Connect with us

Opinions

Conservative Picks for the California Primary

Published

on

Many Conservatives jokingly wish Lex Luthor succeeded. Alas, Superman saved the day in the most ridiculous way possible, and now we have to deal with California sending an insane amount of leftist politicians to DC. The state boasts 53 Congressional Districts with a good amount of gerrymandering to make California even bluer. As an added obstacle for Conservatives, California adopted a top-two primary system in which every candidate competes for a top two finish. This adds a certain element of game theory for Conservative Picks that wasn’t needed in the other states. California is a different animal. The opportunities for Conservatism to advance are limited mostly to vacated red seats, courtesy of Ed Royce and Darrell Issa. There are a few other races a strong conservative and skilled campaigner could find victory such as the 53rd. For the most part California, Conservatives are mostly playing defense at the federal level. It is more plausible for gains to be made at the state and local levels in the California Primary. But enough putting down California. California fields better candidates than most of the deep south has thus far.

Best Picks: Morgan Murtaugh, Erin Cruz, Tom McClintock, John Renison, Shawn Nelson, Omar Navarro, Kenneth Wright
Worst Picks(GOP): Rocky Chavez, Patrick Little
Best Races: District 4, District 8,
Worst Race: District 10, US Senate
Reading Guide: Read races with bigger paragraphs for ease and speed.

US Senate

There are eleven candidates for the Senate seat on the Republican side. This is especially unhelpful for the side of liberty. The Democrats are fielding to big money candidates with incumbent Dianne Feinstein and Kevin De Lion. So it is important the the Republican side unifies so that they have a chance come November. In 2016, the GOP failed to nominate a candidate. A repeat may be the most probable outcome in  this field.

In the past, NOQ Report has interviewed Erin Cruz. Cruz is a well articulated Conservative and the social media favorite among Republicans. In her interview, she held a steadfast principle position without delving into Trumpism or giving any indication of being a RINO.

The supposed frontrunner among Republicans is James Bradley. While he isn’t the social media favorite he does seem to be the preferred choice of OAN and Sean Hannity. He has a solid record and a similar platform to Erin Cruz. The last candidate worth discussing is Patrick Little. Little is an Israel-hating zionist conspirator. His anti-semitism got him barred from the CAGOP Convention. Needless to say his Jew-hatred would make him unelectable, by the old rules. Yet somehow, he may also be a frontrunner among republican candidates.

Cruz has the best chance in a general election and is a well articulated Conservative in the age of Trump.

Conservative Pick: Erin Cruz

District 1

Doug LaMalfa is an average Republican. He’s not to fiscally conservative, but at least he voted against Omnibus. His only Republican opposition is Gregory Cheadle. Cheadle would probably be worth a risk in a Republican only primary. LaMalfa has been in office five years and is one of the best Congressman, the state has to offer. Unfortunately, game theory must be accounted for.

Conservative Pick: Doug LaMalfa

District 2

Dale Mensing has tried and failed to win this seat on multiple occasions. He is the only Republican running.

District 3

Charlie Schaupp is another candidate looking for yet another rematch. He is unopposed.

District 4

Tom McClintock is the best Congressman California has to offer. He is opposed but his opponent is not worth the risk.

Conservative Pick: Tom McClintock

District 5

There is no option. Even the independents are leftists.

District 6

There is no Republican option, only two Democrats.

District 7

There are two GOP options for overthrowing Ami Bera. The first is a doctor, Yona Barash. He has no platform listed. The second is Andrew Grant, a veteran who could be decent.

Conservative Pick: Andrew Grant

District 8

Paul Cook is a RINO who has spent a lot of our money recklessly. He is opposed by Tim Donnelly again. Last time, Donnelly narrowly missed out on the top two. Donnelly, in practice would be more Conservative than Paul Cook. He is worth the risk.

Conservative Pick: Tim Donnelly

District 9

District 10

Jeff Denham is a lousy Congressman, but no better alternative can be found in Ted Howze who is running as a RINO for the most part.

Conservative Pick: None

District 11

John Fitzgerald is the only Republican. Unfortunately he is another conspiracy theorist on all things Jews.

Conservative Pick: None

District 12

Lisa Remmer has the laughably bold challenge of going after Nancy Pelosi. She seems like a run in the mill Conservative. She is unopposed.

District 13

No one is challenging Barbara Lee.

District 14

Rudy Peters is the only Republican in this race.

District 16

Elizabeth Heng is the only Republican in this race.

District 17

Ron Cohen is the only Republican in this race, and is a good choice.

District 18

Christine Russell is the only Republican in this race.

District 19

Zoe Lufgren is unchallenged.

District 20

There is no Republican or otherwise liberty loving option in this race.

District 21

David Valadao is a RINO unopposed by his own party.

District 22

Devin Nunes is another big government Republican and the only GOP presence in this race.

District 23

Kevin McCarthy is making a career in DC. He done nothing to shrink the government and is a possible next Speaker of the House. There is no worthy challenger, but it must be noted, he would make a horrible Speaker of the House.

District 24

There are two Republicans vying for the seat. The first is Justin Fareed and the second is Michael Woody. Neither are overly impressive. Woody has a more articulated stance on issues and a less cliche campaign focus.

Conservative Pick: Michael Woody

District 25

Steven Knight is opposed by four Democrats. He is a hardcore RINO.

District 26

Republicans Jeffrey Burum and Antonio Sabado Jr. look to take down long time swamp monster Julia Brownie. On the issues, Burum has a clearer Conservative message. Sabado is not a bad candidate, but he comes with more ambiguity.

Conservative Pick: Jeffrey Burum

District 27

There is no non-Democrat option.

District 28

Johnny Nalbandian is the only Republican option in this race.

District 29

Benito Bernal is the only Republican running.

District 30

Mark Reed is the only Republican but is a solid candidate.

District 31

Sean Flynn is the only Republican in this race. He wrote Economics For Dummies.

District 32

Grace Napolitano is unchallenged.

District 33

Kenneth Wright looks to unseat the bumbling Ted Lieu. He is a solid candidate.

District 34

There’s not really a Conservative option here. There’s an anti-military Libertarian candidate.

District 35

Christian Valiente is the only Republican option in this race.

District 36

There are five Republicans running to unseat Raul Ruiz. The most serious contender is Kimberlin Brown Pelzer. She has the endorsement of  Ken Calvert, Paul Cook, and Ed Royce, all RINOs. But she isn’t in position to disavow a friendly endorsement. Her platform is rather weak, giving off the indication that she wouldn’t be a productive Representative on the issues of repealing Obamacare or dealing with DACA and illegal immigrants. Dan Ball is perhaps the RINO in this pack as well. It’s concerning that Pelzer is running to the right of him and he isn’t challenging her claim that he opposes repealing Obamacare. Then there’s Doug Hassett. His platform says a lot of Conservative things and then delves into a statist solution involving ore government.  The other candidates aren’t very serious. Robert Bentley is perhaps the most Conservative, but isn’t viable.

Conservative Pick Kimberlin Brown Pelzer (low confidence)

District 37

Ron Bassilian is the only Republican running in this race.

District 38

Ryan Downing is the only Republican running in this race.

District 39

Seven Republicans are running. Pete Libertore stands out as the most Conservative. He believes all the right things but his viability as a candidate is seriously doubtful. Young Kim has a was in the California assembly. Young Kim is reckless with money and one can’t help but conclude her governance would be the same way. In 2014, she spent $2.3 million on a Assembly seat and won. In 2016 she spent $2.8 million and lost. She sucks at campaigning and cannot be trusted in the top two.

The most threatening candidate seems to be Shawn Nelson. Nelson seems a bit to the right of Trump. While he not the most Conservative candidate in the state, he is particularly strong on the 4th Amendment and the 1st Amendment. We need more Republicans who would vote against government surveillance programs, as they are not only minimally effective but a precurssor for more nefarious threats to our freedom to come. Nelson has enough of a presence to warrant attack ads against him. This race represents the chance to upgrade from RINO Ed Royce. Nelson is the best chance at that.

Conservative Pick: Shawn Nelson

District 40

There is no Republican option.

District 41

Aja Smith is the only Repulbican in this race.

District 42

RINO Ken Calvert is the Republican incumbent. No Republican is challenging him.

District 43

This is Maxine Walters district. There are three Republicans running and the one most poised to defeat her is Omar Navarro. He is a “social media candidate” much like Austen Petersen in Missouri, Brenden Dilley from Arizona, or Bradley Manning in Maryland. He could have a lot of support or it could all be a front.

Conservative Pick: Omar Navarro

District 44

Jazmina Saavedra is the only actively running Republican. Stacey Dash was in the ring but withdrew. However she is still on the ballot and this race is a dismal feat. This isn’t about winning the seat. This is about advancing Conservatism is a place where Hillary dominated.

Conservative Pick: Stacey Dash

District 45

Mimi Walters is the incumbent Republican, another RINO. She is opposed by four democrats and an independent.

District 46

Russell Lambert is the only Republican running in this race.

District 47

John Briscoe and David Clifford are the two Republicans looking to unseat Alan Lowenthal. Briscoe has election experience winning at the local level. Clifford wasn’t to institute tax incentives aimed at small businesses instead of raising the minimum wage. Clifford is creative, but this is messing with the free market in a fiscally irresponsible way. Briscoe has a better grasp on liberty and experience in winning.

Conservative Pick: John Briscoe

District 48

District 49

This was a seriously crowded field. The 39th is a competitive race that the Democrats really want to enhance their fabled Blue Wave. However, this presents a chance to reinforce Conservatives in the house. The two most formidable Republicans are Rocky Chavez and Diane Harkey. This is a surprisingly easy choice. Chavez is a current Assemblyman. His record is unimpressive to put it kindly. He voted in favor of cap and trade and voted to bar landlords from reporting illegal immigrants and allows illegals to sue them if they disclose. Chavez has RINO written all over him. If polling is to be believed, Diane Harkey has pulled ahead of the pack. She has some RINO endorsements but also has Dana Rohrbacher on her side. She’s the most viable option for retaining the seat as it is conceivable that many Conservatives would abandon an illegal immigrant supporting candidate like Chavez in the general.

Conservative Pick: Diane Harkey

District 50

Duncan Hunter is the third best Congressman California has to offer via Conservative Review. To put it in perspective, third place here is surprisingly better in most of the red states so far this union. Hunter is not the most fiscally responsible, particularly because his priority is funding defense. It is also worth noting that he was probably more Conservative before Trump. Still he is the most viable candidate in a field of Democrat challengers.

Conservative Pick: Duncan Hunter

District 51

There are three Republicans in this race. Back for more is Juan Hidalgo Jr. He has lost this race in 2016 and seems to be coasting on the failed endeavor for this time around, as in same exact website and an unused since 2016 Twitter account. Louis Fuentes is another candidate without any real online presence. Lastly John Renison is looking to make the runoff. He has the most active and Conservative campaign in this race. He is strong on life, guns, and seemingly free market.

Conservative Pick: John Renison

District 52

Scott Peters has a giant war chest because this may be competitive. A field of six Republicans thinks they can stick it to him. The three most serious are Omar QudratJames Veltmeyer, and Danny Casara. Omar Qudrat is the choice of the regional GOP. However, his campaign is hardly Conservative and focuses almost exclusively on local issues.  James Veltmeyer is a highly skilled doctor with an emphasis on fixing the healthcare system. He adds ideas to the mix of ideas Conservatives are trying to fix our system with. Danny Casara seems like a good guy. His campaign is coming from the intent to limit government.

Conservative Pick: James Veltmeyer

District 53

The Republican that stands out the most in the 53rd is Morgan Murtaugh. She is 25 adding a youthful voice to the Conservative movement. In the era of Trump, like many Conservatives, she has found herself pleasantly surprised. She has a strong grasp on Liberty and could flip this seat red with the enough resources.

Conservative Pick: Morgan Murtaugh

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

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