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

0

Democrats

Dianne Feinstein’s comment on Dayton shooter skipped one important point

Published

on

Dianne Feinsteins comment on Dayton shooter skipped one important point

Gun control is the talk of the town as the week comes to a close. Well, that and Greenland. And Jeffrey Epstein. But the mass shootings two weeks ago has DC buzzing, media furiously reporting, and activists on both sides of the debate furiously Tweeting at each other. Senator Dianne Feinstein weighed in on the discussion by pointing out some important facts about the alleged Dayton shooter, Connor Betts.

Her facts are correct. Her analysis is off because it missed one important point. We’ll get to that in a minute, but let’s declare once and for all (though I’m sure I’ll have to repeat myself later) that the 2nd Amendment IS NOT ABOUT HUNTING OR HOME PROTECTION. Our right to keep and bear firearms was put into the Constitution by our founders because they recognized what could happen if the people had no recourse against an oppressive government. Just as Venezuelans didn’t realize they danger they were putting themselves into when they allowed their guns to be taken away, so too do many Americans put way too much trust in government.

The authoritarian left wants guns because they know they’ll never achieve their endgame as long as the people can defend themselves from tyranny.

Feinstein is correct that the Dayton shooter was able to cause an extreme amount of death and injury in a short period of time. Police were quick to respond, otherwise it could have been much worse. But as our EIC pointed out in a Tweet, Feinstein’s narrative is worthless when you look at it from the opposite perspective.

Gun control is not the solution to our mass shooting problem. If anything, gun control has enabled shooters to enact their crimes without fear of many “good guys with a gun” to stop them. We must never give up our 2nd Amendment rights.

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

Media

With ‘collusion’ out and ‘racism’ in, legacy media scrambles to write the anti-Trump narrative

Published

on

With collusion out and racism in legacy media scrambles to write the anti-Trump narrative

There are things that are often so obvious to me, I actually ignore them as stories to consider reporting when in reality they’re big news. It’s part of the myopia journalists often get when their days are spent researching and analyzing a topic so much, we assume certain things are common knowledge when they’re not. Case-in-point: The fact that legacy media establishes narrative plans to achieve goals that promote their agenda.

It took my wife’s aghast response to learning the NY Times was setting up a gameplan to attack President Trump from now until the election. I asked her what she thought newsroom’s did. After all, she knows I used to sit in meetings about how to cover particular topics, and affecting the 2020 election is obviously something newsrooms will try to do. But to her (and probably a lot of our readers), it’s assumed journalists aren’t crafting stories based on a playbook but are simply taking each individual piece of news and spinning it as they see fit.

Nope. That’s not how it works. We’ve seen comical examples of media coordination to push very specific narratives that often match the talking points of Democrats. This isn’t new. It’s as old as journalism itself. Propaganda isn’t a rare occurrence. It’s an ongoing battle to appear to be unbiased while conveying bias subtly. But today, there’s no longer subtly involved. Both progressive and conservative news outlets unabashedly spin stories to suit their agendas.

The latest example came from a leak of a NY Times staff meeting transcript that detailed how the Russian collusion narrative was a dud and they needed to go after the new Trump narrative, that he’s a racist. I saw the story yesterday and myopically assumed, “Duh, it’s obvious. This is a nothingburger.” But as my wife pointed out, there are plenty of people who don’t realize this is how newsrooms in every major outlet operate.

Leaked Transcript Of NYT Staff Meeting Reveals Leadership’s Plan For Reporting On Trump For Next Two Years

As revealed in the leaked transcript, Baquet began the meeting by referencing the paper’s “significant missteps” and then explaining how these “missteps” stem from “something larger”: the paper’s approach to reporting on Trump. “This is a really hard story, newsrooms haven’t confronted one like this since the 1960s,” said Baquet. “It got trickier after [inaudible] … [it] went from being a story about whether the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia and obstruction of justice to being a more head-on story about the president’s character.”

Baquet then admits that the Times had “built our newsroom” around covering the ultimately debunked narrative that Trump “colluded” with Russia. “We built our newsroom to cover one story, and we did it truly well,” said Baquet in comments highlighted by the Washington Examiner‘s Byron York. “Now we have to regroup, and shift resources and emphasis to take on a different story.”

As early as it may seem in the election cycle, this is actually crunch-time for journalists with an agenda, which is essentially all of us. The narratives take time to stick, and so if progressive media is going to get enough Americans to believe their racism narrative, they need to be hammering it today and all the way through until the election.

Their plan has three steps:

  1. Paint Trump as a racist
  2. Paint the whole GOP as either racists or enabling racists
  3. Make voters believe that if they vote for Trump and/or Republicans, they’re racists as well

If that sounds familiar, it’s because you’re paying attention as the narrative unfolds before our eyes. They realize the President hasn’t said or done anything that’s racist. They can attach the race card to certain comments he makes, but even then it’s a stretch. But they need to hold this as their message because his policies tell a completely different story. Black and Hispanic-American unemployment numbers are at all-time lows while prosperity is spreading to minorities faster than ever in our history, including (especially) under President Obama.

The left will try to divide us and then claim President Trump is the great divider. They want to draw distinct lines between those who support him and those who may be willing to oppose him. Then, they’ll do everything in their power to pull people on the fence over to their side. What they can’t understand is why things are working, why the economy is humming, and why violence seems to be coming more from the left than the right. That’s not what they expected to happen. Many assumed his presidency would be so bad so quickly, he’d never be allowed to finish his first term. But as it becomes increasingly likely he’ll get a second term, they’re scrambling to derail him.

The progressive narratives in legacy media are 100% intended to subvert the 2020 election and remove President Trump from power. The best thing conservatives can do is continue to point out their complete journalistic hypocrisy.

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

Guns and Crime

Seb Gorka: Red flag gun laws are a ‘red herring’

Published

on

Seb Gorka Red flag gun laws are a red herring

It isn’t often that former Deputy Assistant to the President Sebastian Gorka disagrees with his old boss, but as the President pushes for red flag gun laws to be incentivized by the federal government to be adopted by all states, Gorka’s loyalties rang at their highest pitch. He isn’t going against the President’s leanings to oppose him. He’s doing it to try to save him from the bad advice that’s being thrown at him in the White House and by members of Congress.

Red flag gun laws are a bad idea on many levels, perhaps most strikingly in the fact that they do not work. Then, there’s the unconstitutional nature of them that, as Representative Jim Jordan said, inverts our system to make American citizens guilty until proven innocent. But the biggest reason every American gun owner should be concerned about red flag gun laws is because of where they’ll lead.

“Red flags are a red herring,” Gorka said on Fox Business today. “This is another way for us to be disarmed. Look at the states where it’s already happened – California, Massachusetts, where certain types of weapons are already banned. This is the last straw they have take away our civil rights. Remember, the founding fathers called this a ‘civil right.’ The Bill of Rights includes the capacity to protect ourselves.”

Some are calling red flag gun laws a “slippery slope,” but that’s not strong enough as a characterization. They’re a guaranteed stepping stone to gun control because they will not work as advertised. When they fail, the left will double down.

Image source: Seven Days VT

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