Elizabeth Warren – new prez?

Elizabeth Warren is violent and angry [Warren Buffet]

elizabeth warrenThere’s a case that Hillary is damaged goods, carrying too much Benghazi baggage, no longer loved on the left. Yet she has a mafia battle chest bigger than anyone’s in the land.

Their new ideological champion is, of course, the faux red-indian Elizabeth Warren.  Now you may have noticed one small thing from this – no males.  This might actually be a good thing in the case of the left, look at their champions – Obama, Blair, Brown, Rumpy-Pumpy, Barosso.

So, here’s a look at our Liz from various sources:

Elizabeth Warren is full of it. (Despite having flashes of decency.) Our friends in the libertarian/conservative coalition have known this right from the start. But our friends on the “Left” seem always to defend her as some sort of Senator “for the people.”

She is not.

If there is one thing a real critic of the crony banking system, Republican/Democrat/other should be for it is for a real audit of the Federal Reserve. The bankers bank. The tool which is in place to backstop the banks Ms. Warren says are horrible predatory entities.

To the degree that they are predatory entities they are largely because of the monetary system perpetuated by the Federal Reserve.

In short, if anyone has a beef with the banks, the bailouts, the system, that person MUST have a beef with the Federal Reserve system. It is the prime mover of crony capitalism. It is a destroyer of money and wealth, not to say increasingly of the middle class.

Yet Ms. Warren wants the easy money which comes with the Fed system. She wants the “wizards” to work their magic. Because otherwise the economy would have to work on legitimate market principals. You know – supply and demand. That thing. You know REALITY. And Lord knows we can’t have that.


The radical left is never satisfied with its power.  It always wants more.  Two terms as president won’t satisfy Obama’s power-lust.

On December 12, 2014, CNN reported that “300 ex-Obama staffers” had written a public letter urging first-term senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) to run for president.

Obama could have stopped that move from his homeys.  He chose not to, and probably encouraged it behind the scenes.

A few days ago, Robert Reich was quoted by our trustworthy media to the effect that “Elizabeth Warren would be a strong primary challenger to Hillary Clinton.”  And Obama’s good buddy Deval Patrick has endorsed Liz.  Add EMILY’s List, the AFL-CIO, and the usual cast of suspects, and it looks like the radical left is going for Warren.

Warren, a fraudulent “Native American” affirmative-action professor at Harvard Law, represents the same radical left strain that Obama does.

Obama lives for power, and being as self-centered as a spinning top, he lives for his own personal power.

Yes, Hillary is running, but Liz Warren looks younger and more militant to the radical left.  The standard Liz Warren PR photo shows her leaning over a lectern, haranguing her audience, a pose amazingly like this famous V.I. Lenin poster.  Most Americans won’t see that, but it thrills the radical left, just as Obama’s Soviet imagery did when he was the Messiah incarnate.

If Warren is “miraculously” elected by the leftist media, Obama hopes to get eight more years of enormous influence and power.  He may just leave his own puppets in the government, like Lois Lerner in the IRS.  These people don’t leave things to chance.

Uh-huh. More:

We will return to Mrs. Warren, the new savior of the people, who hammers away at bank regulators in speeches that are widely distributed on Facebook, but don’t have much real-world impact. One must admire her preparation, since she obviously is not at her best speaking extemporaneously. For example, during Israel’s most recent slaughter of the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, when Mrs. Warren was asked her opinion of Israel bombing families, she literally ran away from the reporter!

Later, apparently after consulting with her handlers, who no doubt reminded her of the $87,838.00 that various Israeli lobbies donated to her election campaign, she chanted the mantra of Israel’s ‘right’ to defend itself from Palestine’s nearly-harmless fireworks. This works in the political world; say whatever is required by the people controlling the purse strings and do nothing to offend them.

Any more?

Elizabeth Warren’s senatorial campaign in Massachusetts has made what I think is its first real bungle this week, agreeing with Scott Brown’s idea of a “ban” on third-party spending in their mega-campaign this fall.

First of all, she shouldn’t be “agreeing” with McDreamy on anything that’s this critical, much less surrender to Wall Street’s favorite candidate the moral high-ground of having thought of this Rube Goldberg contraption in the first place.

Second, the ban is going to be completely unenforceable, no matter what the two of them say.

And third, the mechanism they’ve contrived to make it work is charming, if positively idiotic.

Anything else? She was caught fundraising off Benghazi. She wants to remove American’s guns against the 2nd Amendment, starting with assault weapons – “a good place to start”.

She praises Communist China, saying the US should be more like it.

And of cause she is a fruitcake-feminazi of the more virulent kind:

Wendy Davis and Elizabeth Warren are feminist heroines, which indicates feminists these days don’t expect much from their heroines.

What does she have going for her? Pretend Inuit blood and pretend attacks on the banksters [whilst doing deals with them – see above].

How’s her grasp of economics, as a feminist academic from a university?

How naive can a person be? If you’re Elizabeth Warren, the answer is endlessly. Earlier this year, for instance, she colored herself aghast that Dodd-Frank, a truly gargantuan pile of words championed by Barack Obama and a Democratically controlled Congress, wasn’t working out so well, especially when it came to dispersing concentration in the financial sector. “The four largest banks are nearly 40 percent bigger today than they were just five years ago,” she observed. “These banks…are a whole lot bigger now than they were when we bailed them out in 2008 because they were too big to fail.”…

Recognizing the dynamics of regulatory capture or ineffectiveness needn’t lead to policy nihilism or chaos. That’s especially true when it comes to markets, which are extremely good at squeezing out firms and businesses that deserve their comeuppance. The best thing the government can do when it comes to the concerns of Warren and other progressives is step down rather than step up. You want less concentration in banking—at least the type that will screw the little guy and imperil the economy? Then make it clear that there will be no bailouts, not that there will be bailouts up to this or that size.

She’s perfect for the left, knows nothing, rabbits on, so one expects to see her do well.