Connect with us

Politics

Ivanka Trump and faux conservatives advance Hillary’s paid family leave plan

Published

on

Ivanka Trump and faux conservatives advance Hillarys paid family leave plan

Allow me to take you on a little trip down memory lane to 2016 and Donald Trump’s presidential campaign.

Do you remember concerns about Trump’s long history as a NY liberal and his track record of supporting Hillary Clinton and other liberal politicians and their policies?

Do you remember how Trump’s daughter and presidential advisor Ivanka — who also has a history of supporting liberal Democrats — was unable to vote for daddy in the NY primary because she wasn’t a registered Republican?

Do you also remember Ivanka’s speech at the Republican National Convention, a speech that sounded like she was at the Democrat convention about to introduce Hillary?

In hindsight, it’s easy to see why there was so much concern about the Trump family’s liberal past, and how their liberalism would destroy conservative ideals; concerns that have unfortunately come to pass thanks to a new proposal created by Ivanka Trump with the help of so-called conservatives — paid family leave.

In May last year, Trump and his daughter promoted a list of new big-government entitlements that Hillary Clinton ran on during her campaign, including the expansion of Child Tax Credits and paid family Leave.

In November, Ivanka teamed up with “conservatives” Marco Rubio and Mike Lee to get parts of Hillary’s childcare and tax agenda added to the GOP’s Democrat-friendly tax reform bill, including Child Tax Credits. With her new-found favor within the ranks of Republicans, formerly known as “conservative,” Ivanka joined with Rubio once again in February this year to create a paid family leave plan financed by the already-bankrupt Social Security system — a plan Marco introduced last week.

Under Rubio’s shell-game family leave scheme, families will be paid to take weeks off work after the birth or adoption of a child in exchange for future Social Security benefits. This progressive idea is bad on so many levels.

  • NOTHING government does ends up costing what they claim. One look at the history of the income tax proves this.
  • Social Security and Medicare are already bankrupt with over $114 trillion (currently) in unfunded liabilities, and growing.
  • The infamous “road to hell” blacktop of good intentions. Family leave used to be unpaid before it became an entitlement.

Possible Democrat presidential nominee Kirsten Gillibrand, a liberal from NY — are you seeing a pattern here — has proposed an alternative to Rubio’s plan that will raise taxes to pay for it, an indirect acknowledgement that there’s no way to federalize paid leave without taking more money from the taxpayers.

How long will it be before Ivanka’s and Marco’s plan requires raising FICA taxes on employers and employees to survive? Unfortunately, the answer to that question most likely won’t be known until after the damage is done and they’re long gone from Washington.

Trump always intended to use his presidency as a platform to advance Ivanka’s socialist feminism agenda and he once joked about making Ivanka his VP, but she doesn’t need that title to advance Hillary’s agenda. She’s doing plenty of damage behind the scenes thanks to the support of faux conservatives like Rubio.

Originally posted on The Strident Conservative.

 


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

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Guns and Crime

Will the left finally admit that gun confiscation has failed to keep people safe?

Published

on

By

Will the Left finally admit that gun confiscation has failed to keep people safe

Shouldn’t the gun confiscation crowd admit that depriving the people of the right of self-defense hasn’t kept people safe?

That didn’t take long. In many cases it’s easy to predict how long a news story will stay in the headlines. Yesterday, December 11, 2018 a terrorist shouting “Allahu Akbar” attacked a Christmas market in the French city of Strasbourg.

French police release image of Christmas market attack suspect

https://news.sky.com/story/one-dead-in-french-christmas-market-shooting-11578206The killer, who opened fire with a handgun and used a knife to stab people, is still on the run after he was shot in the arm during a gunfight with police.

He escaped in a taxi and there are concerns he may have fled to Germany where vehicles are now being checked at the border.

Chekatt has 27 convictions in France, Germany and Switzerland, said prosecutor Remy Heitz.

In less than 24 hours, the story has almost dropped from the headlines. Had this taken place stateside, the liberty grabbers on the left would have exploited the tragedy for maximum political gain within minutes. The problem is this didn’t take place in the states, but rather in a locale with strict controls on freedom. The perpetrator also used a handgun and used a knife instead of an evil black rifle. Finally, the killer made his motives clear by what he shouted.

