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

Liked it? Take a second to support NOQ Report on Patreon!
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Democrats

New rule needed: Old Ideas have to work BEFORE they can be tried again

Published

on

By

New rule needed Old Ideas have to work BEFORE they can be tried again

If the Unaffordable Care Act [Obamacare] didn’t work properly, why replace it with more of the same?

It’s a pattern replicated far too many times. There is a small expansion of government based on a ‘new’ idea that inevitably fails to work as promised. This is replaced with an even bigger expansion of government to solve the issues of the original program. When this also fails to work, an even bigger government expansion fails even more spectacularly. Each time the ‘new’ idea repeatedly fails making the situation far worse.

Instead determining what actually can work, the same mistakes are made over and over with the futile expectation of different results. If an idea is flawed, the results will always be the same no matter it’s size or overreach.

Old ideas have to be shown to work BEFORE they can be tried again

There is a perfectly easy way to avoid repeated failure. Look at what works and reject what doesn’t. If the basic idea of a law or government program is a known failure, why bother trying it again? Ever-expanding government programs of failure only lead to ever-expanding failure.

Consider just a couple of examples of this pattern:

  • Government controlled healthcare systems.
  • Government controls on Liberty [i.e. ‘Gun confiscation’]
  • Ever increasing taxation that has led to ever diminishing tax revenue.
  • And the Great, Great, Great, Granddaddy of them all: Socialism [Collectivism]

Government controlled healthcare

In the case of the Unaffordable Care Act [‘ACA’ or ‘Obamacare’] there would be no need for a new overarching system if it were functional. But it’s promises never materialised, so the Left is now clamouring for something even worse. With it now being ruled unconstitutional, the whole concept of government control of health care has been called into question. We should always take into consideration other ideas that actually work instead of heading down the same dead-end road.

The Left’s ideas on healthcare have been a series of ever-increasing failures of ever-increasing over reach by the government. They never admit to failure, they just keep on clamouring for more without any word on funding

For example, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D., Minn.) agreed with the contention that the Democrats should now push for an even bigger expansion of government control over everyone’s life with “universal health care”. Medicare and Medicaid failed to solve the problem, so the Unaffordable Care Act was layered on top. That is also failing, so the ‘solution’ offered by the nation’s Left is even more control of Government control of healthcare. Never mind that we cannot afford the $42 trillion price tag for a new government monstrosity over the next decade, never mind that it violates the basic precepts of the Constitution. History and logic tells us that it cannot work, so is there is no point in trying it all over again.

New Ideas based in Liberty

There is no point in going in the same direction, repeating the same failure with the same ancient ideas. However, as JD Rucker pointed out, we need to support positive ideas instead just acting in opposition. In that context, these are some examples of alternatives to healthcare under the control of the government.

Direct care or Concierge Medicine

This is a system where patients pay a retainer fee to a physician for personalised care. The retainer fee lets the medical professional work with a smaller number of patients so they can have far easier access with lower co-pays. This type of practice would be combined with catastrophic care for emergencies.

For most people this sounds far better than impersonal service and high deductibles of a government-run system with far lower costs. The individual would be the priority rather than the collective. A much better system than one that combines the customer care of the DMV, the empathetic demeanour of the IRS and the cost efficiency of the Postal service.

Other plans to fix the mess of government-run health care

Then there are alternative ideas such as those in a recent Heritage foundation report that outlined some of their ideas to to replace Obamacare. The main point here is to return to plans that put choice in the hands of individuals.

The takeaway

Thus we have two contrasting visions of how things should work (or not in the case the ancient ideas of the Left). The nation’s Socialist Left wants to pile on a new overarching government plan due to the failure of the existing overarching government plan. We can’t afford the cost in Liberty and dollars of the old plan, nor can we even begin to afford the cost in Liberty and dollars of the ‘new’ plan. History tells us that the ‘new’ version of the same old ideas will fail to work as promised. This will cause the need for the Left to have another go at the problem that will also fail to work.

The Left can talk all they want about fighting for people, but the results of their ancient ideas speak for themselves. Only needs to cite the horrific conditions of Venezuelan healthcare to see how much they ‘care’ about people. We of the Pro-Liberty, Conservative Right have the advantage of ideas grounded in Liberty that have been proven to work. These can reverse the trend toward freedom crushing government systems that do not work no matter how expansive or expensive.

