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.

Opinions

The seven fears that should be driving every conservative to vote

Published

on

The seven fears that should be driving every conservative to vote

Tight political campaigns are a balancing act. Those experienced with influencing elections, from campaign managers to journalists to PACs to the politicians themselves, understand that they need to mix the excitement that comes from the possibility of victory with the fear that comes with the possibility of defeat.

This election has seen an ebb and flow between the two, making both sides mix the message in a haphazard manner unlike anything we’ve seen in recent years. The Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, sex scandal, and Senate vote started the disruption and everything that’s happened since has seen both Republicans and Democrats struggle for balance in their messaging.

They don’t know when to pump their fists and when to scream about the boogeyman.

Everyone knows what can happen when the message is imbalanced. We saw it in 2016. It wasn’t until literally a day or two before the election that Hillary Clinton was finally told she had a chance of losing. Up until that point it was practically a foregone conclusion that she would win. Journalists and her campaign overplayed the excitement side of the election in hopes that it would discourage GOP voters from even going to the polls. This is a technique especially useful in helping win lower elections in a presidential year. In other words, they were trying to eliminate hope of Donald Trump’s chances so they’d have a chance of winning back the Senate as well.

It didn’t work out well for them.

Today, neither side is making that mistake. They’re carefully mixing in calls for excitement to juice up the base with warning bells of fear to drive less-enthusiastic voters to the polls.

This would all be a moot point if it weren’t for the fact that Americans are not very good at getting out to vote. We’re great at griping about it on social media or putting up screensavers on our office computers, but elections in general and midterm elections in particular do not draw the masses. Early voting and mail-in ballots have helped, but it’s not enough. Millions who have interest in the outcome of the election will not actually vote this year. That’s why the message from the GOP side needs to focus on fear for the final two weeks.

  1. Fear of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.
  2. Fear of President Trump nominating the next Anthony Kennedy instead of the next Antonin Scalia.
  3. Fear that the GOP agenda will be derailed if they lose majorities in either the House or the Senate.
  4. Fear that the border wall will never be built and caravans will be trekking north every week.
  5. Fear of President Trump being stuck in the same deadlock that caused President Obama to rely on executive orders instead of legislation.
  6. Fear of Democrats building momentum ahead of the 2020 elections.
  7. Fear that the economy will start a nosedive literally moments after election results come in if Democrats win.

Which of the seven fears is most concerning to you? Click the “Tweet” button next to the one that keeps you awake at night the most.

Conservatives should be scared. They must be if the GOP is going to retain control of the House and Senate. A healthy dose of fear driving people to the polls is the only thing that can keep a conservative agenda on track.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

What’s at stake: Nancy ‘Slippery Slope’ Pelosi wants to control your property

Published

on

By

What's at stake: Nancy ‘Slippery Slope’ Pelosi wants to control your property

Mrs. Hope for a slippery slope has promised the critical step to gun confiscation – Intergalactic Background Checks [Universal, Enhanced, etc.]

Anyone paying attention to the Left’s ongoing war on Liberty should take notice of the Red flag Nancy ‘Slippery slope’ Pelosi just ran up the pole. She stated that so-called universal background checks would be among Democrats’ top priorities if the party wins control of the House in the midterm elections. These are in essence, government controls over property, despite the emptional spin placed on them.

Government Control of property has no Constitutional Justification.

For starters, the national socialist Left doesn’t have the authority to control private property in this way, referring to the words of the 10th amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Try as we might, we couldn’t find the words ‘Government Control of Property’ in the founding documents. In point of fact, the opposite is quite the case. Even if it’s an item the Left considers to be ‘scary’ or dangerous.

Then consider this portion of the 5th amendment:

“nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

A requirement for one to get government permission to exchange one’s possessions would in effect set the government as the owner of that property. This in effect would constitute one being deprived of that property – this being explicitly prohibited by the founding documents.

Still further, consider the spirit of the 4th amendment:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

A requirement for governmental permission for any type of exchange of property would most assuredly violate the 4th amendment. Again, control of property directly equates to ownership of said property. Government controls with Intergalactic Background Checks [Universal, Enhanced, etc.] would be ownership of said property.

Presumption of Innocence.

Then of course the reason that a strict government requirement of this type would presume that someone is guilty of being some sort of miscreant in the eyes of the Left [Being a gun owner and all..] So one would have to prove that isn’t the case before exercising a basic human and Constitutional right.

Finally of course, this would also violate the 2nd amendment.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

It should be logically easy to see that requiring government permission to exercise a Constitutional right would be an infringement of it. In many ways, Intergalactic Background Checks [Universal, Enhanced, etc.] could take the record for the most violations of the people’s Constitution rights to date.

The Precursor to Confiscation.

We’ve already proven that the national socialist Left desperately wants to ban and confiscate guns. There have been over 70 different instances in the past few years where they have openly made this demand.

This should readily explain to everyone why they obsess over a step that will do nothing for security, but everything for control over our Liberty. Their Holy Grail is to be able to send a threatening letter to every gun owner [or supposed gun owner] demanding that they turn them over for destruction.

Incremental Liberty Control.

A few years ago when the Liberty grabbers felt they had the wind at their back, with that mindset they were open and honest about how they would go about banning and confiscating guns.

