Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 28 of 28

Thread: Elizbeth Warren is Toast

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Providence, R.I.
    Posts
    2,448

    Default

    Now she's trying something different.

    Warren to Campaign in Burqa After Learning She is 1/1024th Middle Eastern
    Satire

    https://www.themideastbeast.com/warr...iddle-eastern/
    Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium.
    I prefer liberty with danger to peace with slavery.

    I think you understood what you thought I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard was not what I meant.

    “Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement.”
    Gandalf the Grey

    My Disqus channel:

    https://disqus.com/by/PierreBezukhov1812/

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slave Region 10
    Posts
    61,135

    Default

    The Kulaks Must Be Liquidated as a Class

    By Kevin D. Williamson
    January 25, 2019 6:30 AM

    • Sen. Elizabeth Warren speaks at an event in Claremont, N.H., January 18, 2019. (Brian Snyder/Reuters) Elizabeth Warren is not proposing a tax; she’s proposing asset forfeiture. History is very short, if you look at it the right way.

    The American Revolution seems like it was a very long time ago, but looked at with the right kind of eyes, it was the day before yesterday: The revolution of Washington and Jefferson inspired the French Revolution, which unhappily perverted the classical-liberal principles of the American Founders and created instead an ersatz religion purporting to be a cult of pure reason — le Culte de la Raison — which culminated in fanaticism, terror, and dictatorship. The French Revolution inspired the Russian Revolution, which created its own cult of pure reason — “scientific socialism” — and modeled its “enemies of the people” purges on French revolutionary practice, culminating in fanaticism, terror, and dictatorship. The Russian Revolution in turn inspired the Iranian one, which had intellectual roots in the Bolshevik experience in the Caucasus and culminated in fanaticism, terror, and dictatorship. The Iranians exported many of their revolutionary principles to Hugo Chávez, his United Socialist party, and their so-called Bolivarian Revolution (whose colectiovos gangs were modeled on Iran’s basji militias) which culminated in fanaticism, terror, and dictatorship, currently on particularly dramatic display.




    In most cases, the revolution begins with a peasant prelude and reaches its crescendo with some variation on the theme of Napoleon; socialist revolutions in particular have a peculiar habit of beginning with a man in a work shirt and ending up with a man dressed like Cap’n Crunch. Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro does look a sight in his beauty-pageant sash and Mr. T-worthy gold chains. The people who endure his socialist government are eating zoo animals and pets in what was the richest country in South America.


    Elizabeth Warren is going to look terrific in those mirrored aviator sunglasses and peaked captain’s hat. She’s spent half her life playing dress-up, morally — pretending to be an Indian — so she may as well dress the part of her aspirations. “Who are you wearing to the state dinner? Oscar de la Renta? Prada? Pinochet?”
    Revolutions do not set out to be awful. Not usually. They just end up that way. When the Bolsheviks came to power in Russia, many of them wanted to prohibit capital punishment, which they saw as a high-handed czarist institution. V. I. Lenin overruled them. “How can you make a revolution without executions?” he asked. The key to revolution in his mind — and in those of his revolutionary antecedents and descendants — was terror. “We shall return to terror and to economic terror,” he promised, in a revolution of “unrestricted power based on force, not law.”


    NOW WATCH: 'N.Y. Gun Measure Threatens to 'Essentially Nullify the 2nd Amendment''










    Senator Warren apparently has found her guiding spirit and has announced along with her presidential campaign a campaign of economic terror based on force, not law. Specifically, she has proposed to begin seizing a portion of the assets of some wealthy Americans, a course of action that the federal government has no constitutional power to undertake. The seizure of assets is a fundamentally different thing from the taxation of income, which itself took a constitutional amendment to implement. What Warren is proposing is essentially a federal version of the hated asset-forfeiture programs that have been so much abused by law-enforcement agencies — minus the allegation of criminal misconduct and made universal and annual.