The choice is clear, keep on going in a direction will see everyone paying dearly in dollars and Liberty for a ‘new’ government program that won’t work. Or trying a new approach with fresh ideas that actually work and maintain our freedom.

 

Liked it? Take a second to support NOQ Report on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Guns and Crime

Social media and internet searches could cost you your gun rights

Published

on

Social media and internet searches could cost you your gun rights

If you look up the word “deviant” in the dictionary, you’ll find it defined as “straying or deviating especially from an accepted norm” or “someone or something that deviates from a norm.” It’s an accurate word to use when describing the behavior of people whose actions are markedly different from what is or has been considered normal or acceptable.

This is why I often use it to describe the LGBTQ-WXYZ movement. However, did you know that using it to describe homosexuals is considered “defamatory” hate speech? In fact, even the word “homosexual” has been labeled offensive by the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD).

If you’re wondering where I’m going in today’s article, here it is: Under a recently introduced bill, using the words “deviant” or “homosexual” on social media or in an internet search would cost me my Second Amendment gun rights if I resided in New York.

Specifically, the bill (SB9191) would give state and local police the green light to investigate for “commonly known profane slurs or biased language to describe race, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, disability, or sexual orientation.”

Under the measure introduced by state Senator Kevin Parker (D-Brooklyn), gun-permit applicants would be required to provide user names and passwords to the state so that they can search 1-3 years of the applicant’s search histories and social media accounts.

The measure requires, “social media and search engine reviews prior to the approval of an application or renewal of a license to carry or possess a pistol or revolver; requires a person applying for a license to carry or possess a pistol or revolver or a renewal of such license to consent to having his or her social media accounts and search engine history reviewed and investigated for certain posts and/or searches over a period of 1-3 years prior to the approval of such application or renewal; defines terms.”

So, why should we care what the Democratic Socialists in New York are doing? Because every bad federal law was at one time a bad state law resulting in unintended consequences.

According to Assemblywoman-Elect Jamie Romero, this bill is an obvious extension of the “red flag” laws sweeping the country, where guns can be seized from citizens without due process. In other words, it’s an unintended consequence of so-called reasonable gun-control.

I’ve written in the past about how federal red-flag laws — aka Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) — have been proposed in the Senate and how such laws enjoy the support of Donald “Take the guns first, go through due process second” Trump.

With ERPO laws already in the Washington bloodstream, it’s simply a matter of time before a bill like this latest one in New York becomes law, catches fire, spreads across the nation, and eventually becomes a national law.

One last thought.

Many will resist this assault on gun rights by claiming that social media and internet searches are protected by the First Amendment’s right to free speech. However, Trump once referred to free speech as “treason” and the GOP has proposed laws to restrict free speech they don’t approve of. I don’t think they’ll let one right they don’t respect get in the way of voiding another right they don’t respect.

Besides, thanks to renewing laws like FISA702, the federal government already has access to your computer records, so resistance is futile.

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

Liked it? Take a second to support NOQ Report on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Guns and Crime

Two steps to gun confiscation

Published

on

By

Two steps to gun confiscation

Six years ago, the Liberty grabbers on the Left dropped the mask, going full throttle for taking guns.

Image Credit: Gun Owners of AmericaConsider the situation 6 years ago, Obama has just won re-election, the Left held a tight grip on the government and then the Sandy Hook mass murders took place, changing the way the Left approached the subject of gun confiscation. Obama and the rest of the nation’s Socialist-Left seized on the issue of Liberty control with a vengeance. They were finally were going to vanquish the common sense human Right of Self-defence.

It was at this time that they made a major course change in how they talked about the issue of our basic civil rights. They had previously denied what was obvious about their assaults on Liberty. After the tragedy in Connecticut, the dam burst on their demands for gun confiscation as can be seen in the updated lists on the subject. These are excerpts in how they’ve telegraphed their plans for this over the years.

How the Left plans on confiscating guns.

