Connect with us

Opinions

Conservative Picks for the Oregon Primary

Published

on

Oregon Conservatives don’t have a whole lot of success. It’s a blue state and the Democrats don’t intend to lose ground. Similar to Maryland, Republican faces keep reoccurring despite losing previous races. However, there is no shortage of decent Conservatives in this state. The disappointment is that the states only Republican Congressman might as well be a Democrat. But the Conservative presence in the state isn’t weak, it is merely unsuccessful. This primary has a good chance of at least nominating Conservatives to run as Republicans which is better than most states thus far this season.

Best Pick: Preston Miller
Worst Pick: Greg Walden
Best Race: District 5
Worst Race: District 2

District 1

Three Republicans vie for the opportunity to unseat Suzanne Bonamici. First up is George Griffith. Griffith is against big money and makes this abundantly clear. But he also seems as he is opposed to the Citizens United ruling. He is for right to work and fiscal responsibility but lacks a certain conservative flare. He seems like a Bernie supporter turned Trump. Preston Miller is a decorated veteran. His platform is doing the opposite of Bonamici with an additional goal to end surveillance abuse by the FBI, CIA, and NSA. Miller is strong on immigration and specifically sanctuary cities. John Veerbeek is filed to run but isn’t a serious candidate. Though he may have a name recognition advantage.

Conservative Pick: Preston Miller

District 2

The only Republican Oregon sends to DC really sucks. Greg Walden is a RINO with an abysmal Liberty Score. He is being opposed by Randy Pollock and Paul Romero. Pollock has little online presence. Paul Romero seems like a decent pick. He will defend the 2nd Amendment and Social security. His platform is simple and Conservative. He’s looking for a rematch against Walden.

Conservative Pick: Paul Romero

District 3

No Republicans are running.

District 4

Five Republicans have entered this race. Court Boice is the first candidate running on a limited issues campaign, forestry laws, a bill which according to him the current Rep. Peter DeFazio voted against. The bill is lost in committee in the Senate, undermining the usefulness of Boice’s campaign. Jo Rae Perkins is no newcomer to running for this seat. She’s a decent Conservative candidate but has never gotten past Art Robinson. Robinson has a vague platform an a proven inability to win this District having lost four times. Michael Polen is a decent Conservative in this race, but its a mystery how he would perform. He is however very pro-life. Lastly the social media favorite, Stefan Strek. He’s young, not extremely articulate, but passionate about issues of homelessness, veterans, and guns. In a debate, Polen railed Boice over being soft on guns. Strek sounds like Edward Norton in American History X but without the racism. Polen is a new face with a greater ability to win.

Conservative Pick: Michael Polen

District 5

Mark Callahan is the first contender to unseat Kurt Schrader. He’s a familiar face to running a seemingly impossible campaign such as his Senate run in 2016. Callahan campaigns as fiscally responsible and may have a better chance at a district race than the others. Joey Nations is a newer face. He has a strong Conservative platform on guns, immigration, and corruption. He may also have less political baggage than Callahan. Rob Reynolds is another option who has a more vague platform than the others. He doesn’t come off as a RINO though.

Conservative Pick: Joey Nations

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Culture and Religion

Love is not exclusive: An open letter to Matt Walsh

Published

on

Dear Mr. Walsh,

I am a longtime follower of yours, but over the last few months it seems you are spending a lot of time calling out leaders of various faiths for not being Christian enough. Why would you want to alienate others who are also trying to do God’s work of spreading love the way they have interpreted it? The Bible leaves lots of room for interpretation. Was that unintentional? Perhaps there was a purpose for the parables instead of absolute answers.

No two people are going to believe the exact same thing nor hold the exact same approach of what is best to reach people to live an inspired life, even if those two people are reading from the exact same Bible. The important thing is getting others into the boat of doing good, loving all unconditionally, and bringing people together. What good does it do to divide us this way? Most of the time I applaud what you stand for, but I think this is wrong.

There are many different types of Christians with many different messages. But why focus on the differences? Jesus would surely want us to focus on the similarities… to love each other as brothers and sisters as we are, not push those who are slightly different outside of some line you have decided absolutely cannot be crossed.

I admit I know very little about all the different types of Christians that exist and the idiosyncrasies you insist on calling out. But I don’t need to because that’s not important. That line of thinking misses the greater message – that love is more important than our individual sects. We are all in this together. Christians from all walks are spreading their way of understanding the best they know how. They aren’t spreading evil. Anything outside the limits of your defined box doesn’t necessarily make it evil. As long as you are acting as a conduit of unconditional love, you have nothing to fear, ever.