    The senator is in a bit of a panic: She hadn’t expected to face a challenge from her left in her quest for the Democratic nomination, but as her entire party lurches in a chávista direction, she has been forced to go one step farther lest she fall into the “moderate” class, whose members almost certainly will be slaughtered in the 2020 Democratic primary. And so she proposes this ridiculous and illegal course of action.
    She may not be the radical she pretends to be, but Senator Warren has pretended to be a lot of things. A Cherokee, for one, which is good for a laugh, but perhaps not the worst of it. Her longing for fame — and money and power — is impossible to miss. She spent a period trying to launch a career as a writer of dopey self-help books (The Ultimate Lifetime Money Plan!) and then tried on the costume of a Lou Dobbs-style populist China hawk, and even in her scourge-of-Wall-Street incarnation, she couldn’t help cribbing from Margaret Thatcher in pandering to Dobbs, then at CNN: “One of the problems with spending money in this way is that at some point we really do run out of money.” She boasted that her little bureaucratic fiefdom — the Congressional Oversight Panel — was called “COP.” Her “professor of color” act got her a couple of cushy academic postings and a net worth of a few million dollars. I covered her Senate race against Scott Brown and watched her doing a pretty poor impersonation of an Irish-American ward-heeler in Boston, clapping along awkwardly to “Charlie on the M.T.A.” like some animatronic Muldoon. If she has to pretend to be Hugo Chávez, it won’t be her first act of cultural appropriation. And the recipe book should be a hoot.




    Funny thing about Senator Warren’s asset-forfeiture scheme. Like many similar proposals, it probably would not raise much revenue and might in fact leave the country as a whole economically worse off. And the people advising Senator Warren on that are perfectly content with that outcome, because, as Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman argue in the case of Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s proposal to radically increase income taxes, this is to be understood not as an economic question but as a moral one: It is simply morally obligatory to hurt wealthy people. “The point of high top marginal income tax rates is to constrain the immoderate, and especially unmerited, accumulation of riches,” they write.




    And who gets to decide what’s merited and what’s unmerited? What are the chances that, say, Senator Warren’s modest millions or her multimillion-dollar home are deemed “unmerited”? What decides, of course, is “unrestricted power based on force, not law,” because the law cannot substantially answer that kind of question but can only instead encode the desires of people with power, which is what Senator Warren is seeking more of.
    Again, we have been here before.


    When the socialist schemes of Joseph Stalin et al. foundered, they blamed the “kulaks,” i.e. those who had enjoyed the “unmerited accumulation of riches.” There was never any real definition of a “kulak.” Basically, if you had one cow and your neighbor had two, he was a kulak. Stalin announced the “liquidation of the kulaks as a class” as a necessary precondition for the progress of his program, which was, like Kamala Harris, “for the people.” Dekulakization (раскулачивание) was responsible for the deaths of about 5 million subjects of the workers’ paradise. This was necessary, the socialists argued, because the kulaks dominated the political party system (“for the rich, wealth begets power,” Zucman writes), because expropriating their wealth was necessary to fund benefits for the people (“The affluent,” Saez and Zucman write, “can contribute more to the public coffers. And given the revenue needs of the country, it is necessary”), because the kulaks were hoarders (under the headline “Elizabeth Warren is trying to save capitalism from itself,” David Atkins of Washington Monthly decries the “artificial lack of resources caused by the looting and hoarding of the obscenely wealthy”), etc.
    But do our modern progressives really propose to liquidate these “hoarders” as a class?
    Saez and Zucman write hopefully of the prospect that high tax rates would make the class of people with larger incomes “largely disappear.” Representative Ocasio-Cortez declares it “immoral” that we have a “system that allows billionaires to exist.” Marshall Steinbaum, the research director of the progressive Roosevelt Institute, wrote: “It’s increasingly clear that having wealthy people around is a luxury our society can no longer afford.”
    And, so, here we are again: The kulaks must be liquidated as a class. But who is a kulak?
    We might glean some insight into that from the progressives’ thinking in the recent free-speech debates, which goes something like this: “We’re all in favor of free speech, but Nazis should be chased from the public square, by violence if necessary, and we should harass their employers in order to ruin them financially. Also, everybody who disagrees with me is a Nazi, including children wearing hats that I don’t like.”
    158
    You may not feel like a kulak. You may take comfort in hearing that only the “tippy-top” wealthiest people are to be expropriated in the name of social justice. Those children at Covington Catholic probably didn’t think they were Nazis a week ago, either.
    History is short, if you look at it with the right kind of eyes. Some of you might want to consider looking from Zurich or Singapore.
    They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
    "You think a wall as solid as the earth separates civilisation from barbarism. I tell you the division is a sheet of glass."
    John Buchan, 1st Baron Tweedsmuir of Enfield (1875-1940): Author and Diplomat

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    665

    Default

    She want to take your wampum and give to her tribe.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slave Region 10
    Posts
    61,135

