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
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
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
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
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
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
Bradley Mark Walker has held the office for 3 years and has a decent record. He is unopposed.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
Mainstream media wants you to believe the GOP’s sky is falling
The best job in the world is being an election analyst. You can say whatever you want as long as you give semi-valid reasons and even if you’re wrong, it will be unexpected factors that prevented you from being correct.
We got a glimpse of this before, during, and after the 2016 presidential election when hundreds, perhaps thousands of election analysts chimed in on various media outlets. First, we heard a steady chant about why Hillary Clinton would win. Then we got to see the shocked and occasionally tearful expressions on their faces on election day. It continued after the election when these analysts were put on the air to explain what went wrong.
Now, we’re seeing it all over again, albeit at a lesser scale. In the weeks leading up to the midterm elections, we’re already seeing crazy predictions by major commentators and news outlets claiming huge victories for the Democrats. Here’s a good example from The Hill:
If that pattern holds in November, the worst-case scenario for the GOP is a truly historic wipeout of as many as 72 House seats, according to The Hill’s analysis of special election results and congressional and presidential returns from 2016.
That would mark the deepest decline for either party in a single election cycle since Harry Truman ran against the “Do Nothing Congress” in 1948.
To The Hill’s credit, they noted that this worst-case-scenario is unlikely for many reasons. Nevertheless, this is a society driven by headlines and news snippets. The point wasn’t to explain later in the article why it won’t happen. They wanted to get clicks. The easiest way to do so is with shocking headlines and bold predictions.
Is it possible that the GOP will experience this “wipeout?” Absolutely. They’ve done such a horrendous job at passing their core legislation and are now pandering to moderates and independents in a last ditch effort to finish the legislative session with some wins.
Bottom line: Anyone who claims to know what’s going to happen on election day is trying to sell you something. Until it happens, they’re all just grasping at straws.
David Limbaugh asked the right question:
Does anyone really believe this? https://t.co/REb4klA505
— David Limbaugh (@DavidLimbaugh) August 17, 2018
Our List of Demands for the Conservation of Liberty – Part II
Leftists incessantly issue lists of demands for the restriction of Liberty, It’s time to reverse the trend towards freedom.
This is our second part of our series of what we on the Pro-Liberty Right want for the preservation of Liberty. Part I is here.
6. The Left needs to stop trying to control private property with Intergalactic Background Checks. [aka ‘enhanced’ or ‘Universal’]
If there is one constant in the Liberty grabber universe, it’s that half of them are incessantly calling for gun confiscation while the rest deny they are calling for gun confiscation. They also love to parrot the line that it would be impossible to round-up everyone’s guns as a way of deflecting the issue. Except that those on the Pro-liberty side thought the same thing in the UK and Australia. Their Liberty grabber nightmare began with gun registration, under the solemn promise that it wouldn’t lead to gun confiscation. [Sound familiar?] Then of course at the next occasion of a serious crisis, this registration data was used for gun confiscation.
The fact is gun confiscation takes several precursor steps, the most critical being the assertion of government control over private property with Intergalactic Background Checks. Curiously enough, the Liberty grabbers tend to want language inserted into these laws mandating the reportage of lost or stolen firearms. Those types of rules are of primary importance only if the point of these measures is to turn them into a registration scheme.
7. The Liberty Grabber Left needs to stop pushing for even more controls on freedom.
It is also axiomatic that Leftists will exploit any opportunity to start ever-expansive controls over Liberty. The Left is a virtual fountainhead of new and more creative ways of clamping down on freedom. Having run out of new and improved ways of making it difficult, embarrassing and expensive to buy a firearm [While also lying about it at the same time] the Left has moved on to imposing controls over the purchase of ammunition. Then of course they also are making demands on how these are stored.
8. Stop attacking those who only wish to defend themselves.
There is nothing more loathsome than Leftists who excel at hurling insults at the country’s estimated 150 Million innocent gun owners. We’ve been labelled with almost everything from being Terrorists to baby killers for wanting nothing more than to be able to defend our families and ourselves.
Those who incessantly work overtime to demonize the innocent should keep one word in mind: Deterrence. The widespread ownership of weapons in most areas deters criminals since they don’t know who can fight back. This also explains why places with tight controls on Liberty tend to have higher crime rates. Curiously enough, for people who love the term ‘Commonsense’ they certainly don’t seem to well versed in it.
9. The Left needs to become educated about that which they want to control.
Granted, it might be too much to expect the Liberty Grabbers from knowing the difference between a direct impingement and gas piston actuation, but they should at least know the difference between a semi-auto and select fire. Nothing screams uninformed more than someone who confuses a clip with a magazine or some who uses them interchangeably in a claim that one can fire off 30 rounds in half a second.
Lack of knowedge is usually a negative in most cases, but in the realm of Liberty Control, the Leftists wear it as a badge of honour.
10. The Left needs to stop lying about guns.
We made these two separate items to prove a point. While some gaffes of the Liberty grabber elite are relatively harmless, there are those that are a danger to Liberty. It should go without saying that we live in an age in which the knowledge of the world is literally at one’s fingertips. There is no rational excuse for a lack of knowledge on the most rudimentary aspects of certain subjects. By the same token, there is no excuse for the propagation of deliberate false impressions and Lies particularly on the subject of self-defense.
One of the most infamous examples stems from the creation the phrase “Assault Weapon”:
The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.
The nation’s Left has gone on for years demanding compromises on the part of the Pro-Liberty Right. It is time that they step up to the plate and show they can be ‘bi-partisan’ for once. These steps aren’t really that extraordinary, in fact they merely bolster Liberty. Some Leftists still purport to be Liberal, supporting these items would go a long way in showing that is truly the case.
Our List of Demands for the Conservation of Liberty – Part I
Leftists incessantly issue lists of demands for the restriction of Liberty. It’s time to reverse the trend towards freedom.
Every ‘serious crisis’ involving firearms sees the same pattern of exploitation by the Liberty grabber Left. They immediately mount their gun confiscation hobbyhorse issuing lists of demands for restrictions on freedom. As soon as they get these new limitations, Leftists reset the rhetoric for the next go around. The pattern has always been one of compromise on behalf of the Pro-Liberty Right, only to see new demands made whenever the Left can exploit any new crisis.
Now is the time to reverse the trend of the incessant attacks on Liberty.
Millions of innocent gun owners in the country deserve a break in seeing ever tightening restrictions on their freedom because of the actions of criminals or terrorists. There are estimated to be 150 Million innocent gun owners that have upwards of 400 to 600 million firearms with trillions of rounds of ammunition. As the saying goes, if they were a problem, we would have known it by now. Despite the oft-repeated emotional argument foisted by the Liberty grabber Left, It is patently obvious that more guns in the hands of the innocent means less crime or governmental tyranny.
The past few years have seen record-setting gun sales, while that type of violence has diminished. The story has always been one of the Pro-Liberty Right compromising, while the Socialist-Left responds with new demands. It is time that they ‘gave back’ (to coin a phrase), for once they should be the ones making the making the compromises.
“The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground.” Thomas Jefferson
The degradation of Liberty should in no way be considered to be ‘progress’ or ‘progressive’. Those who claim to be ‘Liberal’ should be advocating Liberty instead of tearing it down. It should also be patently obvious that depriving the people of their means of self-defense does nothing to protect them.
Recent events here here and here, should also make it patently obvious that people will find a way to inflict violence on others. The ever-increasing limitations on Liberty pushed by people who are supposedly ‘Liberal’ on serves to make the situation far worse, with an example of an attack in a place with severe restrictions on the possession of firearms.
Our List of Demands to reverse the trend towards Liberty.
In light of the recent ‘serious crisis’ that clearly demonstrated that Liberty Control only serves to endanger the innocent, this is our list of demands for the Conservation of Liberty.
1. Background checks should only be on the purchaser, leaving off the data on the firearm.
Ostensibly, the purpose of a Federal background check is to ‘Keep guns out of the hands’ of a laundry list of prohibited persons. So why does the 4473 form include information on the gun being purchased?
If this is supposedly only for the buyer of a gun, why do they need that information? If it is a true ‘background check’ on the purchaser, the information on the gun should be irrelevant. And yet that information is collected under tight controls, why?
Federal law “specifically forbids the government from creating a national registry of gun ownership”, so why are they collecting that data? Unless they are lying about the purpose of the program. It is time for the government to be finally true to it’s word, a Background check on a purchaser should just a Background check on a purchaser, nothing more.
2. The Left needs to stop wasting everyone’s time on provisions that violate the commonsense human right of self-preservation.
This includes trying to repeal or virtually rewrite the 2nd amendment based on their twisted interpretation of it’s wording. The Liberty grabber Left needs to be aware of two important points:
One, the 2nd amendment isn’t going anywhere.
Two, it only affirms the common sense human right of self-defence. This means that even if it were to carry out the Herculean task of repealing the 2nd amendment, it would have no effect.
3. Media: Stop pretending snapshot polls taken at the height of hysteria represents steady state opinions.
Any news coverage of a ‘serious crisis’ will invariably include some sort of instant poll, exploiting the raw emotion of the moment that will have ‘90%’ supporting Intergalactic Background Checks or some other restriction on Liberty. It should be obvious that a snap shot glimpse into the psyche of the moment will have wildly inaccurate results, but these are subsequently trotted out to show that ‘everyone’ wants just about every limitation on Liberty under the sun. It is also axiomatic that polls taken during normal periods that don’t exhibit the desired results will be ignored.
4. Liberty grabber Leftists need to acknowledge that background checks already exist.
Those notorious instant polls will also display the anomaly of high polling numbers on ‘background checks’. Often times this vague phraseology will be used to exploit confusion on the issue. This provides an entry for the Liberty grabber Left to interpret this to mean that just about everyone (even NRA members) are demanding Intergalactic Background Checks [Or whatever terms the Left uses to exploit this issue – enhanced, universal, etc].
In point of fact, Federal Background checks have been around for over 25 years, so when a pollster asks about ‘background checks’ many will answer in the affirmative since they know they already exist. While many on the Left will answer the same, not knowing that fact, but are desirous of even more controls on Liberty.
5. Implement the reforms on suppressors.
Despite all the research they’ve done on the subject in the movie theatres, guns with suppressors do not emit a soft ‘Phft’ with each shot. While they cut some of the noise associated with the discharge of combustion gases in the firing of a weapon, they do nothing for the mechanical noise of the cycling of the weapon or the noise emanating from the passage of the round through the air.
So while they can’t turn every handgun into a silent killer, they do protect the hearing of those practising their marksmanship as well as keep the ancillary noise level down for the neighbours of firing ranges. This is why there is no reason to restrict the sales of essentially a muffler for a firearm .
Part II will detail the rest of the items to reverse the trend away from Liberty.