Connect with us

Opinions

Top Conservative Picks for West Virginia Primary

Published

on

In keeping with my commitment, I am searching the nation for the top Conservative options in order to prevent RINOs from betraying their campaign conservative stances. In the past primaries, specifically Illinois, it was incredibly disappointing how Conservatism performed at the ballot. In neighboring state, Indiana, things look a little more hopeful.  A common theme in this edition will be the opposition of incumbents who voted for Omnibus. West Virginia is a state stereotyped nationwide, so its strange that something viewed as backwater has a lot of Dems. The presence of coal and unions makes for a competitive political mix of ideas. This election presents an opportunity to expand on the Conservative ideas in the state. West Virginia is small but what it lacks in size, it makes up for in laughs. But an unfortunate observation is the lack of initiative to challenge incumbents. This is how we get career RINOs. Nonetheless there are good candidates in the state.

Best Picks: Patrick Morrisey, Marty Gearheart
Worst Picks: Evan Jenkins
Honorable Mention: Don Blankenship
Best Race: No Award
Worst Race: District 1

WVSen

Joe Manchin holds the Senate and has held the seat since before the Democrats went off the deep end leaving him in an awkward place politically. This amounts to the perfect opportunity for the GOP to claim the seat that will not easily be yielded in the future political climate. The race has already brought us the most laughable campaign commercial featuring Don Blankenship, a coal man who referred to Mitch McConnell as “Cocaine Mitch” and the Chinese as “China people.” What he lacks conventions he compensated with hilarity and political colloquialisms.

However that is as far as my compliments of Blankenship really go. He’s not really a man of integrity and isn’t really campaigning on principles at all. We needed that commercial though, and I hope he’s successful in coining “Cocaine Mitch.” The other candidates in the top three are Patrick Morrisey and Evan Jenkins. Before the fall of Steve Bannon (praise God for that!) Patrick Morrisey was one of his top prospects. Evan Jenkins, called on Morrisey to disavow Bannon’s support. Morrisey is the Attorney General for West Virginia. Notably Morrisey has a busy record on the subject of substance abuse. He has gone after pharmaceutical companies. West Virginia has been hit especially hard by heroin and synthetics. He also has a record that suggests he would be fiscally responsible. Morrisey is also particularly strong in defending the unborn favoring overturning Roe v Wade. Morrisey not only is campaigning Conservative, but also has the record to back it up.

Evan Jenkins is a current Congressman. He’s been in three years and already has a RINO record. He voted for Omnibus and several other fiscally irresponsible legislation. It goes without saying, he is not the right candidate for Conservatives.

Conservative Pick: Patrick Morrisey

District 1

David McKinley is a RINO and is running unopposed. If you want a Republican who will spend money, McKinley is your guy. I was tempted to throw in a Democrat as a recommendation, but they are all running on giving people jobs and other untrustworthy promises.

District 2

Alexander Mooney is an unopposed incumbent also. He is a member of the Freedom Caucus.

District 3

Here we have some action due to a vacancy because of a certain RINO seeking a Senate seat. The most serious candidates are Conrad Lucas and Carol Miller. Both have split endorsements that aren’t helpful. Conrad Lucas is in the high ranks of the Republican Party which seems like a bad sign. Despite this, Lucas is positioning himself as a principled Conservative. The Harvard grad isn’t running on an overly specific campaign.

In sharp contrast Miller is a state delegate running on cutting the bull. She has a decently strong Conservative record. I am concerned she is more Trumpist than Conservative though. Rupie Phillips is a former Democrat running. He ditched the party back in 2016 and has had a decent Conservative voting record in the House of Delegates since. A top Conservative in the House of Delegates Marty Gearheart. He promises to join the Freedom Caucus if elected. Record matters and Conrad Lucas’s record is being in the bureaucracy of the GOP. Carol Miller also feels the need to attack Lucas over Harvard, a weak ad hominid. She should stick to her bison farm.

Conservative Pick: Marty Gearheart

 

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

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

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

Immigration

How many caravans does it take to lose an election?

Published

on

How many caravans does it take to lose an election

The caravan of migrants from Central America will either be the last of its kind for a while or it will become a trend as people emboldened by “safety in numbers” excitedly wait for the next trek to start. Whether it’s the first or the last will depend a great deal on the midterm elections.

It will also depend on how reactions to the caravan are perceived by those who are behind it.

