Yesterday, my Facebook friend Lynn, and some of her left leaning friends, had a discussion about a post I made on Massachusetts' Senator Elizabeth Warren. They did not agree with my opinions of Warren, like she is a near Marxist nut job, even nuttier than most liberals (meaning she is way out to the extreme of leftism). Lynn et al. said I had no evidence to base my thoughts about Sen. Warren on and challenged me to produce it. That is why I am here. Let us begin.
The following is from "The Washington Free Beacon", Sept. 5, 2012, titled, "The Real Elizabeth Warren, Five Extreme Things the Professor Won't Mention in Her DNC Speech."
1. Rethinking American Capitalism
"Warren's daughter Amelia Warren Tyagi is the founder and chairwoman of Demos, a progressive George Soros-funded New York City think tank that has actively supported Warren for years and whose stated aim is“rethinking American capitalism.”"
This is Demos original mission statement;
"Most fundamentally, a sustainable, just, and democratic future requires rethinking American capitalism as it exists today as a system of political economy. If we are going to care for people and the planet, large-scale changes are needed in how Americans consume and live, how the United States structures economic activity and measures progress, and how we engage in the global economy."
I wonder where Lizzy's daughter got such ideas? I wouldn't have a clue (sarcasm) but I know when I'm hearing Marxist dog whistles (not sarcasm). Moving on, issue 2 deals with the fact Warren argued in court on behalf of Travelers Insurance and won them an exemption from being sued in asbestos law suits. I actually have a bit of respect for her there, but they must have paid her off big time to do it, and all those poor folks who got cancer can't sue Travelers for damages because of her. Issue 3 deals with her rather thin academic resume and the Indian thing, neither of which bother me much. I do find humor in them, and I know plenty of liberal politicos with thin resumes, so, that's not surprising. Issue 4 is she claims to have laid the foundation of the Occupy movement, I will deal with that later. Then we get to Issue 5, on that loaded code word phrase of the left, "social justice."
5. We are all racists
'Warren spoke at a 2004 symposium on critical race theory, entitled “Critical Race Theory: The Next Frontier,” alongside a coterie of academics who have advocated for corporate and government reparations for African-Americans, criticized the concept of U.S. citizenship, and accused the United States of operating under a system of “apartheid.”
“We are all racist. This is what we inevitably inherit. We are all inherently biased. I believe the people who run corporations are biased, particularly against African-Americans,” symposium attendee Cheryl L. Wade told the Free Beacon in June.
“Elizabeth Warren was one of the outstanding speakers” at the symposium, attendee Steven A. Ramirez added.'
I think that stuff is pretty self explanatory, and far out of any mainstream thinking, but I do want to note the citizenship thing is about we are not Americans we are citizens of the world because the concept of American reparations (for slavery that was over a 140 years ago, and no living person was party to) goes beyond our borders to others who must pay for their overseas colonies and plundering from years ago too. In the most simple terms, it is about redistribution of wealth not just in America, but around the world, from rich nations to poor ones, from people with light skin to those with dark skin. This is Marxist ideology in one of it's purest forms, and it is racist in so many ways. There is no disputing that, and Warren holds these views.
The following two editorials are both concerning Warren's remarks at a private fundraiser that was filmed (a video I am sure you are familiar with), it was her original version, a rant, of what the president later said himself after taking it from Warren. It is the "You Didn't Build That" theory. First a quote from Jeffery Lord, writing in the American Spectator on Sept. 27, 2011;
"Warren was caught on the campaign trail sounding for all the world like a guileless, fevered Marxist. The peasants, she lectured (peasants defined today as working Americans), actually work for the state. Contrary to what millions of Americans have believed over the centuries, it is not the other way around. All those public employees out there? You, peasant Americans, work for them. Those highways you drive on? The state has deigned to provide them — and don’t you dare — ever — to forget this."
"Warren’s performance was a tour de force of arrogance, elitism, and the socialist mindset. A snarling demand for control combined with contempt bursting forth from an eerily Burchard-like assumption of moral superiority."
George Will goes further in The Washington Post on Oct. 5, 2011 in his piece titled "Elizabeth Warren and Liberalism, Twisting the Social Contract." Here are the high points;
"Harvard law professor and former Obama administration regulator (for consumer protection), is modern liberalism incarnate -she clarifies the liberal project and the stakes of contemporary politics."
"The (liberal) project is to dilute the concept of individualism, thereby refuting respect for the individual’s zone of sovereignty. The regulatory state, liberalism’s instrument, constantly tries to contract that zone — for the individual’s own good, it says."
"Many members of the liberal intelligentsia, that herd of independent minds, agree that other Americans comprise a malleable, hence vulnerable, herd whose “false consciousness” is imposed by corporate America."
"Therefore the herd needs kindly, paternal supervision by a cohort of protective herders. This means subordination of the bovine many to a regulatory government staffed by people drawn from the clever minority not manipulated into false consciousness."
"Because such tutelary government must presume the public’s incompetence, it owes minimal deference to people’s preferences. These preferences are not really “theirs,” because the preferences derive from false, meaning imposed, consciousness. This convenient theory licenses the enlightened vanguard, the political class, to exercise maximum discretion in wielding the powers of the regulatory state."
"Warren’s emphatic assertion of the unremarkable — that the individual depends on cooperative behaviors by others — misses this point: It is conservatism, not liberalism, that takes society seriously. Liberalism preaches confident social engineering by the regulatory state. Conservatism urges government humility in the face of society’s creative complexity."
I don't think I need to explain Will's op-ed to Lynn et al. describing what Warren is (and she is one of those monsters he described), though I hope you personally felt his sarcasm when he described the "liberal intelligentsia" as "that herd of independent minds." Years later, I have never forgotten it, and still get a laugh from that line because it is so true, in reality liberals are locked into their narrow mindsets and incapable of independent thought outside of their rigid dogma. The majority of the staff at most American universities are perfect examples of this singular thinking and rigid dogma, places that are supposed to be about free thought and expression actually are only about the thoughts and expressions that the lefty staff agrees with, or even worse, thinks are the right ones. As with anything, that is not 100 percent, but I dare say it covers 90 percent of academia. Now, let's continue. This is from a glowing liberal article on Liz Warren that ran in the Daily Beast on Oct. 24, 2011. I am just using two lines, because it is all I need;
'So what does she (Warren) think about the Occupy Wall Street protests that are roiling the country?
“I created much of the intellectual foundation for what they do,” she says. “I support what they do.”'
I am sure Lynn et al. will say I do not understand what Occupy Wall Street was and talk about some high minded goals of simple regulations on Wall Street, business paying just a little more in taxes, and being fair to people, other pie in the sky nonsense, etc, etc. No, it was not about that at all. It was about redistribution of wealth and punishing success. The government should take the money from Wall Street and give it to us. Lock the fat cats up in jail for making profit. It was pure, plain, and simple, and this is what it was all about and nothing else; Leftist greed. And Warren personally, and proudly, takes credit for creation of it's foundation.
I had gathered a few other articles to quote for this piece, but for the sake of length I will wrap it up here (I could have quoted dozens more). Plus, I don't feel the need to do any more work for explaining how I arrived at my opinion of Sen. Warren, and have justified it. I have given you more than enough. I know that Lynn et al. will say the publications and writers I used are all right wing (except for the Daily Beast piece). Yes, they are. These are sources I trust, and writers whose opinions I value. If you don't agree with that--tough. I have no value for things published on sites like The Daily Kos and Think Progress (as examples), but I do read and comment on them because I think it is important for mainstream Americans to know just how far out of that stream leftists like Warren are. That was the purpose of the post I made on Facebook that began this discussion.
I wrote this blog post to prove a point, I have or had no intention of changing Lynn et al. opinions on Sen. Warren. I am not asking you to agree with me, but do not say I am wrong because you think you are right. We will just have to disagree and I am plenty big enough of a person to accept that, if you can't, that is not my problem, it's yours. If you find that patronizing Lynn et al. you can shove it. I hope Lynn et al. can feel in my tone that I have had enough of your smug, liberal "assumption of moral superiority" because it is just that, another wrong assumption by you.