Therefore, it was adverse to the left’s ‘gun reform’ agenda of gun confiscation. Nothing that could be construed at least at present as being an ‘assault weapon’ or whatever the term is this week. Lastly, the evidence points to this being Islamic terrorism. Even though the manhunt continues as this is being reported, the point remains. This was an obvious failure of the left’s gun confiscation agenda and it shows the threat of Islamic terrorism so the story has virtually disappeared.

Location, location, location

Compare the coverage of this story with a similar situation of a shooting in the states. Most likely the refrain would have been this only happens in the states because of the NRA or GOA wants to keep liberty and the right of self-defense. Most assuredly, they wouldn’t have phrased it that way, since they still have to keep up the fiction that they are ‘liberal’ in some form or another. It would have been couched in terms of ‘gun reform’ or ‘gun safety’ or whatever the terms happens to be this week.

Liberty grabber plans after their take-over of the House of Representatives

Since we’re on the subject, take note of the plans of the leftist liberty grabbers to denigrate the common-sense human right of self-preservation come January when they take-over the House of Representatives. As reported in the Hartford Courant:

Gun control advocates optimistic new Congress will act on their agenda

https://www.courant.com/politics/hc-pol-blumethal-murphy-newtown-guns-20181206-story.htmlBut now Democrats will seize the reins and plan to press for votes on measures that would tighten federal gun laws after the new Congress begins work in January. Once ignored, key proposals, including the expansion of FBI background checks of gun purchasers, are now likely to pass the U.S. House with its new Democratic majority.

On Thursday, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who hopes to be the next House speaker, said “we will pass common sense gun violence prevention legislation soon, and … it will be bipartisan.”

Why does a failure in government overreach have to mean even more government overreach? From now on, it should be incumbent on the politicians to carefully explain why they need even more control over our lives. They need to show their work in just how some new ‘solution’ is supposed to solve the problem. This would include citing examples of unbiased reportage on similar ‘solutions’ from other locations that have actually worked.

Rapid firing rifles, oh my!

Then in the same article, a chilling turn of phrase on the issue of ‘the rapid firing of rifles’:

Other bills that will be keyed up for votes include … bans on “bump stocks” that allow the rapid firing of rifles and “3D” guns made with special printers and limiting magazines to no more than 10 bullets.

[Our emphasis]

Did everyone catch that? They are no longer referring to terms that have specific definitions such as automatic or semiautomatic fire. They are now referring to the speed of the operation of a weapon, not its functionality in select fire modes. We already know that they want to push the issue down the infamous slippery slope of government overreach. This means that they are signalling a change in rate of fire as a way of controlling our basic human Right of self-defense, as predicted by those opposed to Trump’s ‘meaningless’ surrender on the ‘Bump-Stock’ issue.

In other words, now that Trump and the NRA gave up an important point for absolutely no credit from the Liberty grabber community, they will use that inch’ and take it a mile. Instead of discussions of Automatic or Semiautomatic fire, the talking point will be on the ‘Rapid firing’ of guns as being too deadly. It should be patently obvious were the Liberty grabbers on the left will take it from there.

The Takeaway.

For too long the Left has taken the ‘throwing…papers up against a wall technique’ hoping that something will stick i.e. something will finally work. Meanwhile, the extent of our Liberty shrinks each time.

There is always a cost to every new idea of the Left. For every piece of legislation, there is an accompanying cost in Liberty and dollars. For the case of Leftist steps to gun confiscation, we citizens have a right to know how these measures will supposedly keep people safe. For far too long the Left has taken credit for making everyone safer without actually proving it. We are rapidly reaching the tipping point to gun confiscation, so from now on they have to prove that their draconian controls will work as promised. If they cannot, they shouldn’t attain more control over our lives.

Continue Reading

Politics

What classical liberalism is, briefly

Published

on

What classical liberalism is briefly

The progressive left and the Democratic Party have undergone many transformations over the last century. They’ve masterfully spun American understanding of language and labels to the point that history has been in a constant state of being rewritten to conform to their machinations. One of the most perverse examples of this is how they now claim the mantle of “liberalism.”

