Connect with us

Politics

Conservative Picks for Iowa Primary

Published

on

There is very little action to be found in the 29th state. This is a rather negative mark because it is not good for incumbents to go unchallenged. So rather than be a voter guide, this edition of Conservative Picks will mostly serve as a progress report. However, the good news is that Iowa has room only for improvement. Unlike other states, there aren’t leftist running as Republicans deliberately because they know they can’t win otherwise. But the biggest concern remains the lack of initiative to run. However, Iowa does not send the worst people to Congress.

Best Pick: Cyndi Hanson
Worst Pick: None
Best Race: District 4
Worst Race: None

District 1

Rod Blum is unchallenged. In his three years of office, Blum has remained more fiscally conservative than most Republicans. He voted against Omnibus but has some fiscal blemishes on his record.

District 2

This Iowa District is a more winnable district than most blue seats for Republican challengers. Christopher Peters is looking for a second chance in a race he lost by single digits last time around. The surgeon is seemingly conservative on a number of issues including foreign policy(meaning he believes in the power of Congress) and privacy. The biggest concern is that he straddles the line of bipartisan naivety. Should he win he will learn quickly that Democrats aren’t interested in reducing spending. He is unopposed.

District 3

David Young is one of the worst the state has to offer. The RINO voted for Omnibus and several other fiscally irresponsible measures.

District 4

Steve King is a reliable Conservative vote on domestic issues. But he is no fiscal conservative. King has done a decent job in office, but make no mistake, he is a career politician. He is being challenged by Cyndi Hanson. Hanson is running as an authentic Iowan and a fiscal conservative. What is most concerning about Hanson is her support of renewable energy which, to an Iowan, means forcing the rest of the country to put up with ethanol. However, she is opposed to subsidies. The question is whether she is Conservative enough to let the free market shape the Iowan economy. King has had his time and Hanson will likely do no worse.

Conservative Pick: Cyndi Hanson

Advertisement
Click to comment

Democrats

10 things to do instead of watching the Democrats debate tonight

Published

on

10 things to do instead of watching the Democrats debate tonight

In 2016, I watched every debate the Democratic Party put on. Their policies were in a state of flux at the time and I wanted to learn more about that crazy up-and-coming whippersnapper, Senator Bernie Sanders.

This time, there are many reasons I won’t be watching the debate. First, the field is too big for now. I just don’t care enough about what 2/3rds of them have to say because less than 1/3rd actually have at least a minor shot of getting the nomination. The others are fundraising for their next election.

Second, I already know all the answers. Tim Young broke them down:

The third and final reason (there are more, but let’s not get boring) I won’t be watching tonight’s debate is because there are so many better ways to spend my time. Here are 10 things people should be doing that would be time better spent.

  1. Volunteer at a homeless shelter, especially if you live in a Democrat-controlled city like San Francisco, Seattle, or New York.
  2. Eat dinner at Chick-fil-A.
  3. Read the Constitution instead of listening to people who view it as a hindrance to their goals.
  4. Learn how we’re working to stop socialism from rising in America.
  5. Clean your guns. Too many gun owners aren’t doing proper maintenance.
  6. Learn about the growing threat of the Muslim Brotherhood.
  7. Preorder “Unplanned“.
  8. Spend time with family, friends, pets, or anyone you know who could use some encouragement today.
  9. Shop at Wayfair.
  10. Literally anything else.

Spoiler alert: They all hate Trump. They all want to stop America from being divided. They all want you to hate successful Americans. The Democrats’ responses will be variations of “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

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

Opinions

The one question the GOP does not want Mueller to answer

Published

on

The one question the GOP does not want Mueller to answer

This is not going to go as Democrats have planned. It never seems to work out for them, lately. Mueller will only repeat what he already wrote in the report. It will be highly publicized, heavily watched, and totally disappointing to the left.

Unless he answers one question.

Before explaining what that question is, here’s the latest on Robert Mueller’s intentions to testify before the House Judiciary Committee:

Robert Mueller agrees to testify before House lawmakers July 17 after subpoena, Nadler and Schiff announce

Former Special Counsel Robert Mueller has agreed to testify before the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees on July 17 after they subpoenaed the special counsel Tuesday, according to the committees’ chairmen, Reps. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., and Adam Schiff, D-Calif.

Congressional Democrats have fought to get access to Mueller and his unredacted report on Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and whether President Trump obstructed justice. Weeks of negotiations between House Democrats and the Justice Department ultimately ended with the subpoena.

Fox News has learned Mueller would appear only under a subpoena, which has been described as a “friendly” subpoena, one that in essence had been planned. Mueller is expected to stick to the “four corners” of his report.

As he said at his press conference, he plans on only answering questions with references to his report. But there’s one question that he seems to have already answered in an indirect way. If he answers it directly, it could be a serious problem for President Trump.

The question is this:

“Would you have recommended corruption charges based on the evidence if the person of interest wasn’t the President?”

If he answers that question in the affirmative, the Democrats have their primary talking point for the 2020 elections.

It is unlikely he will answer this question, but one never knows until it happens.

But there’s a danger to the Democrats as well. If Mueller testifies that he believes Trump should be impeached, whether directly or by inference as he did at his press conference, it will be very difficult to hold back the reins as Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has been doing. She’ll have to act or risk a coup in her own party. By acting on impeachment, she will be helping the President. He doesn’t want it to happen, but his team is aware that impeachment would be an unpopular play for the Democrats.

The Democrats are grasping at straws now. They can’t get anything to stick because it seems there is nothing interesting enough to the people to stick on the President. But that’s not stopping them from trying. And failing.

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

Immigration

Census: Sanctuary cities are reaping what they sow

Published

on

Census Sanctuary Cities Are Reaping What They Sow

Whether or not the census should include a citizenship question is a debate currently raging in our country, but few are stopping to realize that the behavior of sanctuary cities has led to this near inevitable juncture.

All cursory arguments aside, the reality is that sanctuary cities are flipping the proverbial bird at federal law. By declaring themselves sanctuaries for illegal immigrants they are in essence declaring that significant portions of their population are likely undocumented and illegal. The logical question that arises from such a situation is whether lawlessness should be allowed to impact the apportionment of political representation.

The emergence of the citizenship question, regardless of its merits or lack thereof, should not come as a shock to anyone who has engaged in the manufacture of a sanctuary city. Do those who have endeavored to thwart federal law really think that the rest of the country would turn a blind eye to the apportionment of increased representation in federal government specifically predicated on an increased illegal population?

If those who wish to remove the citizenship question from the census are truly serious about their aims, they should set their sights as equally upon sanctuary cities as they should the Trump administration. It is the gross negligence of those who have attempted to thwart federal immigration law that has led to the just question of legitimate apportionment of political representation. Sanctuary cities, whether purposefully or not, have impacted the scales of their population in an unlawful way and if the census includes a citizenship question, as a commensurate response to their actions, they only have themselves to blame.

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