What do the elections in the United States have to do with asylum-seekers and others wanting to walk thousands of miles in large groups? Everything. You see, this caravan wasn’t sparked by a spontaneous desire to leave. Hundreds of thousands, possibly more, would leave the dangers and turmoil of Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador if they thought they had a realistic chance of acceptance into the United States. The caravan was orchestrated by forces in and out of Honduras. The forces on the inside were told they’d get help. The forces on the outside who have delivered help wanted to make a statement and have an impact on the United States elections.

I started exploring this possibility because of the timing. The caravan is anticipated to arrive at the border around election day.

Yes, this is a conspiracy theory. I rarely post these theories because there is no shortage of them and I’m not nearly as imaginative as the professional conspiracy theorists. To me, the world is not flat, Elvis is not alive, and we actually did land on the moon. I’d never make it at InfoWars.

If one looks at the timing of this event, mainstream media coverage, and reactions from Washington DC, it’s easy to acknowledge the possibility that organizers were working with external forces behind the scenes to put the caravan together and march it towards the border during the home stretch of the midterm elections. Let’s look at those three components and flesh out what it all means.

Timing

As I stated before, it’s way too convenient for a “spontaneous” event such as this to coincide so perfectly with our midterm elections. We’re in the middle of hurricane season and Willa is about to hit Mexico. Did the organizers of the caravan not realize there may be a safer time for thousands of people to walk thousands of mile? Of course they knew. They are well aware of the weather patterns in Central America and Mexico.

They chose now knowing they’d have to battle the weather.

Something prompted them to pick this time over others. It wasn’t an uptick in violence; last year saw the lowest homicide rate in Honduras in over a decade. Mainstream media points specifically to San Pedro Sula where elements of the caravan originated as being “the most dangerous city on Earth,” but that’s no longer true. In fact, their homicide rates are lower than St. Louis or Baltimore.

Were they prompted by poverty? For most of the migrants other than the organizers, the answer to that question is yes. The vast majority of those who joined the caravan did so because they are extremely poor and have no prospects for improving their lives in Central America. But they’ve been poor for decades and have never formed a mass of people such as this one, so it’s not a valid argument for the timing. If they’d waited a couple of months they’d be travelling in very mild temperatures with no risk of facing hurricanes.

Whoever organized this, they did so with this very exact timing in mind.

Mainstream Media Coverage

In all my years of being a watchdog of the mainstream media, I have never seen the level of sympathetic coverage that I’ve seen with this caravan. Journalists are trained to report the facts, find the interesting angles, and seek the underlying truth behind an event. We haven’t seen that at all in mainstream media this time. Nothing.

The “facts” they’ve reported have been minimal. It’s just repetition of the same storyline over and over again. Even as a critic of mainstream media I found this extremely odd.

There should be no shortage of interesting angles to report, but again the absence is striking. Reporters are trained to ask questions and find people with stories that will intrigue us. When there’s a crowd, they’re trained to find people who stand out. Most importantly, they’re supposed to find the counter-narrative. A gang member who sees greater opportunity in America. An American activist walking in solidarity with the group in their plight. A local politician there to make sure everything goes smoothly for his people.

These and other interesting angles definitely exist within the caravan and journalists are trained to find them. Yet we’re seeing nothing like that. Every interview is with a persecuted by hopeful migrant who’s just looking for the American dream. This narrative is repeated over and over again.

Either mainstream media sent their worst reporters to cover the caravan or there’s an agenda in play.

Reactions from DC

When the caravan launched, Democrats were quick to embrace the “humanitarian crisis” that was driving people to walk such a great distance. We heard them say this was the embodiment of their desperation, that these people have no other choice, and that America can and should do more to help people in such great need.

Then, two strange things happened. First, Republicans generally didn’t take the bait. They didn’t need to because of the second strange thing that happened: Americans generally didn’t take the bait, either. It was clear based on the sudden silence from Democrats that they expected to hear a lot more voices on social media welcoming the caravan, empathizing with their plight, and denouncing any proposed actions by the President. For a very short time after President Trump threatened to send the military to the border, many Democrats called him out.

It didn’t last long. Americans weren’t nearly as upset as Democrats expected when hearing about the prospects that President Trump would use the military to close the border. Sure, the leftist base was outraged, but most Republicans were happy about it. As were most Independents.

As were many moderate Democrats.

The leftist vision of open borders isn’t quite as popular with Americans as Democrats had hoped.

If Democrats win the House and/or the Senate, this will be the first of multiple caravans attempting to breach our borders. If Democrats lose both, leftists will rethink their strategy and this will be the last caravan for a long time.

Continue Reading
Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report
Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report