The Democrats will nominate a socialist for the presidential election in 2020. And no, it won’t be Sen. Bernie Sanders (Socialist-VT) – the dark horse candidate who might have won the nomination in 2016 except for the Democrat Party stacking the process to favor Hillary Clinton and doing so with the full knowledge and cooperation of the mainstream media – CNN, MSNBC, NBC, Washington Post, New York Times, etc. Two things intervened however to deny Ms. Clinton the election – Ms. Clinton was a terrible candidate with an extraordinarily low “likeability” factor and the Republicans’ nominated someone who refused to apologize for being a Republican – President Donald J. Trump. (Contrast Mr. Trump with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) – both of whom declined to criticize former President Barack Obama (D) but felt free to savage fellow Republicans routinely.)
Besides, Mr. Sanders’ time has come and gone. He is an old, cranky white man in a party determined to nominate a woman or a person of color. The mainstream media continues to attack Mr. Sanders pointing out instances of hypocrisy but more importantly pointing out the sheer lunacy of Mr. Sanders’ principal proposals – Medicare for all and free college tuition, including wiping out existing student debt. If you are a Democrat or Socialist and have lost the support of the New York Times, Washington Post and CNN, you’ve lost the race.
And it won’t be former Vice-president Joe Biden (D). He’s not a socialist and more importantly he isn’t smart enough to recognize a socialist. Mr. Biden is an old time union shill in a country where private sector unionism continues its rapid decline – only the public employees unions have been able to slow the overall decline and that gravy train is now over due to the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court which ruled that mandatory participation in the public employee unions violated the Free Speech rights of the public employees. (Janus v. AFSCME) Mr. Biden now has the additional burden of how he bragged about using his power as Vice-President and a threat to withhold foreign aid to force the Ukraine to fire an attorney looking into corruption in the Ukrainian company that his son had joined as a member of the board of director receiving $50,000 per month with no experience. (Mr. Biden’s rapid ascent in significant wealth since his service as Vice-President is now fodder for a mainstream media determined to deny him the nomination.)
No, odds are that the nominee will be Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA). The finger-wagging scold of the Senate has been gathering support as other “wannabes” drop out of the race. Messrs. Sanders and Biden remain stuck in the polls and are now tied with or trailing Ms. Warren. Las Vegas oddsmakers have put Ms. Warren at 275:1, Mr. Biden at 700:1 and Mr. Sanders at 1200:1 – all of them trail President Donald Trump who stands at 110:1.
Yes, Ms. Warren is a socialist. Despite her protestations that she is a “capitalist with serious rules,” you cannot find daylight between Ms. Warren’s proposals on major economic issues and Mr. Sanders. The principle difference between them is that Mr. Sanders embraces the title of “socialist” while Ms. Warren embraces “capitalism in name only” (CINO). She has echoed Mr. Obama’s assertion that if you have a successful business that you didn’t build it – others did it for you. That is a sobriquet for believing the government is the creator of success. Her “serious rules” are designed mostly to redistribute wealth – hardly a capitalist notion. And her tax proposals will stifle investment, growth and innovation. Or better said by Andy Puzder (former CEO of CKE Restaurants):
“Sen. Elizabeth Warren is no more a capitalist than she is a Native American.”
And she is the worst kind of socialist – one who believes that your wealth should be redistributed but not hers. She is more than willing to play off the misery of others so long as it doesn’t compromise her own wealth.
Here are a couple of instances. Ms. Warren claimed to be a Native American and not because of some unsubstantiated claim that her deceased mother told her it was so, but rather because their was an advantage to being a minority for hiring purposes at universities. Even when a DNA test proved she had less than 1/1024th Native American ancestry she claimed that it proved her assertion. That figure is comparable to almost every European who migrated to America and probably results in any such ancestry predating the immigration of her European ancestors. Or better said by Mr. Trump:
“I have more Indian blood than she does, and I have none.”
Minority hiring was supposed to “level” the field as a remedy for historic discrimination. The abuses of that practice by white men and women are well documented and is shameful for those who preyed upon the remedies for the injustice done to minorities.
Ms. Warren has positioned herself as a champion of the poor and the working class – this latter claim is important here. She is a constant critic of anybody and anything that makes money. She holds a particular venom for the 1%’ers. She is a constant and vocal champion for the redistribution of your wealth – not hers, just yours. You see Ms. Warren is a full time United States Senator where she earns approximately $175,000 per year plus health and retirement benefits. But despite that she continues to be paid by Harvard University as professor, lecturer, scold – whatever title makes Harvard feel good. Her husband is likewise paid as a professor at Harvard. And then there are the fees from book sales, speeches and other means by which politicians enrich themselves. A recent release of 10-years of Ms. Warren’s tax returns indicates that that the couple earns, on average over $1 Million per year – putting her decidedly in the company of the one-percenters she claims to loath. But that’s all right – Ms. Warren is entitled to earn whatever she can legally make. Harvard University – a private institution populated by the rich and powerful – is entitled to pay Ms. Warren whatever it wants.
It’s not what Ms. Warren earns. It’s what she does with her earning juxtaposed against her demands of you and me. A telling incident occurred in 2009 and is chronicled by Stephen Heller in a post now carried by Legal Insurrection:
“Senator-elect Elizabeth Warren says she is a “fighter” for moderate-income Americans (“Warren wins U.S. Senate seat,” CambridgeChronicle, Nov. 8). When given the opportunity to stand up for low-income employees at Harvard three years ago, however, where she has been a tenured professor for almost 20 years, Warren did nothing of the sort.“In 2009, at the depth of the recession, Harvard’s endowment, because of its high-risk investing, decreased 30 percent. The university proclaimed it needed to cut costs and warned low-paid staff of layoffs. Many on campus asked the administration to follow the example of institutions like Beth Israel hospital and request faculty and other high earners to take pay reductions as a means to save jobs.“Several employees at Harvard Law School circulated a petition asking all law school members, who could, to make such a sacrifice. Warren and her husband (also a Harvard Law professor) have combined yearly incomes in the $1 million range and she earned another $200,000 for work she called “part-time” in Washington. During this uneasy period when across campus staff feared for their livelihoods, Warren remained silent.“Harvard president Drew Faust — whose own salary is close to $1 million — and university administrators ignored requests for pay reductions. Ultimately 275 lower-income employees lost their jobs and many more were persuaded to retire. Harvard professors, ever fond of inveighing against “corporate greed” and voicing slogans like “shared sacrifice,” suffered no inconvenience.“Warren now vows to go to Washington to fight for the middle class. But, like so many academics, she is more adept at feathering her own nest than truly helping Americans in need.”
Like most liberal/progressives, Ms. Warren is long on spending your money for her great ideas but woefully short on spending her own.
And finally, Ms. Warren never misses a chance to condemn the “one-percenters” of Wall Street and has vowed to trim their wealth through confiscatory tax policies. But while she rails in public speeches, she – like Hillary Clinton – seeks campaign contributions from those she promises to destroy. What message does Ms. Warren convey to those wealthy Wall Street donors? Does she, like Ms. Clinton, assure them that her condemnations of Wall Street and the wealthy is just campaign rhetoric and they really have nothing to worry about. It is probably safe to assume that Ms. Warren’s tax proposals to confiscate wealth will apply only to those whose wealth exceeds hers – currently pegged at about $12 Million by Forbes.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren is a socialist, a phony and a hypocrite. She is basically Hillary Clinton in a linen jacket with push-up sleeves. And though she is likely to win the nomination, she has about as much chance of becoming President of the United States as Ms. Clinton.