Sunday, June 5, 2016

Elizabeth Warren - "Progressive" fraud

Whenever I read the mutterings of Elizabeth Warren and her Greek Chorus of supporters it seals the deal for me regarding any sanity from the “Progressive” front. Bluntly put her followers are suffering from amnesia – the very worst kind – that which excuses a history – well documented – that would drive a “Progressive” completely off the rails if it was a conservative or any other evil incarnation of a (gasp) Republican.
What is her crime?
One can put on the collective blinders as the left has or engage in a modicum of research and easily discover a long pattern of pointing the figure at those who have profited from exactly what Warren has done in the past, but that is nothing – just the typical do as I say and not as I do – what frosts my thumbs as I key is the check the box that placed this unscrupulous fraud in the national limelight.
Warren was merely another lawyer looking to move up in the world and discovered a simple method – become a Native American! Check the box and became a minority and with it all the diversity thugs – especially in academia – will suddenly find you marketable. How can you claim to be a Native American when you are certainly not?
You build a family history, but despite your academic ability you are actually incapable of diligent researching of your family tree? Others have researched her claims – you know, the evil ones not smitten with her convoluted populous views – and the credibility does not exist.
Warren could erase all doubts with a simple test. I’ve taken them and discovered I happen to me 100% European despite a family verbal legacy of a Native American connection. That research showed a divergence over 170 years ago and my part of the family was excluded while others were not. Blame it on multiple marriages. Warren will not take the test. Wonder why?
Of course, the response is what one would expect from her ilk and that is to simply shift the argument and accuse the accuser of “defaming” her character and family history. Huh? No – Warren is a liar and they are no other tame word to describe it. The foundation for Warren’s advancement in law, education and politics is built on a lie and firmly supported by her followers.
I find this similar to Manny Alexander a fringe major league baseball player who put in ten years on several teams. Alexander was tainted by PED’s. This was an era before sophisticated testing and stringent controls, but still a tactic that baseball wished to eliminate. Was it enough to give Alexander that advantage when it came down to the last roster spot? I believe so. The baseball stars would be stars with or without PED’s, but the Alexander’s? Nope.
Warren is exactly the same. Checking that box fraudulently opened up access Warren did not deserve. Somewhere another individual who did not play the race card lost out since Warren was now an entitled minority. Despicable.
Political parties have long noted for accepting abhorrent behavior within their ranks and yet pummeling the same behavior within the ranks of the opposition. “Progressives” pretend to claim they are somehow morally more attuned to the needs of all and claim – and wrongfully so – that their policies reflect that. But Warren clearly – very clearly – demonstrates the only morality the “Progressives” display has the word bankrupt following it.


Hal Brown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hal Brown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hal Brown said...

/// Reposted to fix typos and make an irrefutable and irritable defense of Elizabeth Warren ////

What a royal crock of Trumpian off he rails horse ducky-picky, not even worthy of a demented court jester currying favor with an egomaniacal emperor, is your native american attack on Warren for what has been blown into behemoth proportions by the far right bloviators.

Warren could war dance circles around you intellectually, and her accomplishments dwarf those of any of your Republican heroes, assuming you can find any since Reagan (who for all the damage he did to the social safety net and with his adhesion to the debunked trickle down economic theory did make a difference in foreign relations).

Warren’s big “crime” was having the poor judgment to, having only heard stories from the time she could remember as a child about being 1/16 Cherokee or Delaware - ( probably like many whose families went back generations in Oklahoma) was listing herself as Native American on a Harvard check-list. She had no proof, but as we learned in Middleboro, the indians didn’t keep very good birth records.

You say:

"But Warren clearly – very clearly – demonstrates the only morality the “Progressives” display has the word bankrupt following it.”

All this is based on what? One instance of misguided box checking done for reasons she has explained? Whether or not she would have been hired by Harvard without this remains to be seen. After all, considering her movement up the academic ladder after graduating from Rutgers Law, Harvard might very well have wanted her, Native American or not.

