Connect with us

Opinions

Conservative candidates to look out for in Illinois Primary

Published

on

The traditionally though of as blue state, does fallow the trend of other blue states where more rural counties vote more Republican and urbanized areas vote Democrat. That being said, Illinois has a lot to offer in the 2018 Primary. What’s remarkable about Republicans in this state is that they are keeping the Democrats honest fielding a candidate in most races. What is highly disappointing is the lack of Republicans that aren’t RINOs running in the race. So many are just as uninformed on guns as liberals in the media. And too many have ideas for healthcare other than repealing Obamacare. DACA is a split issue, and Trump, surprisingly, is a nonissue in most, if not all, of these races. Another side note, is that Illinois has a very low presence of 3rd Party candidates, so the Libertarian Party wasn’t put into much consideration. Nor were endorsement all that meaningful.

Best Picks: Max Rice, Jitendra Diganvker, Connor Vlakancic, Preston Nelson, James Marter, Bill Fawell, Donald Rients
Worst Picks: Author Jones, John Morrow, John Elleson, D. Vincent Thomas Jr., Jeremy Wynes, Sapan Shah, Mike Bost, Adam Kinzinger
Best Race: District 16
Worst Race: District 10
Favorite Candidates: Connor Vlakancic & Preston Nelson

District 1

Standing in the red corner is Jimmy Lee Tillman II facing off against Bobby Rush. This isn’t his first time making a run for the seat, but this time he is unopposed in the GOP Primary. Though it seems he runs to serve as an opposition to Rush rather than to win. Tillman seems like a different kind of Republican which one would have to be running in Chicago. For his willingness to shut down underutilized military bases and government offices, Tillman seems fiscally responsible. Either way Chicago conservatives don’t seem to have much other alternative than Tillman who is the founder of the MLK Republicans.

District 2

This is a solid blue district also, but conservatives should steer clear of John Morrow. If Conservative ideals are to gain traction in the district they ought to be led by someone who isn’t a RINO. From this online interview, he opposed eliminating the Obamacare mandate, thinks there’s a gun show loophole, opposes Israel, and is open to accepting North Korea as a nuclear power. I’ll take a Democrat over this guy. David Merkle is a better pick for Conservatives as he is more focused on working for constituents and not the system.

District 3

No Republican decided to oppose Arthur Jones, so I would urge Conservatives to write in a nomination. Please coordinate if you want to vote Republican. Otherwise it seems as though Daniel Lipinski is the candidate of choice. He is one of the few pro-life Democrats in Congress and has one of the most interesting primaries of Democrats this year. A pro-life Democrat is better than a neo-nazi.

District 4

Longtime swamp-dweller, Luis Gutierrez announced retirement. Mark Wayne Lorch is the only Republican in the race. Meanwhile three Democrats eagerly thirst to replace Gutierrez in this highly gerrymandered seat. Lorch seems like a good choice, in the sense that he is running on a tax cuts friendly platform. Not too much other information can be gathered, not even a website.

District 5

Tom Hanson appears to be the only Republican running, but he’s just a placeholder.

District 6

Here we actually have a Republican incumbent, Peter Roskam. Roskam is a run in the mill Republican, reliable on votes and Democrats are mounting an attack for his seat. Roskam is unopposed in his primary. He is also the best hope of thwarting the Blue Wave.

District 7

The GOP front runner is likely Jeffrey Leef. Leef is strong conservative on a multitude of issues, Israel, immigration, and is quite knowledgeable on economics. However on two polarizing issues, I see weakness. He’s weak on protecting the 2nd Amendment despite stating that gun control does not curb violence and states we need background checks, something we already have. He also indicated being in favor of laws capping people’s ability to stockpile. On matters of healthcare, he seems more focused on replacing Obamacare, than repealing it. But his “replacement” is a lot of fluff. He talks about phasing out the ACA and moving it towards a more fiscally responsible system which hardly explains what he wants to do. Meanwhile his opponent is Craig Cameron. On the issues, Cameron comes off as a Big Government Republican, though his heart may be in the right place. He wants more jobs, believing that will make a safer community(Chicago). His means of getting that are merely scaling back government and its regulations. Rather he’s in favor of tax incentives and limited subsidies (a step-up from most of Capital Hill.) On a local level, I think Cameron would make an excellent politician. On a national level, he doesn’t stand out as particularly strong. This is a tough choice for conservatives.