Leftists will often signal how they plan to carry out certain parts of their agenda, with their final solution to the Liberty problem being no exception. Many talked about how they wanted to grab our guns, with one prime example coming from the Daily Kos entitled: How to Ban Guns: A step by step, long term process. Another similar but malevolent screed was also published later on with the ominous title of Effective Gun Control – A National Semi-Auto Ban.

The author in the first piece began with emotional arguments in preparation for the illogical and unfair punishment of 120 million innocent people. Then the author talks about how it’s a good thing that this has to be done incrementally because of non-compliance with laws that would violate our Liberty. Both clearly lay out how they plan to deprive the people of their natural Right of self-preservation. We begin with their first step in the process.

Step one: Expand background checks to develop lists of gun owners.

Both articles detail how they would develop these lists, with the one article emphasising that they must make it ‘easy’ to get on the mandatory gun confiscation lists.

The very first thing we need is national registry. We need to know where the guns are, and who has them. Canada has a national firearms registry. We need to copy their model. We need a law demanding all firearms be registered to a national database. We need to know who has them and where they are. We need to make this as easy as possible for gun owners.

[Our emphasis]

The author also emphasises that they must have control over personal property with ‘expanded’ [Intergalactic, Comprehensive, Universal, common sense, etc. or whatever they are calling them this week] Background Checks. In essence, they want to make it illegal for someone to have control over their private property:

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.

[Our emphasis]

Now with the current situation in Boulder, we see why they obsess over government control of personal property. As reported in the Daily Camera, only 85 assault weapons certified in Boulder as ban compliance date looms even with the threat of ‘fines, jail time, plus confiscation, destruction of firearm

Along with forcing innocent people to jump through hoops to keep what they already own, the authorities perform a background check to see someone is worthy of keeping their possessions.

The police department then performs a background check and, if the owner is clear, issues two copies of a certificate with the owner’s name, date of birth and signature; the make, model and serial number of the gun, and the date of issue and issuer’s name. Both copies go with the gun to prove it was owned before June 15, 2018.

[Our emphasis]

It’s also claimed that this isn’t registration. However, with the simple expedient of keeping records of these background checks, they will have a de facto registration system with a list of gun owners. Thus we see how they want to accomplish the first step of the gun grabbing process.

Step two: Set up the equivalent of confiscation with gun registration.

So, now with lists of gun owners, they can initiate tight control over guns by having the ATF descend upon Federal Firearms License dealers and find out who didn’t get permission to keep a basic human right.

Now we get down to it. The registration period has passed. Now we have criminals without registered guns running around.

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.

In the later ‘National Semi-Auto Ban’ piece the author fantasies about an enhanced ATF shutting down thousands of private businesses for ‘days, or week(s) until the audit is complete’. If some of those dealers go out of business due to the heavy-handed audit, the author of the piece considers it a win.

The result would be gun owners having to obtain government permission to keep their private property – Registration. The example from Boulder showing that would entail as yet another background check to keep what people already own.

Gun Registration is virtually Gun Confiscation.

This point has been made in the past, especially in these columns from Dean Weingarten on Gunwatch: Gun Registration is Gun Confiscation

The holy grail of the anti self defense and anti rights special interest groups is gun registration. This is because once your gun is required to be registered, it is in effect, already confiscated. Only a little thought will reveal to you why this is so. The Government will know who has legal possession of each firearm. They will know where the firearm is stored. When physical possession of the gun is desired, they can order you to turn it in. This has happened repeatedly. The historical examples include NAZI Germany, Soviet Russia, Red China, and Cambodia. Recent examples include Kosovo, Great Britian, Australia, New York, and California. Not having possession of the firearm registered to you can be grounds for criminal action. If you have reported the gun stolen, and it is then found in your possession, you can be charged with obstruction of justice.

Then later in this column in Ammoland:

Washington Post: The Purpose of Gun Registration is Gun Confiscation

The Takeaway

Being disarmed is a mistake a free people only get to make.. once. We close with a link to an article from Fox news: Venezuelans regret gun ban, ‘a declaration of war against an unarmed population’.

Collectivists always depend upon force to achieve their aims, this is why they always work to disarm the people so the people cannot ‘resist’. This is also why the Democrats obsess over attaining unlawful government control over personal property with ‘Expanded’ Background Checks.

Liked it? Take a second to support NOQ Report on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report