Consider (thanks to Wikipedia)

Warren started her academic career as a lecturer at Rutgers School of Law–Newark (1977–78). She moved to the University of Houston Law Center (1978–83), where she became Associate Dean for Academic Affairs in 1980, and obtained tenure in 1981. She taught at the University of Texas School of Law as visiting associate professor in 1981, and returned as a full professor two years later (staying 1983–87). In addition, she was a visiting professor at the University of Michigan (1985) and research associate at the Population Research Center of the University of Texas at Austin (1983–87).[33] Early in her career, Warren became a proponent of on-the-ground research based on studying how people actually respond to laws in the real world. Her work analyzing court records, and interviewing judges, lawyers, and debtors, established her as a rising star in the field of bankruptcy law.[34]

Warren joined the University of Pennsylvania Law School as a full professor in 1987 and obtained an endowed chair in 1990 (becoming William A Schnader Professor of Commercial Law). She taught for a year at Harvard Law School in 1992 as Robert Braucher Visiting Professor of Commercial Law. In 1995, Warren left Penn to become Leo Gottlieb Professor of Law at Harvard Law School.[33] As of 2011, she was the only tenured law professor at Harvard who was trained at an American public university.[34] At Harvard, Warren became one of the most highly cited law professors in the United States. Although she had published in many fields, her expertise was in bankruptcy. In the field of bankruptcy and commercial law, only Douglas Baird of Chicago, Alan Schwartz of Yale, and Bob Scott of Columbia have citation rates comparable to that of Warren.[35] Warren's scholarship and public advocacy were the impetus behind the establishment of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.[36]

Penn, as you know, isn’t exactly a small potato law school, it being ranked number seven nationally. Note that she basically "tried out" for the Harvard job as a visiting professor before being hired as an endowed full professor.

Richard McNair said...

She has a marvelous background. Almost as good as Ted Cruz...another stalwart of moral decay. That is all meaningless. The background means zilch.

Poor judgement? A gentle way to describe someone who took advantage of a situation at the expense of others. I will not even go into her illustrious house flipping, outrageous Harvard salary, phoney cookbook crap and other examples of "poor judgement." Warren knew damn well what she was doing and never rectified it - so much for being so brilliant. Her progress is based on a lie, but ideology seems to trump ethics in our political system.

That "progressives" even defend this fraud is similar to those Republicans who defend Trump. Hilarious that both are tossing Twitter broadsides. Peas in a pod?

What Warren does is to simply deflect the issue back on others by whining about her background - heritage - being attacked. Pathetic.

Have not checked your blog in a few days, but it looks good. I loved the piece on Nast.

Hal Brown said...

Harvard Law professors may make a hell of a lot of money but their earnings are far less than what they could make working a partners in large law firms.

To compare Warren with Cruz - sometimes I think you have lost it…

How on this temporarily green earth can you attribute what she has done in her life to this supposed lie. BTW if she didn’t know it wasn’t true it wasn’t a lie, but I agree that indicating she was part-native american without knowing for certain was extremely poor judgment. If she did it for personal advantage, shame on her. But I won’t dismiss her accomplishment just because of this. Hell, she’d have to have killed someone to get hired for me to get for me to do that and come to think of it, depending on whom she killed I might forgive her.

I know who you’re not (a progressive, a liberal, a Democrat), but I can’t figure out what you are, what you stand for. You seem pretty much to have become a curmudgeon against everything. Who in politics DO you admire????

Richard McNair said...

I compared background of the two, Hal. Cruz has an excellent resume and I can do the same with many others who have the ethics and morals of a jackrabbit.

In politics, I admire no one. In the last 20 years, it has degenerated into a cesspool. How else does one explain Trump, Hillary, and Obama? Although I do have admiration for Bernie since he appears to have a quality of honesty that is certainly lacking with the other two. Charlie Baker has done a nice job here in the People's Republic. Sometimes the fact that a pol works hard, is responsive to constituent issues and has a moral (honesty) compass will get my vote regardless of affiliation or philosophy.

You left out Republican and conservative on your list. I hold no allegiance to any party. In fact, I was one a member of the DTC until they supported Studds bad behaviors. My own personal credo would be difficult to define but I will give some insight. Just a few. Pop in with any issues and I will give you my view.

Strong anti-gun - I would gut the second.
atheist - so you know how I feel about the religious right.
Strong fiscal conservative.
Strong attachment to the real liberalism of John Stuart Mill not this crap that progs toss around.
Illegal or legal the question should be what can you do for us and not the other way around.
Have moderate isolationist tendencies.
We over regulate.
Government/business use to have a symbiotic relationship to create marvels. Now? More adversarial.

Favorite presidents are TR, HST and RR.