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

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

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

Healthcare

Democrats are right about Trump’s actions but wrong about his motives

Published

on

Democrats are right about Trumps actions but wrong about his motives

Donald Trump sent out a tweet over the weekend accusing Democrats of being “obstructionists” on the issue of so-called immigration reform. According to Trump, this is causing “needless pain and suffering” while creating the conditions responsible for the “horrors taking place on the Border.”

Besides being a blatant example of how Trump and the GOP have turned the politics of distraction into an art form, his blame game is a lie — at least, where the “horrors” on the border are concerned — because Trump has full constitutional power to stop the border invasion without Congress.

So, why perpetrate the lie that the border problem is not his fault? It could be, and most likely is, Trump’s ignorance of the Constitution and his blame-everyone-but-himself narcissism. In this case, however, I think there’s more to it.

I believe we are also witnessing Trump’s adaptation of the “never let a crisis go to waste” Saul Alinsky-inspired rule perfected by the Obama administration. Trump uses the border “crisis,” which he promised to fix and could fix if he wanted, to orchestrate a political advantage for himself by spreading the lie that the “horrors” at the border are the Democrats’ fault.

Meanwhile, Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Nancy Pelosi have their own theory concerning Trump’s motivation. They believe he’s trying to put the focus on immigration as a way to “change the subject” away from health care.

Considering the fact that Trump and the GOP have failed to repeal Obamacare as promised, I can see how “Chuck and Nancy” might reach that conclusion. However, they’re incorrect because the NY Liberal in the White House and his swamp buddies in Congress are all-in with the Democrats on the healthcare issue.

Earlier this month, I wrote a piece about an op-ed allegedly written by Trump where he decried the Democrat Party’s call for “Medicare for all” — which is Washingtonese for single-payer — while promising to protect Medicare and parts of Obamacare. He doubled down on this commitment a few days ago.

Despite promising for the fourth election in a row to really, really repeal Obamacare if voters let them keep their majority, Republicans have assumed complete ownership of Obamacare. And when you add that reality to the inevitable expansion of Medicare, the creation of single-payer, government-run socialized health care is guaranteed, which has been the goal of Obamacare from the very start.

Heck, there’s even a movement within the GOP to advance single-payer as the conservative answer to the health care crisis.

The sad reality of today’s Republican party is that it has been transformed into the Trumplican Party. Equally sad is how so-called conservatives have become Trumpservatives whose betrayal of conservative values is so obvious, they aren’t even hiding it anymore.

Democrats are right about Trump using the immigration problem as a way to change the subject, but they’re wrong about what’s motivating him to do so. He isn’t doing it to avoid the Democrats’ goal of single-payer, government-run socialized health care … he and the GOP love it just as much as they do.

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 Donate to NOQ Report
Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report