District 8

Another unopposed Republican going up against an incumbent Democrat. Jitendra Diganvker or JD is looking to take back the seat once held by social media commentator, Joe Walsh. JD seems like he would be a solid representative of his district seeing his emphasis on not making the financial lives of his constituents harder. This shapes his positions on both taxes and the national debt. JD is a solid choice for Conservatives, and if he plays his cards right, he can make this a competitive race.

District 9

In the ninth, we have broader competition for the nomination, four candidates. John Elleson quickly falls out of serious consideration because he is apparently an avid fan of Joel Osteen, the Prosperity Gospel preacher. He’s a pastor of some presumably apostate church. He has gotten in some legal trouble for thievery which he and his wife pled no contest to. Do not vote for this crooked fraud. Then there’s Max Rice, who by all means is a solid pick. He’s strong on guns, healthcare, and has a sensible grasp on all things Trump. I also believe conservatives will like how he will deal with congressional staffing and budgets. I really enjoyed his interview here. Then we have Sargis Sangari both a veteran and an entrepreneur. though he seems likable on foreign policy and immigration, he also seems to be government heavy on anything criminal justice reform. Last but least is the RINO candidate D. Vincent Thomas Jr. The guy can’t answer a specific policy question head on and has every inclination of supporting social leftism. He’s anti-gun, against repealing Obamacare, but has the balls to run as a Republican. The Conservative pick here is Max Rice.

District 10

The tenth is a swing district, one that a rising red tide may capture pending the right candidate. There is a three way battle among Republicans to take on Democrat, Brad Schneider. First in the ring is Doug Bennett. Bennett is a local public servant looking for to represent his district. He has the endorsement from local organizations and Joe Walsh. However, Bennett was not in favor of Trump’s tax cuts. The tax cuts capped state tax deductions hurting the Illinois population. Rather than lowering state taxes, Bennett would rather raise the cap. This type of thinking is a serious issue. He is also uninformed on guns recommending legislation that already is law. But it looks like we may be desperate to find a quality candidate. There is Jeremy Wynes, the pro-abortion candidate. It’s interesting how many Congressional candidates are running with student debt in their platform and few other issues, and then offer no solutions. There’s also his main rival Dr. Sapan Shah. Both of their websites are filled with fluff, and weak explanation on their policy beliefs. Words like “common sense” are meaningless if you don’t say the solution. Shah is also pro-abortion and like Wynes isn’t strong on healthcare. I guess Joe Walsh’s assessment was right that Bennett was the only Conservative, but I’ll use that word lightly for now.

District 11

This is a particularly weak looking race between Nick Stella and Connor Vlakancic. I thought I wouldn’t like Stella because he was media endorsed, but he seems to have concise policy explanations as well. He surprisingly has a strong stance on the 2nd Amendment. On DACA the two disagree, with Vlakancic in favor of zero path to citizenship. Vlakancic has a surprisingly deeper history in politics with involvement on Newt Gingrich’s “Contract with America.” The sharped tongue Vlakancic is stronger on guns than the others in the state and also strong on healthcare. As far as Conservatives go, he’s the real deal.

District 12

Incumbent Mike Bost looks to defend his seat. The guy is a proven RINO with a Liberty Score of 35%, a common theme among Illinois Republicans. However Preston Nelson is the Austin Petersen of Illinois. He is a pro-life libertarian running as a Republican. If he doesn’t win and likely won’t knowing seeing how RINOs performed in Texas, I hope he doesn’t give up. Nelson is a top pick out of Illinois.

District 13

Another RINO, Rodney Davis is running unopposed.

District 14

We have another Republican incumbent, perhaps the most conservative, running unopposed. Randy Hultgren is a solid choice over a Democrat counterpart.

District 15

John Shimkus is another unopposed incumbent, but a RINO.

District 16

Adam Kinzinger is the worst rated Illinois Republican on Conservative Review. Thankfully someone is challenging him. This is a safer red district. Rising to the challenge is James Marter, the candidate who in 2016 lost a in the general election for US Senate. Marter is a solid Conservative and hopefully his failed Senate campaign left him with a foundation of supporters. Marter makes it immediately clear that he supports the 2nd Amendment, a recent top priority for candidate selection. He is also for repealing Obamacare, something that should go without saying but doesn’t after 2017. Marter is a top pick in Illinois.

District 17

Bill Fawell looks to have a fighting chance in the Illinois 17th. He is Libertarian leaning and an outsider running on not being bought. Fawell is a solid choice for Liberty lovers everywhere. From his knowledge of the Constitution to his outsider perspective, opposing the system of DC as it currently is. Fawell is a top pick in Illinois.

District 18

Darin LaHood is one of two Illinois Republicans that doesn’t have an F Liberty Score. That being said, he’s not getting a nomination unopposed. This was only LaHood’s first official term, but that’s not deterring Donald Rients. Rients stance’s are centered around small government Conservatism. That is why they are few and principled. If we give LaHood more time, he will likely show his RINO horn. I’d say Rientz is the pick here in the 18th.

Advertisement

0

Entertainment and Sports

XFL unveils teams. Names great. Logos not so much.

Published

on

XFL unveils teams Names great Logos not so much

The team names are in for Vince McMahon’s XFL, his response to the NFL’s growing dissatisfaction. Before today, the cities were announced in rather large markets, signaling a direct confrontational strategy with the NFL in multiple markets, though in a different portion of the year. The emerging league unveiled its team names and logos this afternoon. The Team names overall seem to be well-received. The logos, in contrast reveal a certain lacking of creativity. The team names and logo judgement are as follows

Dallas Renegades

The logo looks like it came out of a create a team mode on Madden. Not really a fan of the name because a renegade is basically a deserter. Outlaws would have been a better word choice and would sound better because its four syllables, not five.

Houston Roughnecks

This is an excellent team name that pays homage to the community around it. The logo resembles the Houston Oilers, in that they are the same thing, though Roughnecks is more colloquial and blue collar sounding. Overall solid.

LA Wildcats

Hate the team name. It’s 2019 and your team name is the Wildcats? I would joke with my wife when filling out NCAA March Madness brackets about how many Wildcats there were, Kentucky, Villanova, etc. The logo I understand because of the marketability.

New York Guardians

Fantastic name and logo. It kind of has a superhero feel while at the same time a Gothic gargoyle vibe.

St. Louis Battle Hawks

Points for originality. War Eagle was taken. Bird are too generic, but they spiced it up a little bit

Seattle Dragons

It’s risky to go with dragons and pull it off. I think the Seattle Dragons fall short. This logo has also garnered criticism for similarities to UAB.

Image

Tampa Bay Vipers

The logo is a “V” depicting a snake’s eye. Clever, simple, original enough. No complaints. The reptile community is well represented in the XFL.

DC Defenders

The alliteration is the only reason I like this team name. Washington DC does not have a proud military history, getting burned down during the War of 1812, in which the subsequent Battle of Baltimore saved the union. DC Swamp or DC Debt would have paid more accurate respects to the community. better. So again, I don’t get it, but the alliteration works extremely well.

Final Thoughts

That’s the quick rundown of the eight teams the XFL has announced. Compared to the failed AAF, I do not like the team names or logos early as much. The choice naming of the San Antonio Commanders was enough to make me a fan. The Fleet, Apolllos, Hotshots, and Iron were also well-crafted team names. Comparatively, the XFL is generic. But keep in mind the NFL has it’s fair share of bad team names with bad or dull logos. To list a few: Browns, Jets, Giants, Packers. Major League Baseball is also unimmune. So we need to remove the bias that gives the existing team names we have grown accustom to a relative free pass.

The AFF had great team names and great football, but the XFL doesn’t exceed this, but at least they don’t plan to dump scarce money into a failed app. Overall, this announcement was enough to give the league added legitimacy in its daunting quest to challenge the NFL.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Democrats

America desperately needs the biggest red wave ever in 2020

Published

on

America desperately needs the biggest red wave ever in 2020

I supported a Democrat once in high school. Oklahoma’s David Boren believed in lowering taxes and reducing government intervention in business and individuals’ lives. He was once praised by conservative stalwart Barry Goldwater as someone who should be President of the United States. But he retired before I had the opportunity to vote for him. The best I could do was support his campaign from high school. That was 1990. Democrats were different then.

Today’s Democratic Party is a dumpster fire. It’s a phrase that’s often used, perhaps too often, but I personally use it only when referring to the most egregious examples of chaos and dysfunction. The Democratic Party of 2019 and 2020 qualifies.  It’s not just their lack of unity or the disestablishment of clear leadership. That will come once they nominate a presidential candidate. But there are only a few sane candidates in the mix, and none of them are actually in the mix based on polls. All of the frontrunners and anyone within striking distance is worse than any candidate the Democrats have put forth in modern history. Yes, that includes Joe Biden, who is not the “common sense” Democrat many seem to believe he is. He’s just as unhinged, much more malleable, and clearly more clueless than any of the others. And that’s saying a lot.

When Barack Obama was elected President, a lot of Republicans thought it was the end of the world. I saw him as a risk to the cultural stability of the nation, and I was right. I saw Obamacare as a stepping stone to single-payer because it was bound to fail miserably, and I was right. What I didn’t see was how he would leave the progressive wing of the party feeling unfulfilled. He didn’t meet the promises they imposed on him of transforming America towards their version of “justice.” He made strides. That much is clear. But he wasn’t the existential threat to American society that they wanted so desperately.

In other words, I saw President Obama as someone who would damage the country, but not beyond mitigation. We’re seeing this to be true as President Trump reverses policies and fixes many of the challenges President Obama imposed on this nation. I didn’t buy into the slogan that he would “Make America Great Again” during the election, but I was wrong. I expected him to be above average, staving off the judicial tyranny Hillary Clinton would have brought upon us. But he has far exceeded my expectations. He really is doing many of the things this country needs. When I’m right, I’ll say it. When I’m wrong, I’ll admit it.

There have been mistakes. Arguably the biggest was allowing his advisers to keep him from pressing for the wall and shutting down the government if necessary long before the 2018 election. They said they’d get it done afterwards. Big mistake. The ensuing battles following the mini-blue-wave of the midterm elections that lost the House for the GOP were damaging to the President and counteracted progress made at the border. In effect, the lack of GOP action reversed progress and opened up the floodgates of illegal immigration.

President Trump’s second term is necessary, but there is a big difference between a second term with GOP control of the House and Senate and a second term fighting Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, or both. It’s not a slight difference. It’s not a big difference. It’s a gigantic difference. If Democrats retain control of the House, gain control of the Senate, or both, President Trump’s 2nd term will be legislative stalemate and constant battles with the judiciary over his attempts to do something by executive order. If the GOP can retain control of the Senate and take back control of the House, his second term can be monumental.

But it’s more than just promoting the Trump agenda. 2020 needs to be a referendum against the Democratic Party for bowing to their radical progressive wing. Nancy Pelosi may be Speaker of the House, but “The Squad” has increasingly been given attention to speak on behalf of the House. And Democratic leadership doesn’t see it. They sit in their committee meetings or caucus gatherings and think “The Squad” is a minor thorn in their side. But in real America outside of the beltway, Democrats are becoming disciples of the Green New Deal. They’re becoming vocal proponents of Medicare-for-All. They’re protesting ICE and calling for open borders. They’re joining Antifa in calls for socialism.