First off they talked about it’s not being an overnight process as being a good thing since incrementalism is key. A massive change would mean non-compliance, so a ‘Progressive’ approach would put in place the means for confiscation over time, beginning with: Intergalactic Background Checks [Universal, Enhanced, etc.]

They began with a call for a national registry – they need to know who owns the guns and where they are, then:

Along with this, make private sales illegal. When a firearm is transferred, make it law that the registration must be updated. Again, make it super easy to do. Perhaps over, the internet. Dealers can log in by their FFLs and update the registration. Additionally, new guns are to be registered by the manufacturer. The object here is to create a clear paper trail from factory to distributor to dealer to owner. We want to encourage as much voluntary compliance as possible.

So the process of registration for gun confiscation starts with making ‘private sales illegal’. Yes, in a nation that values property rights, they want to make it illegal for one to exercise those rights.

Now we get down to it. The registration period has passed. Now we have criminals without registered guns running around. Probably kooky types that “lost” them on a boat or something. So remember those ATF form 4473s? Those record every firearm sale, going back twenty years. And those have to be surrendered to the ATF on demand. So, we get those logbooks, and cross reference the names and addresses with the new national registry. Since most NRA types own two or (many) more guns, we can get an idea of who properly registered their guns and who didn’t. For example, if we have a guy who purchased 6 guns over the course of 10 years, but only registered two of them, that raises a red flag.

Interesting that they use the phrase Red flag’. Now after they have their lists of gun owners they start cracking down on gun owners, raiding those who don’t comply with their edicts.

So registration is the first step. Now that the vast majority are registered, we can do what we will. One good first step would be to close the registry to new registrations. This would, in effect, prevent new guns from being made or imported.

‘we can do what we will’ isn’t that just lovely? This from people who want the law enforcement to raid anyone who may have a few guns.

The Takeaway.

Everyone should be mindful of two very important points in all of this. Intergalactic Background Checks [Universal, Enhanced, etc.] will do nothing to solve a problem caused by the nation’s Socialist-Left in the first place – the destruction of the family and moral underpinnings. But whether it solves the problem is irrelevant to the Left, It is but one crucial step to their final solution to the gun problem.

Those unfamiliar with this issue may wonder why the Liberty grabbers tend to obsess over this one item in their agenda over all others. It should be obvious that this sets them on the road to registration and then confiscation.

 

Continue Reading

Healthcare

Democrats are right about Trump’s actions but wrong about his motives

Published

on

Democrats are right about Trumps actions but wrong about his motives

Donald Trump sent out a tweet over the weekend accusing Democrats of being “obstructionists” on the issue of so-called immigration reform. According to Trump, this is causing “needless pain and suffering” while creating the conditions responsible for the “horrors taking place on the Border.”

Besides being a blatant example of how Trump and the GOP have turned the politics of distraction into an art form, his blame game is a lie — at least, where the “horrors” on the border are concerned — because Trump has full constitutional power to stop the border invasion without Congress.

So, why perpetrate the lie that the border problem is not his fault? It could be, and most likely is, Trump’s ignorance of the Constitution and his blame-everyone-but-himself narcissism. In this case, however, I think there’s more to it.

I believe we are also witnessing Trump’s adaptation of the “never let a crisis go to waste” Saul Alinsky-inspired rule perfected by the Obama administration. Trump uses the border “crisis,” which he promised to fix and could fix if he wanted, to orchestrate a political advantage for himself by spreading the lie that the “horrors” at the border are the Democrats’ fault.

Meanwhile, Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Nancy Pelosi have their own theory concerning Trump’s motivation. They believe he’s trying to put the focus on immigration as a way to “change the subject” away from health care.

Considering the fact that Trump and the GOP have failed to repeal Obamacare as promised, I can see how “Chuck and Nancy” might reach that conclusion. However, they’re incorrect because the NY Liberal in the White House and his swamp buddies in Congress are all-in with the Democrats on the healthcare issue.

Earlier this month, I wrote a piece about an op-ed allegedly written by Trump where he decried the Democrat Party’s call for “Medicare for all” — which is Washingtonese for single-payer — while promising to protect Medicare and parts of Obamacare. He doubled down on this commitment a few days ago.

Despite promising for the fourth election in a row to really, really repeal Obamacare if voters let them keep their majority, Republicans have assumed complete ownership of Obamacare. And when you add that reality to the inevitable expansion of Medicare, the creation of single-payer, government-run socialized health care is guaranteed, which has been the goal of Obamacare from the very start.

Heck, there’s even a movement within the GOP to advance single-payer as the conservative answer to the health care crisis.

The sad reality of today’s Republican party is that it has been transformed into the Trumplican Party. Equally sad is how so-called conservatives have become Trumpservatives whose betrayal of conservative values is so obvious, they aren’t even hiding it anymore.

Democrats are right about Trump using the immigration problem as a way to change the subject, but they’re wrong about what’s motivating him to do so. He isn’t doing it to avoid the Democrats’ goal of single-payer, government-run socialized health care … he and the GOP love it just as much as they do.

Originally posted on StridentConservative.com.

 


David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is distributed by the Salem Radio Network and is heard on stations across America.

Follow the Strident Conservative on Twitter and Facebook.

Subscribe to receive podcasts of radio commentaries: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS

Continue Reading
Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report
Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report