Connect with us

Opinions

Conservative Candidates to look out for in Texas Primary

Published

on

Texas has several elections with outsiders looking in and open seats where incumbents are not seeking reelection. The heavy hitting endorsements of Ted Cruz, Greg Abbott, and Rick Perry are sure to have an impact in the Lone Star State during its open primary on March 6th. The Texas Primary has the chance to put reliable conservatives in office as opposed to the fiscally irresponsible RINOs we deal with most often. Candidates who don’t reach majority will have a runoff in the spring.

Anyone but Kathaleen Wall TX-02

Ted Poe is not running for reelection leaving a vacant seat, a theme you will gather from this article. There are many candidates running on the ballot. The worst of which appears to be Kathaleen Wall, a Democrat in disguise as a Republican. However she did snag the endorsement of Governor Abbott and Ted Cruz. Wall is sort of a Donald Trump, in the sense of a political outsider self-funding a campaign. She has poured over $5 million into the race. Her previous history is a political donor, a likely reason she has endorsements. Quite honestly, what’s best is for this race to go onto a runoff. Wall needs to undergo further scrutiny to prove she’s ready for Congress. And quite frankly a lot of questions about her arise. For instance, her opponents say that she voted for Clinton in the Democratic Primary, a questionable move if true. Then there’s also the concern about her buying this election. She’s not what I would call self-made, but she certainly married well. Other interesting candidates in this race are Kevin Roberts, Rick Walker, and Dan Crenshaw. This is not a judgement against Wall, only that I insist that she should not cross the majority threshold so early. Do research on her givings to Texas politics. The Democrats are likely to nominate Todd Litton in a massive effort to flip this seat, but the Blue Wave is still a stretch in a district where the GOP wins 60%+ of the vote for this seat.

Race Rating: Likely Republican

Van Taylor TX-03

Van Taylor serves in the Texas State Senate. His is one of the top conservatives in the legislature. Taylor is strong on both guns and protecting the unborn during his tenure in Texas. In 2016 he had a perfect conservative record in his young political career. This veteran is the real deal for voters seeking a young conservative in Congress. The Texas Third District was held for 25 years by Republican Sam Johnson. Johnson has decided not to seek reelection in November leaving a wide open seat. For Conservatives, this is a sold chance to upgrade to a stronger government limiting politician.

The Democrats don’t have as much of a chance in this election, as the Texas 3rd is a safe Republican seat. As for Van Taylor, he is the most formidable candidate with a lot of cash on hand and a powerful endorsement by Ted Cruz. This race is likely his.

Race Rating: Solid Republican

Jason Wright TX-05

In yet another race without an incumbent, their seem to be options for the voter of Texas 5th. This election will be decided on the primary seeing as Democrats don’t field a candidate every time. The most well backed candidate is Kenneth Sheets a former State Rep. who was voted out of a swing seat in 2016. He’s a former Marine and reliable conservative.

Howerver I like the potential for Jason Wright who worked on the Cruz Campaign in 2016 which earned him an endorsement from Ted. Something about his foresight in this appeals to me. And he just comes off as likable.

Race Rating: Solid Republican

Ron Wright or Jake Ellzey TX-06

Longtime Congressman Joe Barton is not seeking reelection, leaving a wide open race to fill the likely red seat. Leading the GOP is Ron Wright, the Tarrant County Tax Assessor. Wright has a long history of public service and has earned the endorsement of Ted Cruz. Wright has a lot of local backing as well as funding.

The other formidable Conservative is Jake Ellzey, a veteran Navy fighter pilot. His twitter seems dedicated to remembering the fallen and taking better care of veterans is a top campaign priority. Ellzey earned the endorsement of former Governor Rick Perry to counter the Cruz endorsement of Wright, along with “Lone Survivor” Marcus Luttrell.

Both these candidates seem like they would be reliable representatives for Conservatism. For fiscal conservatism, I have to go with Ellzey whose campaign is focused on security issues (border and immigration included) and reducing government. On social issues and federalism, Ron Wright has a slight edge. I won’t blame a conservative for voting either way, just keep it a friendly competition which AZ08 should have been. And if it goes to a runoff, then may the best man win.

Race Rating: Solid Republican

Ted Cruz endorsed incumbent, John Culberson. However, Culberson is not, by definition, a fiscal conservative. Even with an (R) in the Whitehouse, he has done nothing to promote fiscal responsibility. The TX-06 deserves term limits. Edward Ziegler is running on these very points. His campaign stresses the liberal spending of Culberson and he is running counter to that. His website acknowledges that taxpayer money is not the government’s to freely spend. In this seat, the people need to enact term limits. Culberson has been in for over a decade, and the Democrats pose little opposition. Ziegler is the conservative choice in this race.

Race Rating: Lean Republican

This is another race that has leftist salivating because it is a seat being vacated by Rep. Lamar Smith. The field is wider than any of the others. The seeming frontrunner is Chip Roy, former Chief of Staff to Ted Cruz, senior advisor to Rick Perry. He’s definitely an insider, even having worked with RINO, John Cornyn. Roy has been groomed for office and now is his chance. The home page of his website conveys a lot of fatigue with campaign conservatives who then turn RINO. In this wide open race, I’d trust Chip Roy.

Race Rating: Solid Republican

Alma Arredondo-Lynch is a political outsider seeking to unseat Republican Will Hurd. Hurd is one of the most leftist GOP Congressmen in the House. The Conservative Review Liberty Score gives him a 35%, the worst of any Texan Republican. Will Hurd also called on Trump to drop out of the race over his locker-room talk tape.

Arrendondo-Lynch on the other hand has every sign of being real conservative. On her website she quips at Hurd’s leftism stating “My opponent is the only “Republican” from the State of Texas to vote in favor of Obama’s transgender bill, forcing employers to allow these transgenders to use the women’s bathrooms. It had never been a problem before.  I grew up using transgender bathrooms; they were called outhouses.” She’s strong on guns and immigration. She’s unafraid of acknowledging the RINO in the room.

The Texas 23rd is a battleground race that the Democrats are looking to capture. I would argue that Republicans are most in danger nominating a RINO. It’s not a winning strategy, but is a likely outcome.

Race Rating: Toss-Up

Continue Reading
Advertisement
2 Comments

2 Comments

  1. Curtis Patranella

    March 5, 2018 at 9:28 pm

    An endorsement from Ted Cruz is enough of a reason NOT to vote for someone. Ted talks about liberty, but never delivers. He is a wolf in shepherd’s clothing.

    • Ray Fava

      March 5, 2018 at 10:15 pm

      I completely understand your lack of optimism in regards to Cruz. He’s been slipping in my book as well. He’s made some good endorsements and some bad endorsements with no consistency except maybe friendship. I’m still a fan but not a huge one.

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.