2020 must be a purge of the radicals in DC who are bent on destroying America. The Democratic Party must suffer cataclysmic losses at the ballot box, not just for President but for as many elected offices as possible.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

We don’t need ‘red flag’ gun confiscation laws. The solution to the problem is already in place.

Published

on

By

We dont need red flag gun confiscation laws The solution to the problem is already in place

Laws for Civil Commitment procedures that also protect due process are in place in every state -‘crisis’ solved QED.

The Authoritarian Socialist Left keeps on insisting that there is a ‘serious crisis’ and that Gun Confiscation SWATing laws are desperately needed before anyone can rationally think through their true implications of destroying due process and the presumption of innocence.

The problem for the Left is that there really isn’t a ‘crisis’ since there are laws on the books to handle situations where someone may be a danger to themselves. We have already proven this here, therefore, there is no reason to implement these draconian measures that will serve to eviscerate multiple parts of the bill of rights in one fell swoop. Thus the solution to this problem should be pretty straightforward, point this out to everyone and move on to other issues of greater importance.

Solving the problem by simply pointing out that the solution already exists.

We supposedly need to discuss this issue immediately, without any delay. Fine, it is just a matter of having President Trump or Senate Majority Leader McConnell schedule a formal announcement on this allegedly intractable issue. This announcement would simply reiterate that laws for Civil Commitment are already on the books, so there is no reason to waste precious time in debating a non-issue. We also have the added bonus that these laws also protect civil Liberties, something of primary importance for those of us on the pro-Liberty Right.

It will be a formal announcement that there is absolutely no reason for these laws, followed with a press kit detailing Civil Commitment procedures in every state. Then it will be logical to ask why the authoritarian Left keeps on demanding news laws for a problem that has already been solved. Please note that they are essentially doing that on the Intergalactic Background Check issue, since these also already exist, but that’s a separate issue.

Consider the reasons why the politicians should accept this elegant solution to the problem:

  • It wouldn’t require any new laws.
  • It wouldn’t take any political wrangling.
  • It would solve the problem immediately.
  • It would protect the bill of rights –specifically the 2nd, 4th, 5 and 6th amendments.
  • It will resolve the situation with minimum trouble.

Why aren’t the politicians already calling for this perfect solution to the problem?

There are only two reasons why this perfect solution has not been brought forward by the legislators on either side. Either they don’t know the law – which is absurd – or they want the power they would attain from ‘Red Flag’ Gun Confiscation.

Legislators really have only one job – to understand and perfect the law. They should have already known about this solution. This means they only have one reason to push for Gun Confiscation SWATing laws. These politicians would clearly like to expand their own power, even now, Democratic presidential contender Kamala Harris is salivating at confiscating the guns of those merely accused of ‘thought Crime’.
Who know what clever ways they will develop for their new-found power? We’ve already shown that these laws don’t work as advertised, that they have caused more problems than they have solved and they are a civil rights nightmare. Why are they being imposed by the government to solve a problem that has been already addressed?

The Bottom-Line.

This editorial could have been just two lines – the headline and the subhead – summarizing the whole point. Solving the problem that gun Confiscation SWATing is supposed to address is simply a matter of following existing law. The same could be said for liberticidal Leftist power grabs – Intergalactic Background Checks, the ‘Assault Weapon’ scam.. er ban and most everything else. It’s already illegal for felons and others to possess firearms. Thus, these measures are like making things double secret, illegal, in the vain hope that people who don’t follow the law [hence the term ‘lawbreaker’] will suddenly do so because of the magic of a new law on the books.

In the specific example here, the laws already exist and they protect due process. Politicians on both sides of the aisle simply need to step up and use them instead of trying to use the latest ‘serious crisis’ to grab even more power for themselves.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending