Elizabeth Warren

Opinion/Analysis: It’s Still Not Because Elizabeth Warren is a Woman

It’s not hard to understand why Elizabeth Warren will not be the Democratic presidential nominee. Unless, that is, you’re one of her most zealous fans, in which case getting to the bottom of her departure from the race requires careful scrutiny of the apparent sexism lurking beneath the crust of American culture — a practice that her defenders have been engaged in since her campaign began. Never mind that, if misogyny of any kind is responsible for Warren’s demise, it is that of Democratic primary voters, who overwhelmingly chose the senator’s opponents, including in her home state of Massachusetts, where she, a second-term senator, came in a distant third place. (Bernie Sanders, by contrast, won his own home state of Vermont on the same night with a whopping 50 percent of the vote.) Don’t expect Warren’s progressive devotees in the media, arguably her most passionate constituency, to consider these realities any time soon. “America Punished Elizabeth Warren for Her Competence” was the headline of Megan Garber’s article published in The Atlantic after Warren ended her campaign. “The country still doesn’t know what to make of a woman — in politics, and beyond — who refuses to qualify her success,” reads the subtitle. Garber went on to list various criticisms Warren faced during the campaign, including that she is “sanctimonious,” “condescending,” and “a know-it-all.” “The accusation of condescension, however, is less about enforced humiliation than it is about enforced humility. It cannot be disentangled from Warren’s gender,” Garber opines, before concluding that misogyny — the desire to “reinforce a patriarchal status quo” — explains why Warren failed. One New York Times op-ed bore the worrisome headline “I Am Burning with Fury and Grief over Elizabeth Warren. And I Am Not Alone,” with a subtitle contending that Warren had “lodged herself” in “the female psyche.” Author Sarah Smarsh opened her article with a slightly melodramatic request: “Consider every moment, since the dawn of woman, when a female aspired but to no avail.” “Imagine the sadness and frustration of every such instance as a spark, their combined energy the size of many suns,” Smarsh went on. “That is the measure of grief and fury I felt rise inside me as I watched Elizabeth Warren’s bid for the Democratic nomination wane.” An article in The Nation took a similarly dismal tone. “Sexism Sank Elizabeth Warren,” read its headline, with the subtitle “Warren was a brilliant candidate who would have made a great president. The problem? She’s a woman — and she isn’t ‘perfect.’” So wrote Elie Mystal, adding that Warren’s campaign was doomed by the supposed fact that “we live in a deeply sexist culture, and that misogyny is broadcast and reinforced through every cultural vector available.” Feminist pundit Jessica Valenti found herself in the depths of despair after Warren’s poor performance on Super Tuesday. “It Will Be Hard to Get Over What Happened to Elizabeth Warren,” ran the headline of her story, in which she lamented that “even just supporting Warren has come with an unbearable amount of misogynist condescension.” “Once again we’re going to watch a race to leadership between old white men,” she added, as if someone other than her fellow progressives had put those two old white men where they are. Shockingly, none of these articles grapple with that rather inconvenient fact: It was Democrats, not hateful Republicans, who voted in the Democratic primaries and who preferred other candidates over Warren. It’s difficult to blame misogynistic conservative white men for Warren’s failure when the people voting against her were Democratic women, very liberal Democrats, college graduates, and African Americans. Worth noting, too, is the fact that Hillary Clinton — also a woman — won the Democratic nomination not four years ago and went on to win the popular vote in the general election. Perhaps, then, the problem is not with pervasive sexism but with Warren herself and the way she conducted her campaign. Let’s consider where she might’ve gotten her reputation for insincerity. She falsely claimed to have faced pregnancy discrimination and was still repeating this untruth in the days before she dropped out. She campaigned against school choice and charter schools while falsely claiming that her children had not gone to private school. She refused, several times, to say whether her Medicare for All plan would raise taxes on the middle class — and she subsequently falsely claimed that it would not. That’s not even considering her absurd, decades-long fiction about being of Native American heritage, a falsehood she took every chance to deploy by listing herself as a minority while employed at the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard University and referring to herself as Native American during her political campaigns. After facing a good deal of criticism for this particular flight of fancy, Warren shot her burgeoning campaign in the foot by informing the public via genetic-test results that she was, in fact, 1/1,024th Cherokee. If anything, Warren explicitly benefited throughout the campaign from being female, using her gender to play the victim card, even when doing so required fudging the facts or entirely reinventing them to suit her purposes, as in the case of her disproven allegation of pregnancy discrimination. Perhaps the best example was when Warren spun several news cycles out of her assertion that Bernie Sanders is a sexist, alleging that he had once told her a woman could never be president. He strongly denied this several times. Moderators raised the matter in a debate, only to deny him time to respond. They treated Warren’s unproven assertion as a fact and instead repeatedly silenced Sanders on the topic, while Warren continued to attack him unchallenged. The notion that Elizabeth Warren’s presidential hopes were dashed by an American electorate not ready for a female president is pure wishcasting, indulged in only by media elites who believed that her campaign was destined to succeed largely because they had thrown their weight behind it. For anyone watching the race with clear eyes, it is evident that Warren’s biggest flaws were not her chromosomes but her inept political maneuvering and her pattern of dishonesty.

