Elizabeth Warren – A Dispassionate Look

Subscribe: RSS | More

Darrell Castle takes a look at the person who is currently the apparent frontrunner for the Democrat presidential nomination, Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts.

Transcription / Notes:

ELIZABETH WARREN—A DISPASSIONATE LOOK

Hello, this is Darrell Castle with today’s Castle Report. Today is Friday, September 27, 2019, and on today’s Report I will be taking at look at the person who is currently the apparent frontrunner for the Democrat nomination, Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts.

From a professional standpoint I encountered her many years ago through her work in the bankruptcy area of the profession of law. She has written, chaired committees, and generally been a respected authority in that area for several years. Senator Warren is perhaps the brightest and most articulate of the Democrat candidates with the possible exception of Tulsi. Strategic mistakes were made in her campaign that nearly killed it early on, but she brought it back from the dead and has emerged from the crowded field to challenge Joe Biden as frontrunner.

When she applied for a job as a professor at Harvard Law School, she listed her race or ethnicity as Native American. Apparently no one at Harvard noticed or cared that she was the only blue eyed, blond haired, white skinned, Native American in existence. Why would she lie about her race on an application for a job at the nation’s most prestigious law school? She was obviously trying to gain an advantage over her competition by identifying herself with one of the victim groups that Harvard places such high value on. Was her lie about Native American heritage the only reason Harvard hired her, probably not, but if it were not seen as an advantage why would she lie about it?

The real mistake was in not admitting the lie early in her campaign and thereby taking the sting out of it as an issue. Instead she let Donald Trump goad her into an even bigger lie by referring to her as “Pocahontas.” She tried to take the wind out of the “Pocahontas” sails by submitting to a DNA test prior to her official campaign kickoff. If she actually thought the test would reveal that she is Native American then that is more frightening that her lie. The test did show that she is 1/1 024% Native American which puts her in the 99.99% plus white category. She made a lame argument about the test but was finally forced to admit that yes, she lied about it.

Most of us have lied about one thing or another in our lives and I’ll wager that not many candidates in either Party are perfect, but she made it much worse by continuing the lie to the bitter end. I thought her campaign would implode and die out after the DNA fiasco but she persevered, she improvised and she carried on. Now, here she sits as the probable frontrunner for the Democrat nomination.

Well, so far this Report has been all lying hypocrisy, so let’s see if there is anything else to this woman. A campaign based on nothing but lies will usually not last through the long marathon that is today’s Presidential campaign. There has to be something in the words of real candidates except lies based on other lies if success is to be found. I am not a U.S. Senator, and I am not a Harvard professor, but I would surmise that she has made a few blunders in her debate strategy. Perhaps she assumes that in debate she is only thinking about the primaries and is therefore speaking to only Democrats and not actual real Americans. If so, that indicates another problem and that is she actually believes her own nonsense.

If I were advising her, especially considering her lies about her own identity, I would tell her that in order to be taken more seriously by Middle America; she should consider toning down the identity politics rhetoric. Identity politics that is so pervasive in the Democrat Party now is about the only thing that comes across in the debates. The really scary thing is that with our new demographics, she and the other Democrats may be Middle America now. For example, she not only wants to give taxpayer money as reparations to descendents of slaves with all the problems that entails, but she proposes reparations to homosexuals because they were not allowed to be married for what, 6000 years, but she considers that a great American sin. Needless to say she also wants reparations for Native Americans apparently not recognizing the irony with her prior claims to be one.

Democrat sound bites of identity instead of unity which tend to panic the general population certainly do not panic Democrats. In fact, massive third world immigration, coupled with a coalition of the disgruntled, ensures that Democrats are, or soon will be Middle America. That’s probably why she doesn’t concentrate on the economy and what’s best for consumers where she is much better suited and more comfortable. She scares people there too but who cares because those she scares are not Democrats. Right now she no longer needs to outdo the others in stealing and giving away but I guess it’s difficult to resist the urge to get in someone else’s pocket.

She seems to think that problems can always be solved with more government regulation but unlike the other Democrat candidates she actually tells us where she would steal the money to pay for her give away schemes. Her universal preschool child care program she would pay for with money stolen from those who hold more than about $50 million in assets under the theory that theft is OK if you are stealing from rich people by executive order or majority vote.

Is theft somehow rendered moral if done by Executive Order or by majority vote rather than at the point of a gun? No, theft is theft and is never moral or ethical, but brute raw violence resulting in power is the very essence of government. Who controls the violence is the question and every politician wants that control desperately. She projects that her free preschool child care would cost about one-fourth of the wealth she would steal annually which she estimates at $250 billion. That seems optimistic to me but so do any and all government boondoggles and the schemes to pay for them. Somehow the boondoggles start and never end and the payment method is never enough. The concept of government preschool child care even if the payment method is valid means turning our children over to government bureaucrats for even longer each day.

She is a fairly wealthy woman but not wealthy enough to currently trigger her wealth confiscation scheme. I’m sure it will get there in a few years once it’s rolling, but that’s OK because by then she will be President. Her wealth is primarily in mutual funds and bonds but she does own an estate worth $3 million in Cambridge, Massachusetts and a condo in Washington D.C. worth $800,000.

The New York Times Sunday, September 22, 2019 in a front page article covered her life in politics and her Presidential campaign quite favorably as one might expect. She is credited by the Times with creating the idea that became the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau during the Obama Administration. Since it was her baby, President Obama picked her to form the bureau that started it and then once fully operational to head it. Once she did the work and it was running, however, President Obama withdrew his offer and a new head was chosen.

The Agency was credited by the Times with recovering $12 billion for consumers in 2017. I don’t know what happened to the money because often it disappears into the government rat holes and never finds the consumers who were defrauded or taken advantage of. I’ve seen that time and time again as the FDA fines drug companies for their dangerous and deceptive products. Nevertheless, the Times reported that the experience helped shape her political life and led her on a path to 2020. She wants the power all in her hands rather than depending on loyalty or the permission of others to accomplish her goals.

She always looks to government power to solve consumer problems. The solution is always the formation of another government regulatory agency, as if not enough government control is the real culprit. She has promised to restructure the economy as president, using the methods of the agency she formed, but I don’t think the banks and the military industrial complex will mind her as long as they can keep their wars and she seems content with them doing that. She appears to be careful to not threaten the deep state.

She has, however, been a consistent critic of the 2008 bank bailout and she is virtually always on the side of consumers in disputes with corporate America. Unlike other Democrat candidates she insists that she is not a socialist. She says she is a capitalist and like Franklin Roosevelt she is trying to save American capitalism from its excesses. “Sometimes bigger ideas are more possible to accomplish because you can inspire people.” The Times points out that even though she has the best grasp of the issues that confront the country that doesn’t necessarily mean the Times will endorse her, or that she will be President. Instead the race often goes to those who inspire people. I’m not sure what the Times writer means by inspire people. I suppose it means to influence them by psychologically conditioning them to the Times way of thinking but it remains unclear to me.

She announced that she plans to break up the big tech companies and put workers on the boards of corporations. Despite what she says about not being socialist that sounds like socialism to me because the only way it could be done is a government takeover to the extent that the government controls corporate boards. The Times expressed disagreement with both of these ideas I suppose because the Times is a corporate mouthpiece for the tech companies.

She does seem very concerned that American incomes and living standards continue steadily rising. I’m sure she is aware that those have been flat or falling since the demise of the gold standard in 1971. It will be very difficult for her to keep those living standards rising with a steady diet of stealing from the wealthy, and taxing the rest. She wants to restrain corporate power and control it with government power in order to force it to help create a prosperous middle class, as it did in the 1940’s and 50’s. However, we fought a world war in the 40’s and Korea in the 50’s. The Federal Reserve had not yet destroyed the value of the dollar in those decades as it now has. That is the reality she will have to cope with if she becomes President.

How can the radical levels of wealth inequality be reduced? Senator Warren seems very concerned with that question, but wealth inequality compared to what Senator? Her income is much higher than the average globally. In fact, an income of $32,000 per year would put one in the top 1% globally so things are pretty good relatively speaking. I’m sure that hers puts her in the top 1% in this country. Why not start with a good faith gesture like giving away your wealth to the government so that it can be distributed by people who are more capable of knowing who deserves it more than you. After all, Senator, do you really need a $3 million estate and an $800,000 condo? Why not sell those and give the proceeds to the government for distribution or to pay for childcare? Why do you want the power to take the property of others by force but keep your own?

I will give Senator Warren the benefit of the doubt, though, because back in the 1990’s when Congress was taking payments from the credit card companies to limit the ability of private individuals to escape lifetime debt slavery by seeking bankruptcy protection she fought hard to prevent surrender to corporations. She lost, and Congress like the faithful prostitutes they are, took the money and delivered the goods, but at least she was on the right side and she tried. She has usually been there on the side of consumers but always with a bigger government approach rather that a free market approach.

In conclusion, those normal Americans who own homes pay an annual tax on their wealth for the privilege of living in their own homes. That is known as property tax and it means that people can never actually own their homes even if they pay on them for 30 years. Most paper wealth of average people is simply equity in their homes. The rich hold their wealth in other ways with much of it located off shore so they are not subject to the government’s theft.

Finally folks, Senator Warren is not the worst Democrat candidate out there, not by a long shot. The Federal Reserve and the income tax have led America down the road to destruction for over 100 years, but she doesn’t seem to get that concept, and as a result she tries to address those problems without actually addressing the right problems. I have been fighting a losing battle to save my country for virtually my entire life. Usually the battle is against people, such as Elizabeth Warren, who have a view of how to protect our liberty and our God given rights that is opposite my view.

At least that’s the way I see it,

Until next time folks,

This is Darrell Castle,

Thanks for listening.