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pc-not View Post
    She want to take your wampum and give to her tribe.
    Indeed
    I
    They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
    "You think a wall as solid as the earth separates civilisation from barbarism. I tell you the division is a sheet of glass."
    John Buchan, 1st Baron Tweedsmuir of Enfield (1875-1940): Author and Diplomat

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slave Region 10
    Posts
    61,135

    Default

    They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
    "You think a wall as solid as the earth separates civilisation from barbarism. I tell you the division is a sheet of glass."
    John Buchan, 1st Baron Tweedsmuir of Enfield (1875-1940): Author and Diplomat

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slave Region 10
    Posts
    61,135

    Default

    They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
    "You think a wall as solid as the earth separates civilisation from barbarism. I tell you the division is a sheet of glass."
    John Buchan, 1st Baron Tweedsmuir of Enfield (1875-1940): Author and Diplomat

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    9,114

    Default

    The sad thing is, she really IS that stupid.

    " Uh Elizabeth, know anyone who did that?"

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slave Region 10
    Posts
    61,135

    Default

    UPDATE: Elizabeth Warren Identifies Origin of ‘Native American Ancestry’ Myth

    Sen. Elizabeth Warren is desperate to sweep her checkered past under the rug while on the campaign trail.

    Published
    23 hours ago on
    Mar 22, 2019
    By
    Shane Trejo








    Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) is blaming her family from Oklahoma for fibbing to her about her supposed native american heritage.
    After decades of evading any responsibility for her dubious claims to native American ancestry and years of lying about that heritage to the American public, Sen. Warren — or Pocahontas, as President Trump refers to her — has decided to throw her relatives under the bus. Her family, she says, are to blame for perpetuating the myth, which she then perpetuated.
    During a CNN town hall on Monday, Warren received that familiar query from an attendee that questioned her judgment and temperament from how she handled the entire situation.
    “How do you respond to people who think that, regardless of the underlying facts, the way you handled the question of your Native American heritage was tone deaf and indicative of a lack of presidential tact?” asked an individual in the audience.

    Trending: EXCLUSIVE AUDIO: Shep Smith Accuser Says Fox News Host Sexually Attacked Him, Kept Going After He Tried To Push Him Off
    “Well, ya know, I grew up in Oklahoma. I learned about my family from my family,” Pocahontas responded. “And, um, based on that, that’s just kind of who I am, and I do the best I can with it.”
    Despite using her Indian heritage as an affirmative-action benefit throughout her career, Warren – who likely plagiarized recipes for her 1984 Indian-themed cookbook “Pow Wow Chow” – still has the audacity to claim that her Indian lies never “played any role in any job I ever got” while claiming that some nebulous “investigation” has cleared her record.
    As soon as she could, Pocahontas darted back to her usual class warfare diatribe. Because she will secure the most wampum and firewater for her constituents, Warren believes she deserves to be the next President.
    “I have now done thirty-eight town halls in Massachusetts, last year. And this is my thirty-second town hall since January. And what I’ve discovered is that people care a lot about what’s happening to their lives every single day and what touches them, like housing, and education, and health care. That’s the kind of reason that I’m in this fight and I’m going to stay in this fight, and I will tell you this: I’m going to fight it from the heart every inch of the way. I’ll do my best,” she said.

    The Cherokee Nation is not buying Warren’s attempts at damage control. They understand that she misappropriated their heritage for personal gain and will not allow her to skirt from the shame she has rightfully earned.
    “Sovereign tribal nations set their own legal requirements for citizenship, and while DNA tests can be used to determine lineage, such as paternity to an individual, it is not evidence for tribal affiliation,” Cherokee Nation Secretary of State Chuck Hoskin Jr. said in a press release. “Using a DNA test to lay claim to any connection to the Cherokee Nation or any tribal nation, even vaguely, is inappropriate and wrong.”
    “It makes a mockery out of DNA tests and its legitimate uses while also dishonoring legitimate tribal governments and their citizens, whose ancestors are well documented and whose heritage is proven,” Hoskin added. “Sen. Warren is undermining tribal interests with her continued claims of tribal heritage.”
    Pocahontas can run but she cannot hide from the fall-out from her decades of deception. All the war paint in the world cannot protect her from the consequences of her own actions!
    They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
    "You think a wall as solid as the earth separates civilisation from barbarism. I tell you the division is a sheet of glass."
    John Buchan, 1st Baron Tweedsmuir of Enfield (1875-1940): Author and Diplomat

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •