citizens from defending themselves. How often do we see gun violence in gun free zones?

We hold the historical high ground. The first thing a government does before turning against its people is take away the people’s ability to defend their rights. One of the most common leftist arguments is that Americans have no reason to fear oppression from the government. This is a backwards argument as it has been shown on multiple occasions that the government was hampered from oppressing American citizens because of the presence of weapons. It’s naive to think the government would never try to oppress us. History shows they already have at times and certainly will again in the future.

We hold the constitutional high ground. This needs no explanation.

We hold the emotional high ground. This is hard for most to understand since it’s emotional responses to mass shooting that usually prompt calls for gun control. That’s exactly why we hold the emotional high ground. As long as we remain consistent and stop operating in the leftists’ emotional echo chambers, we can maintain control of the emotional argument. It’s easy for people to be affected by senseless violence, but that’s no reason to ignore common sense or logical discipline.

What gets to me is when gun rights activists start making arguments such as logistics. I cringe every time I see stats about how many AR rifles are owned. The argument that there are so many out there it would be impractical to take them away is ludicrous. It’s like saying, “You may be right to want to take away guns but it would be too hard.”

The push for gun control is gaining momentum. We cannot give the gungrabbers an inch. We don’t need to. Our arguments are righteous. The only way they’ll win is if we let them distract us and bring us down to fighting on their level.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report