Sadly, those who embrace Natural Rights, limited government, and individualism have been forced to amend our label as liberals to become “classical liberals” for the sake of escaping confusion. Most Americans today would assume if we call ourselves “liberals” that we must be big fans of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

This video by classical liberal Dave Rubin at The Rubin Report breaks it down in less than two minutes.

Liberty-loving proponents of personal responsibility and self-governance have had our label taken from us. Today, a liberal is a progressive. It’s like saying a hamburger is a vegetable, but that’s the state of American understanding today.

This is, of course, part of the political war. Words have meaning, as leftists love to say, so they’ve done everything they can to change the meaning of many words. “Liberal” is one of them. They started with a lie and repeated it over and over again until it became… politics.

Liberalism

Over the next few weeks I’ll be going into much more detail about the ideology of classical liberalism, its history, and how it should play a role in modern politics. We’ll be asking (and answering) important questions surrounding the resurging movement, including:

  • Should classical liberals attempt to retake the “liberal” moniker from leftists?
  • Why true liberals should embrace limited government
  • Is classical liberalism really making a comeback or has it been here all along?
  • Why the progressive “liberal” left is neither liberal nor champions of progress
  • How did liberalism, born to defend individualism, become synonymous with collectivism?

Is it possible to wrest the “liberal” label away from leftists? Is it necessary? Would it simply add more confusion to the polarized political atmosphere in America? Would that be a bad thing?

Continue Reading

Democrats

Kevin McCarthy: GOP can investigate Democrats, but Democrats can’t investigate Trump

Published

on

Kevin McCarthy GOP can investigate Democrats but Democrats cant investigate Trump

When my friend and fellow talk-show host Shannon Joy refers to the Republican and Democrat duopoly in Washington as the #UNIBROW, she does so to show how there is no difference between the two parties when it comes to their agendas.

Another trait they have in common is their obvious display of hypocrisy when it comes to manipulating the rule of law to protect political parties for partisan purposes, especially if you’re a member of the party that was soundly defeated recently, placing you in the minority.

The latest example of what this looks like comes to us courtesy of the new GOP leader in the House, Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), in his latest defense of Donald Trump. In a recent interview with Trump Pravda (FOX News), McCarthy mentioned that he thinks it’s time for the Democrats to surrender their subpoena power to investigate the president.

“It looks like what [Democrats will] focus on is just more investigations. I think America is too great a nation to have such a small agenda.

“I think there are other problems out there that we really should be focused on. And my belief is, let’s see where we can work together. Let’s move America forward.”

Ironically, as Obama’s re-election got underway after the Democrats lost the House in the 2010 midterms, Pelosi sounded a lot like McCarthy concerning the need to work together. Funny how the losing party interprets their defeat as a call for “bipartisanship,” isn’t it?

It’s also ironic how the losing party in these two midterm elections, in large part, lost due to the unpopularity of their representative in the White House after two years of broken promises.

McCarthy’s disingenuous plea for bipartisanship is a different tune than the one he was singing in 2015 during the Benghazi hearings. Not only did he support never-ending investigations of Obama and Hillary, he openly admitted in an interview with Sean Hannity that his primary motivation was finding ways to take down the Democrat nominee.

“What you’re going to see is a conservative speaker, that takes a conservative Congress, that puts a strategy to fight and win. And let me give you one example. Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right?

“But we put together a Benghazi special committee. A select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she’s untrustable. But no one would have known that any of that had happened had we not fought to make that happen.”

I wonder whatever happened to that “conservative speaker” and that “conservative Congress.”

In the end, McCarthy is playing the same role in 2018 that Pelosi played in 2010: protect the president and the party instead of America while making partisan demands to serve as fodder for the next election.

Hopefully, true conservatives will see through this masquerade of self-centered scoundrels and reject the reprobate “representatives” dwelling in D.C. from both parties.

And yes … that includes the Democrat with an “R” after his name currently occupying the White House.

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

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report