Exactly!!  And well said, Alexandra.  Alexandra Desanctis (a female, no less) from the Ethics and Public Policy Center is responsible for that spot-on analysis of Elizabeth Warren’s demise in the Democratic primaries. As Alexandra correctly points out, it had NOTHING to do with the fact that she’s a woman.  It was because of her chronic, almost pathological lying about…well..everything.  She lied about the whole pregnancy thing (which has been well-documented on numerous occasions), and of course the whole Native American nonsense.  DEMOCRAT voters (no, NOT “mean” conservatives and Republicans) got tired of her bs, and showed her the door.  Also worth mentioning.. Democrat voters are a majority female.  So, to be clear, it was DEMOCRAT WOMEN who had enough of Elizabeth.  How ironic..  Now that Elizabeth is out of the running, the race for the presidency is down to three white men.  And, of those three, the two oldest are Democrats.  So, the party that has for years railed against old white men, is offering a choice between two older white men, than the current president.  And, of those two, the choice is between a crazy, America-hating communist, and an establishment-supported (translation swamp) whose mental abilities are seriously in question.

Tucker Carlson says ‘fascist’ Elizabeth Warren is pitching her own Ministry of Truth

Tucker Carlson harshly criticized Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren’s call to implement criminal and civil penalties for spreading disinformation regarding U.S. elections Wednesday, calling her proposal “fascist” and noting the “irony” that a political figure who many criticize for not being truthful wants to address disinformation. “Warren’s decided to go full fascist because that’s who she is and has always been,” Carlson said on “Tucker Carlson Tonight.” “Try to ignore the redolent irony here. This is the person who for years posted false claims online that she was a Cherokee Indian to sway voters. This is the candidate who pretended she lost her job for being pregnant and her kids went to public school. Now, this very same person is threatening to send you to prison for telling tall tales.” “The most florid liar in the race, someone the New York Times once euphemistically described as a ‘gifted storyteller,’ says she’s going to criminalize lying,” Carlson said. “Paging Dr. Freud. That is more than hypocrisy. It’s a sickness.” Earlier Wednesday, Warren announced her plan to protect elections from Russian interference and other forms of disinformation, saying in a statement: “The stakes of this election are too high — we need to fight the spread of false information that disempowers voters and undermines democracy.” As part of her plan, Warren vowed to “push to create civil and criminal penalties for knowingly disseminating false information about when and how to vote in U.S. elections,” claiming that such information “has the explicit purpose of undermining the basic right to vote” and that such efforts targeted “chiefly Black voters” in 2016. Carlson blasted Warren saying she was dreaming of establishing a “Ministry of Truth,” a la George Orwell’s “1984.” “But what does that [her plan] mean?” the host asked. “Well, it means that when people say things that Elizabeth Warren doesn’t like or that impede her attempts to accumulate power, they should go to jail. Warren isn’t the first person to fantasize about this. Of course, all megalomaniacs dream of running their own ministries of truth.”

Yeah..  No kidding!  Tucker absolutely nails it here.  Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) is not only a self-serving, self-righteous fascist, but she’s also a well-documented, pathological liar and a brazen hypocrite.  To even have the nerve to bring something like this up shows just how dangerously clueless, and out of touch with reality she really is.  Tucker is right.  She’s sick.

Video appears to contradict Warren’s suggestion that school fired her over pregnancy

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., suggested this week that a school principal effectively fired her from a teaching job after she became “visibly pregnant,” but a resurfaced video indicates that wasn’t the actual reason she left the job. “I was married at nineteen and then graduated from college [at the University of Houston] after I’d married,” Warren, then a Harvard Law School professor, said in an interview posted to YouTube in 2008. “My first year post-graduation, I worked — it was in a public school system but I worked with the children with disabilities. I did that for a year, and then that summer I actually didn’t have the education courses, so I was on an ’emergency certificate,’ it was called. “I went back to graduate school and took a couple of courses in education and said, ‘I don’t think this is going to work out for me,'” Warren continued. “I was pregnant with my first baby, so I had a baby and stayed home for a couple of years, and I was really casting about, thinking, ‘What am I going to do?'” By contrast, Warren told an audience at a town hall in Carson City, Nev. Wednesday that she had “loved” working as a special needs teacher. “By the end of the first year, I was visibly pregnant, and the principal did what principals did in those days,” she said. “Wish me luck and hire someone else for the job.” Warren has repeated the story at campaign appearances throughout the summer, each time repeating the “principal did what principals did” line to describe her departure from teaching. The senator’s campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment to clarify the apparent discrepancy. This isn’t the first time that Warren’s past has raised questions about her credibility. She has been widely criticized for identifying herself as a Native American in legal directories before applying to work at Harvard Law School. Last year, Warren released the results of a DNA test showing she is only between 1/64th and 1/1,024th Native American — and apologized for identifying as Native American on past forms.

Sen. Warren (D-MA) is a pathological liar.  So, this really isn’t anything new.  It’s just par for the course.  But, we wanted to make sure we passed this latest example along…because the dominantly liberal mainstream media sure won’t.

Elizabeth Warren’s Ferguson Lie

Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren yesterday tweeted: “5 years ago Michael Brown was murdered by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri. Michael was unarmed yet he was shot 6 times. I stand with activists and organizers who continue the fight for justice for Michael. We must confront systemic racism and police violence head on.” This is an outright lie, one day after Warren complained of the dangers of rhetoric. Michael Brown was not murdered. Michael Brown was shot by officer Darren Wilson in an act of self-defense. This is why the grand jury declined to indict Wilson for murder or manslaughter, and it was also the conclusion of the Obama administration’s Department of Justice. “Every police officer in America should be offended by Sen. Warren’s ill-informed, inflammatory tweet today,” Jeff Roorda of the St. Louis Police Officers Association told me via email. “Holding a would-be cop killer out as some sort of victim or worse yet, a hero, does no justice to the truth or to reconciliation. Her careless words disqualify her from fitness to serve impartially as commander-in-chief.” “I was a Democratic Missouri State Representative for 8 years,” Roorda also wrote. “But, I’m sick of uninformed members of my party attacking cops. It’s just wrong.” Attempts to contact Senator Warren’s campaign by phone and email were not returned.

You have a Dem with bona fide Dem creds call out Elizabeth Warren on her brazen, self-serving, anti-cop, hypocritical lie…and her office is running the other direction when asked for comment.  Gee..  What a shocker, lol.  Not!  Don’t expect this story anywhere in the dominantly liberal mainstream media..  Everything about the incident 5 years ago in Ferguson, MO (near my hometown of St. Louis), was a lie.  Remember, “Hands up, don’t shoot?”  That was a lie.  It never happened.  According to forensics and witness testimony, it never ever happened.  And, the dominantly liberal mainstream media, the Obama Administration, Eric Holder and so on made it about racism, white cop killing unarmed black victim and on and on.  ALL of it was a lie.  For those with memory problems..  A large, young, black male (Michael Brown) went into a convenience store, bullied the clerk and stole some cigars.  At the time, the liberal media called him a “gentle giant.”  The incident at the convenience store was caught on security cameras and we ALL saw played over and over again.  In spite of that, that “gentle giant”  then walked out…and walked right down a main thoroughfare in Ferguson, a municipality in north St. Louis County.  The convenience store called 911 to report the burglary, and Officer Darren Wilson, a decorated officer, was just out on patrol saw Michael Brown waking down the middle of the street..and asked him to get out of the middle of the road.  Then, the report came through on his radio and he identified the man as the robbery suspect (“big black male carrying a box of cigars”).  So, he pulled up to Michael.  That’s when it all went south.  According to witnesses, Officer Wilson’s personal account, and MULTIPLE autopsies by multiple coroners (yeah, there were actually multiple coroners), Michael Brown, who later we find out also had marijuana in his system (remember the law-abiding “gentle giant” narrative?), attacked Officer Wilson and was MUCH bigger than the officer, and went for his sidearm.  During the struggle, Officer Wilson who had already been beat by Brown (and the pics taken of the officer after the incident showed he was beat up badly), fearing for his life, shot and killed Brown.  The end.  And according to multiple witnesses, multiple autopsies, the officer’s testimony, and forensics, the officer did everything proper and by the book.  It was pure self-defense.  In fact, had the suspect been white, that’s exactly where the story would have ended and it wouldn’t have made national news.  To be clear, race had NOTHING to do with the event, until the rabid race hustlers/oportunists like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, then Pres. Obama, then AG Eric Brown, the NAACP, the agenda-driven liberal media, and on and on made it into a race issue…which ultimately resulted in some rioting.  Elizabeth Warren, and the rest of the Dems seeking the 2020 Dem Presidential nomination for their party, are using every minute they have in front of a camera to shamelessly play some type of race card to further the narrative that President Trump is a racist and white supremacist.  Of course there is no evidence to substantiate that whatsoever.  But, it’s the lie they’re repeating over and over…  And, as evidenced here, Elizabeth Warren is even stooping so low as to referring to an incident that happened YEARS before Trump even declared his presidential aspirations.  But, of course, Trump is somehow responsible for Ferguson as well..  Typical..

Trey Gowdy blasts Elizabeth Warren’s lobbying claim: ‘Demonstrably and factually untrue’

Former Rep. Trey Gowdy denied Monday Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s claim that he left Congress for a “fat lobbyist paycheck,” calling the allegation “demonstrably and factually untrue.” “There are a million things that you can legitimately criticize me for, and if she’s struggling to come up with a list, my wife is happy to help, but I’m not a lobbyist,” Mr. Gowdy said on Fox’s “The Story with Martha MacCallum.” “I’m not going to be a fat lobbyist, I’m not going to be a skinny lobbyist, a plus-sized one — I’m not lobbying at all,” he said. “That’s a factual matter.” Ms. Warren, a Massachusetts Democrat, blasted the former congressman in a Jan. 4 tweet, saying he “foamed at the mouth with power in Congress, then retired because he claimed he didn’t enjoy it. Now it’s clear: Trey Gowdy just wanted a fat lobbyist paycheck. This should be illegal.” She added: “We need a lifetime ban on lobbying for members of Congress.” The South Carolina Republican opted not to seek re-election in 2018, instead returning to his former law firm, Nelson, Mullins Riley & Scarborough, to work on its White Collar Defense & Government Investigations team from its offices in Greenville, South Carolina, and Washington, D.C., according to a press release. “She just happened to stumble upon the one thing that is demonstrably and factually untrue,” Mr. Gowdy said. He said he didn’t mind the criticism — “actually, being criticized by Elizabeth Warren helps me in South Carolina” — but was bothered by her decision to level the accusation without first verifying its accuracy. “What I do mind, and what several of my Democrat colleagues correctly pointed out over the weekend — if you’re going to criticize the president and other people for being loose with the facts, don’t be loose with the facts yourself,” he said. “She’s running for president of the United States, and she kicks it off by making a demonstrably false allegation against a former colleague. I don’t get it.” He swung back on Twitter by saying, “Perhaps you were cracking open a beer when that was announced,” referring to her much-discussed Instagram video in which she takes a swig from a bottle of Michelob Ultra.

Hahaha!!  Just awesome!  Go get her, Trey!  Elizabeth Warren truly is that “glittering jewel of colossal ignorance.”  She’s kinda like Hillary.  Each time her mouth moves, it’s like a gift that keeps on giving.  We’re certainly gonna miss Trey in D.C.  But, wish him the very best in his post-political life.

Elizabeth Warren on Drugs

Elizabeth Warren is grasping. Having failed in her gambit to establish minority status, the 2020 presidential contender is now following the path of her competition. As Kamala Harris did with the housing crisis, Warren has picked a very real issue — the expense of generic drugs — and decided to address it with a bill that is unlikely to achieve much except gain her personal accolades for “doing something.” And should it pass, it could inhibit efforts to actually resolve the problem, because “something has been done.” Senator Warren debuted her plan before the holidays in the Washington Post, with the title “It’s time to let the government manufacture generic drugs.” Perhaps the senator thought this would generate buzz and capture attention before she officially launched her bid for the presidency on New Year’s Eve. Given that she followed this announcement with a botched attempt to out-Millennial Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in an online video, though, perhaps it isn’t going as she desired. Here’s the real problem Warren is trying to address: There were 356 drug shortages in 2012, up from 154 in 2007 — and strikingly, most of these drugs are no longer under patent. That tells us that the critical problem is not one of manufacturing capacity, for any medical company with the capability to produce these medicines could simply do so, using the relevant formulas. The normal behavior of the market, when there is a shortage of a product, is for a new entrepreneur to start providing that product. The fact that this is not happening suggests there must be some barrier in the way of it. For each new generic drug, the manufacturer must submit an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA), whose very name reveals that it is itself an improvement on an older process. Before 1984’s Hatch-Waxman Act, new generics had to go through the full clinical trials required of a new medicine, even though they were simply a new source of the very drug that had already been chemically approved. The ANDA pathway is quicker and cheaper, requiring a manufacturer to show that the generic is “bioequivalent” to the brand-name product and that it meets manufacturing standards. Even so, the ANDA pathway is an expensive process, and its cost has increased from about $1–2 million in 2005 to $15 million in 2015. The process isn’t limited to new providers, either. Should an existing manufacturer want to supply more of its approved medicine, it must go through the approval process again for any new production lines or factories. As a result, it can be too costly to make up the shortfall in supply. The issues don’t end there. Sometimes, even if a generic manufacturer is willing and able to take on all the costs of this process, brand-name manufacturers can effectively put a stay on generics by preventing generic manufacturers from obtaining samples. In other cases, brand-name drug manufacturers will pay generic manufacturers to stay out of the market. The fact that some critical yet out-of-patent drugs have only a single generic manufacturer has created an opening for speculators who buy decades-old basic medicines and raise the prices dramatically — most infamously in the case of Turing Pharmaceuticals, which purchased the rights to a $13 pill and immediately raised its price to $750. This behavior is not the market in action; it is the manipulation of a regulatory regime for financial gain. Clearly, something is very wrong. A solution is necessary. But rather than tackle the dense and boring problems that are holding back access to essential drugs, which can’t really be boiled down to a stump-speech line, Warren proposes that the United States government start producing generic drugs under the auspices of a new “Office of Drug Manufacturing,” which would pass off its products to cooperating private companies. In effect, assuming that the office operates at least as well as the average private manufacturer (unlikely though that is), this would simply mean the creation of a new drug company, albeit one with a public imprimatur. This new company, however, would run into the same hurdles that are faced by private actors — the text of the bill does not lay out a regulatory exemption for this new state-run firm, after all.

Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris accused of breaking fundraising rules over Kavanaugh vote

A watchdog group filed a Senate ethics complaint Monday against Sens. Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren for sending out fundraising emails asking for donations to support their votes against Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh — even before they cast their votes against him. While voting and then asking supporters to back that decision with cash is common, the watchdog group, the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust (FACT), says asking for money ahead of time crosses the line into vote-buying. FACT asked the Senate ethics committee to probe fundraising emails sent by Ms. Warren, Massachusetts Democrat, and Ms. Harris, California Democrat. Ms. Warren’s email said she was demanding a delay on the judge’s confirmation vote and asked for donations for her 2018 election campaign, while Ms. Harris’s emails detailed several of her actions as a member of the Judiciary Committee, including her questioning of the president’s pick for the high court, and asking for contributions. The Senate’s rules prohibit senators “cashing in” on using their official positions for personal gain. FACT said that linking a promise of official action with campaign contributions violates that principle. “This is a clear violation of the Senate Ethics rules which safeguard against the appearance or actuality of elected officials ‘cashing in’ on their official position for political purposes,” said Kendra Arnold, executive director of FACT. Spokespersons for Ms. Harris and Ms. Warren didn’t immediately return a request for comment.

Of course not..   They’re huddled with their attorneys.  Senate Dems and the dominantly liberal mainstream media made it clear even before (now) Justice Brett Kavanaugh was even officially nominated,  that they’d do anything and everything possible (even illegal), to fight his nomination.  So, this shouldn’t surprise anyone.  Kudos to FACT for looking into this potential ethics violation on the part of Sens. Warren and Harris.  This story is developing…