Connect with us

Opinions

Why pro-abortion candidate Bill Weld is just a fundraising tool for President Trump

Published

on

Why pro-abortion candidate Bill Weld is just a fundraising tool for President Trump

A puncher needs someone to punch. Now, President Trump has one if he chooses to treat former Massachusetts governor Bill Weld with any level of seriousness. That remains to be seen. It’s just as likely he’ll Tweet a few jabs and be done with him as he would actually take Weld seriously enough to make an ad.

But either way, the President’s campaign team will certainly do one thing: run fundraisers off of him.

Weld officially entered the race yesterday, and despite claims by my colleague that most #NeverTrumpers will still support the President when push comes to shove, I found more than a few on social media who were excited about the prospects of Weld taking him on. On Weld’s own Twitter feed, there were a handful of people who expressed interest in changing parties to vote for him in the primaries. Whether that means they are currently Democrats, Independents, or Libertarians (Weld was the Libertarian nominee for Vice President in 2016 before dropping out and endorsing Hillary Clinton) is unclear.

He has a track-record of fiscal conservatism, which alone gives him GOP credentials in the eyes of some. But he is staunchly pro-choice. The very notion of a pro-abortion Republican candidate for President seems obtuse in these polarized times, but if Weld thinks that’s the way to get votes, so be it.

The only thing he really has going in his favor is an ability to focus almost all of his efforts in New Hampshire. It will be the second state after Iowa to hold a vote. If Weld could somehow win there, it would demonstrate enough division within the GOP – at least in the one Libertarian-friendly state – to raise some eyebrows. Believe it or not, there’s a strategy that could work if he is able to perform well in New Hampshire, one that a strong campaign team and a good amount of money could potentially pull off.

Of course, it could all be moot. The RNC has already declared Trump will be the 2020 nominee. I’m not familiar enough to know if this is binding through primaries and caucuses, but I assume Weld did which is why he declared and has his team focusing on New Hampshire.

I am personally not a fan of President Trump, but I wouldn’t vote for a Democrat. I reached out to some associated with or directly in the Weld campaign and Tweeted at the candidate himself to get information about his stance on abortion, but so far nobody has given me a straight answer. Perhaps that’s intentional. Rather than acknowledging he’s still pro-choice, they’d rather just avoid the issue altogether.

It’s a shame, really, because I’d love to learn more from Weld or his staff about the issues. Unfortunately, his website is only a fundraising portal with a short video. As for his team, I received a single sentence reply from one adviser encouraging me to listen to Bill without actually addressing anything in my communication with him. Not very inspiring.

Weld may help the President raise money. He may end up being a thorn in the President’s side if he can make a fuss in New Hampshire. But one thing is certain: Bill Weld will never come close to being President of the United States if nobody is willing to answer the simple question about his stance on abortion.

Boost This Post

Get this story in front of tens of thousands of patriots who need to see it. For every $30 you donate here, this story will be broadcast to an addition 7000 Americans or more. If you’d prefer to use PayPal, please email me at jdrucker@reagan.com and let me know which post you want boosted after you donate through PayPal.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help
 

Advertisement
Click to comment

Culture and Religion

The far-left hates liberty. Isn’t it time to stop praising them as being liberal? Part II

Published

on

By

The far-left hates liberty Isnt it time to stop praising them as being liberal Part II

If we want to defeat socialism and Conserve Liberty, we have to stop using the reality defying language of the Left.

Bernie Sanders recently gave a speech inverting reality to redefine socialism. It was replete with some modernized versions of the tired old tropes of the Communist Manifesto. But the key part included some absurd assertions on Liberty that would have made a younger version of George Orwell proud.

Apparently no one can be ‘free’ unless they have a claim on the time, labor and property of others in society. In the Orwellian mindset of Bernie Sanders and others of the national socialist Left, Liberty means that you should be ‘free’.. to enslave others. No word on whether the people forced to provide their time, labor and property to Bernie voters that are ‘free’.

It is a fact that every living being from bacteria to Brontosauri has had to exert effort in order to survive. However, the Leftist mindset sees an opportunity to control every aspect of everyone’s life in trying to alter this essential fact of life. For if they can assert that every individual has a collective obligation to society at large, they get to enforce that obligation, since they consider themselves to the moral superiors of everyone else. They know this because they are the moral superiors of everyone else.

In this inversion of Liberty from the Left, freedom means that you should be provided with free healthcare, free housing, free college, free food, free childcare and just about any free benefit they can conjure up. Never mind that there isn’t enough money to provide all of these ‘freedoms’ or that the people forced to provide them could hardly be considered to be ‘free’. We’re also to forget about the fact that these ancient ideas run contrary to human nature and that they have never worked in the 400 years that this ‘social’ experiment has been run.

Part I of this series proved that the Far-Left has become the enemy of Liberty while they use labels that falsely imply the polar opposite. Even though Leftists have become increasingly hostile to freedom and basic reality, they still falsely claim to be ‘Liberal’. Part II will present the case for a two-step approach in rhetorically cutting them off at the kneecaps in depriving them of this deception.

The Orwellian language of the enemies of Liberty on the Left.

Ideas are conveyed and considered through the shorthand of language. A positive word connotes a positive thought or feeling on a particular issue, while a negative word has the opposite effect. If Leftists are good at anything, it’s in word selection and exploitation. It’s the reason they put so much effort in trying to control free speech and dictating the terms of debate.

This is why it is imperative that we of the Pro-Liberty Right avoid being trapped into using the language of the Socialist-Left, debating the issues on their terms. This unnecessarily places us in an immediate disadvantage when it’s just a question of choosing the proper words and having the discipline to use them properly.

Eleutheros to Libertas.

There is a reason the Left loves to exploit the derivatives certain ancient words. The first has its origins in Greek: free (liberated), unbound (unshackled); (figuratively) free to realize one’s destiny in Christ.

The second is a derivative of the first, howbeit the etymology is somewhat murky. The second is the Roman personification of Liberty and freedom. The ancient term Libertas has a number of positive and similar sounding derivatives with the two-syllable ‘liber’ common to the words Liberation, Liberty and Liberal.

Each of these three derivatives convey the positive idea of being unbound and free from restraint. When used by the Far-Left this runs contrary to their true meaning because their socialist ideology has the opposite effect, the assertions of Bernie ‘we must be free to enslave others’ Sanders notwithstanding.

Leftists love thinking of themselves a ‘Liberators’ or the vaunted protectors of Liberty, but it is their incessant use of the term Liberal that needs to be corrected. Far too many people wrongly associate socialistic slavery with this contrary term. While many falsely apply some sort of post-modernism ideas to the term, it cannot be denied that Liberal connotes the same positive ideas of freedom as the words Liberty and Liberator. Many associate the real enslavement of society with being Liberal and by extension Liberty and Liberation to the point that the media contradictorily uses the term to refer to socialism.

Defeating the Socialist-Left by depriving them of their false labeling.

Defeating the Leftists on this subject is just a two-step process of taking back the word and having the discipline to use Leftist instead of Liberal. Then it’s just a question of rhetorically pounding Leftists as being hypocrites in trying to sell socialistic slavery as ‘Liberation’ or ‘Liberty’.

We have already made the point that true Liberals belong on the right side of the political spectrum here, here, and here. The fact is, the Conservative-Right side is represented in the Liberal party in Australia. Consider the through the looking-glass mindset of the Left characterizing a win of the Australian Liberal party entitled as ‘How Liberalism Loses’ taking note that they scrupulously avoid using the actual name of the Liberal party in Australia.

Why it is extremely important to use the term Leftist instead of Liberal.

It should be an easy fix to the situation, given that both words start with the same letter and have the same length. It’s just a matter of understanding the vast difference in the meaning of the two words and why we all need to have the discipline to just use Leftist in referring to those people.

Those using the term Liberal when referring to the Left are complicit in perpetrating their deception on who they are. Leftists don’t consider Liberal to be a pejorative. They smile when we use the odd phrases such as ‘Owning the Libs’ because that reinforces their supposed ‘Liberal’ street cred. The same holds true for any variation of terms that have a ‘Lib’ portion.

The Word Salad approach to labeling the Left.

While many understood the logic in this effort, there are still some on the Conservative-Right that still use a ‘Word Salad’ approach when referring to the Left. They will begin using Leftist and switch to Liberal at some point, followed by the term Progressive in another instance, then perhaps switching back to Leftist in another.

No one is really impressed by the undisciplined use of these terms, there really is no point in continuing the practice. One word is sufficient, the Far-Left has no qualms about using the term ‘Far-right’ in referring to the Pro-Liberty side of the aisle. This refers back to one of the Left’s biggest lies: that the Nazis weren’t socialists. But that doesn’t stop them from trying to reinforce that lie at every opportunity where up is down and Left is Right – meaning a socialist workers’ party of the Left is somehow of the ‘Far-Right’.

It is time to fight back on this front instead of conceding the language of the Left, it is how they lie about who they are and what we are. It is how they deceive people who are unaware of their true nature.

The Takeaway.

The Socialist-Left revels in being ‘Liberators’, the defenders of Liberty and of course as being Liberal.
Those positive sounding attributes belong to the Conservative-Right, that why it is important to use the correct word.

Using Leftist instead of Liberal takes away one of the Left’s biggest deceptions, why wouldn’t anyone follow that advice?

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

Culture and Religion

There are still 10 Commandments even if most Christians only believe in 9

Published

on

There are still 10 Commandments even if most Christians only believe in 9

If you ask an average evangelical Christian if they believe in the 10 Commandments, most say yes. In fact, a majority of Americans believe nine of the ten Commandments are still important today. Only one commandment in a poll last year was accepted by less than half of Americans. Only 49% believe keeping the sabbath day holy still applies.

But the Bible is very explicit about the Commandments. From Genesis to Exodus, the sabbath is mentioned as being kept, including by post-resurrection Christian leaders like Peter and Paul. Nothing in the Bible indicates it has changed. In fact, it was the actions of men attempting to claim the Christian faith as their own and merging it with the pagan religions of their day that prompted a change to Sunday as the day of worship. It wasn’t by decree from a prophet of God. It was men trying to make things easier to rule their people who decided to change times and laws.

The Bible is unambiguous. In Exodus 20:

Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:

10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Now is not the time to debate misinterpretations of Paul’s teachings, the ones most often pointed to when pastors and Christian scholars try to justify their acceptance of the anti-Biblical change in both scope and details surrounding the permanent law of God laid forth for all men and for all time in the 10 Commandments. I’ll leave a video below from 119 Ministries that goes into the details and offers a scriptural basis for keeping the sabbath. I do not believe in all of their conclusions, but it’s a great reference nonetheless.

For now, I’d prefer to appeal to logic. Before Jesus Christ died, after His resurrection, and any time He has appeared in the Bible, neither He nor anyone else talks about moving the sabbath. I’ve heard Bible scholars infer that it was changed to somehow represent His rising and the changes that happened in the world as a result, but that does not explain why the sabbath was kept by Christians throughout the early days of the church even after His death. Historians and the Bible all agree that those who were closest to Jesus continued to keep the sabbath.

It takes a tremendous amount of eisegesis to work that change into the Bible somehow. Moreover, it completely ignores historical records that show why the leaders in the 3rd century changed the day of worship to match with the pagan day of worship, Sunday, and to separate themselves from any attachment to the non-believing Hebrews.

The Bible tells us to keep the sabbath. At no point does it tell us to stop keeping the sabbath. Instead of listening to the traditions of men who were appeasing pagans, why don’t more Christians trust the Word of God?

Here’s the video:

Continue Reading

Democrats

Trey Gowdy, Jason Chaffetz highlight idiocy of Democrats, media

Published

on

Trey Gowdy rips House Dems hearings Pathetic sad dont benefit anyone

This week, Democrats in the House Judiciary Committee brought in John Dean of Watergate fame to testify about the Russian collusion story. It had many, even in progressive mainstream media, scratching their heads wondering what Dean could possibly contribute to the conversation or investigation.

But that’s not how Democrats think, at least in the House of Representatives. They aren’t looking for facts. They’re looking for anything they can do to perpetuate their narrative and keep the Russia collusion hoax in the news cycle so they don’t have to answer tough questions about real issues facing Americans like illegal immigration.

Two former Congressmen, Trey Gowdy and Jason Chaffetz, spoke at length about the debacle of this hearing.

Chaffetz was amused. “When you bring up two convicted felons, Michael Cohen and John Dean, as the way you’re going to propel this, I don’t know how Democrats with a straight face look in the camera say, ‘Oh ya, we’re trying to get to the bottom to do the work of the American people.'”

Gowdy, on the other hand, was infuriated by the display of clear partisan brinkmanship. After praising Chaffetz for his ability when on Capitol Hill to talk to the press, Gowdy pointed at an inconvenient fact about the way the media in America works.

“I hope even you have realized, now, the duplicity and the relativism with which Republicans are covered versus Democrats,” Gowdy said. “If you, as the Chairman of Oversight, had called someone like John Dean who’s not a fact witness, we’s not a legal expert… about the best he can give you is a day in the life in federal prison, that’s the best he’s going to be able to give you, you would have been excoriated.”

Putting John Dean in front of a camera had one goal for the Democrats: associate the Russia hoax with Watergate. They’re grasping at straws now, but it should be expected since Mueller is all they have left.

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