The greatest of these is love. Not faith. That means your faith should never be more important than love

You have lost the purpose of following Christ in the first place. There are moments as a father when my daughter will give an extra piece of candy to her little sister just because she knows it will make her smile. But there are also moments when my daughter knows I’m watching and gives that candy to her sister only because she wants to be recognized as kind. See the difference?

Being a good Christian isn’t the end goal. Being Christian is supposed to be a means to a life of good, love, and worth. Don’t do good just because it keeps you within the Christian box and therefore gets you to Heaven. That is a selfish motivation. Do good for a better reason: Because you have love in your heart. Do good because you love unconditionally, and you truly want to help others be happy. It is the only thing that matters in our time here, and it’s how we grow in spirit. By learning in every action how we can perform that action in a loving way, we challenge ourselves spiritually in every choice we make.

When you are on your deathbed you won’t be thinking of how much money you made or how many people you excluded for being inadequately holy. You will be thinking of the way you treated others, and the litmus test for that judgment is unconditional love. If you are acting in accordance with love for your neighbor, you will be proud of your actions as you lay there reflecting on your life. But if instead you are acting out of fear, those will be the actions that haunt you in your last days.

Love

Love is the means and it is also the ends. It is the lesson and the reward. It is the guide and the destination. We are meant to spread that love where ever and whenever we can, without restrictions. Only then are we truly walking in the light of God.

First Corinthians 13:13 is certainly very cliché, especially at weddings, but it holds an insight that many of us often overlook.

“And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.”

The greatest of these is love. Not faith. That means your faith should never be more important than love… Unconditional love, not just love for your family and friends. Love for all. And not with conditions like, only if he is a Christian, or only if she acts the way I think she should. Unconditionally means as they are. Love him because he is. For if we only love those who love us back, what kind of love is that?

Dan Alexander

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Let’s Just say it: The Left Hates the Culture of Liberty. Part II

Published

on

By

While it hides behind the false label of Liberal, the nation’s Socialist Left continues to expand its assault on Liberty culture.

In Part I we began this discussion on how the Left is coming out of the authoritarian closet displaying their abject revulsion to the Culture of Liberty. In Part II we will detail the major aspects of their assaults on freedom. While it may sound shocking to many, deep down everyone should realise that the Left is becoming increasingly adverse to Liberty. Aside from wanting the freedom to wage the violence of abortion, they have little use for the concept in any other form.

Down through history Leftists have used and then disposed of democratic institutions to obtain power. The Bolsheviks and Nationalsozialistische deutsche Arbeiter-Partei being good examples from the storied past. At present, their favourite tactic involves the use of negatively termed alternative phrases to attack basic Liberties. They use these phrases to suppress these freedoms while maintaining the fiction of being ‘Liberal’.

“Hate Speech” used to attack Free-speech.

Here we see the first of many negatively charged phrases the Left uses to attack freedom of speech. As in most cases the term is undefined, allowing them to expand it to encompass whatever they wish to suppress. As in the other cases, this let’s them pretend to advocate free-speech while working against the concept.

Their recent expansion of assaults against the basic human Liberty of self-preservation has seen them us this convenient expedient to arbitrarily censor speech with regard to this fundamental natural right. Of course, they like to use the excuse that they are private entities unencumbered by 1st amendment issues. But this is a discussion on the Culture of Liberty and as Matt Christiansen pointed out, quite often the cultural value that is changed first, followed by restrictions from the government.

“Fake News” used to attack Freedom of the Press.

This is a new term in the pantheon of Leftist phrases, but once again it’s an undefined term used to go after those they deem to be unworthy of the vaunted title of ‘Journalist’. The national Socialist Media has always been disdainful of those who are not part of their elite cadres. At one point they labelled those outside the industrial media complex as being pajama clad, now they just brand them as being “Fake News”. Certain ‘social media’ sites have begun using this excuse to censor what can be stated on them. To be clear, the issue isn’t the veracity of the content, but it’s political point of view.

“Military Style” used to attack the Commonsense human Right of Self-Defence.

This was one of the first instances where the national Socialist Left developed the idea of assaulting a basic human Liberty an alternative phrase while still pretending to support it. This began with the undefined phrase “Assault Weapon” transitioning into even more nebulous terms such as “Military Style”. As with the other terms these have a twofold purpose – convey a negative feeling over a fundamental right while feigning it’s support.

Having once set the precedent that certain means of self-defence are verboten, it then becomes a simple matter of expanding the reach of these terms to include all firearms. This while Leftists parrot the fiction that they “believe in the 2nd amendment”.

“Background Checks” [ Intergalactic, Enhanced, Universal ] used to also attack Private Property Rights.

First of all, background checks have been in existence for almost 25 years, but one would not know it by the oft repeated talking points of the Left. Their well seasoned unfamiliarity with the facts will see them demand that which already exists. As is the case in other realms, they use their inability to base arguments on facts to their advantage. So when they repeat this demand, people get the impression that background checks are desperately needed.

Or they will use the ever popular tactic of moving the goal posts, demanding that these be even more intrusive in our private lives seizing control of our private property.

The basic premise for these “Intergalactic Background Checks” is that the government somehow has the ‘right’ to control certain items of one’s private property because they are dangerous. Well, there are three glaring issues with this false premise.

  • One is that private property is a foundational element of Liberty, one does not ‘own’ something if they cannot control it, such as in the purchasing or selling of said property. Leftists would love to negate this fundamental freedom with some sort of societal ownership regime as part of their collectivist ideology. “Intergalactic Background Checks” would impose a government edict over everyone’s property that would be greater than one’s ownership of those possessions.
  • Two, since restraint over the government is the fundamental purpose of the 2nd amendment and the Constitution in general, IBC’s would place control of these restraints in the hands of the government. In essence removing any limitations on the government. History is replete with examples of why this is a very bad idea.
  • Third, “Intergalactic Background Checks” would be the first and very critical step towards registration and the inevitable confiscation of guns. For once the government has purview over one’s private possessions, it can easily transition to tracking them in this control regime. History is also replete with the tale of the registration leading to confiscation. Meanwhile the national Socialist Left has made it quite clear this is their ultimate goal.

The Takeaway.

In many ways the Parkland Kids have done everyone a great service in exposing once and for all the Left’s disdain for freedom. Instead the slow creep of the collectivist mindset overtaking the country until it’s too late for anything that can be done, we have been forewarned of the danger. The Parkland Kids and the rest of the Authoritarian Socialist Left will have to be honest for once about their true intentions.

Were they to do so, they would drop the mask and stop hiding behind the Liberal label. They could then try to sell everyone their true socialist national agenda of égalité minus the Liberté or even fraternité.

At least then the people would know what they are getting instead of the farcical Utopian fantasies that have been part and parcel of the Leftist propaganda for centuries now. Were they to win on the basis of said honesty, they would have a mandate to rule over Liberty as they have promised, freedom be damned.

But the past has shown that people never willingly vote for this type of draconian rule. Instead they have to be enticed into enslaving themselves with the false promises of “Free Healthcare”, “Free college” as well as marginal safety from harm for the low-low price of sacrificing their Liberty.

Which is why the Left’s deceit and deception will continue, no matter how it’s been exposed in the past. They will still try to keep up the false pretence of being ‘Liberal’ or in favour of ‘Progress’ and if everyone is informed enough, they will end up on the ash heap of history as is rightfully the fate of all tyrants.

 

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

How do you spend your time?

Published

on

How often do we do things just because we are supposed to? Or go through the same routine over and over again without pausing and asking ourselves if we really enjoy what we are doing. There’s another way.

Do only things that bring you genuine joy. Don’t lie to yourself about this. Be brutal with your honesty here. This is about your own happiness, therefore the only one who can determine if the thing you’re doing is really something you enjoy is you. Maybe you tried surfing or skiing and everyone else raves about how awesome it is, but to you… meh, it didn’t really click that way. You don’t have to pretend. You get to choose what you do or don’t do.

What is genuine joy?

It’s when time flies by and all you felt was pure, never contrived, emotion. You began doing that thing and it’s like you became it. Your hands on the handlebars melded to them. You were in the movie or painting or music, feeling it. Your fingers on the instrument were the instrument. You didn’t spend a second thinking of being elsewhere; you were completely immersed in it. As if your actions were not even done with conscious thought. You’re smiling ear to ear then, and for hours to come. This is fulfillment. This isn’t faux happiness for a Facebook post.

If you’re doing something voluntary, and you don’t really enjoy it (and deep down you really do know) STOP. You don’t have to. Do what you really love. The moment you recognize whatever it is you’re doing isn’t really making you happy, put a stop to it. Stand up and walk away. Do something else and do it for you. No need for Facebook posts, just that legitimate smile and that feeling on the inside.

You have to purge the negatives in your life. No one else knows you like you. So if you don’t fight for your own happiness, who else will?

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.