The Warren warning
By Mark Alexander
The most despised political constituents in America are rich liberals, the self-anointed "intelligentsia" who lord over the Leftist proletariat, and are tolerated only for the graft they dispense to all manner of liberal causes and campaigns.
Though they imagine themselves held in high esteem by the recipients of their largess, they are utterly loathed by the populist 99 Percenter Demo-Party base. Of course, they are equally reviled by conservatives, who object to their smugness and their abject hypocrisy among other traits.
If there is one generalization that approaches a universal truth about the Left Elite, it is that they are chronic hypocrites. And there is no better example of this than B. Obama, who constantly rebukes "the rich," "the wealthy," "millionaires," "fat cats," ad infinitum, all in the name of "redistributive change," while he basks in the profligate lifestyle of the most rich and famous.
For example, recall if you will Obama's incessant vilification of "fat cats in their corporate jets." Despite a slew of policy meltdowns, both domestic and foreign, Obama spends most of his waking hours jet-setting around the countryside for political stump speeches and fundraisers. Indeed, even the liberal Washington Post has taken notice, criticizing Obama for attending more than 400 fundraisers since taking office -- nearly double the amount attended by George W. Bush at this stage of his presidency.
Thus, Obama is racking up hours on the most expensive luxury jet on the planet in order to hang with his Left Elite benefactors -- all at taxpayers expense. And when he's not flying off to hobnob with one percenters in places like the Hamptons last week, he's off on vacations at wealthy playgrounds like Martha's Vineyard, or taking his entourage on $100 million "family" trips to Africa.
To paraphrase Mark Twain, "Suppose you were a liberal, and suppose you were a hypocrite. But I repeat myself."
Fact is, most rich liberals are "upstairs people" -- the Dukes, Earls and Barons of Downton Abbey, Lords pretending to identify with Commoners, but washing their hands twice after contact with any of them. They only drop down from their exclusive clubs and gated communities to toss larded pork at the masses in order to ensure that the commissars who do their bidding will protect their estates.
Of course, the 99 percenters suspend their deeply held prejudicial classist convictions when rich liberals are on ballots. They tolerate them in order to form Faustian bargains necessary to advance their statist "dependency" agenda.
Thus, while the nation languishes through the sixth year of economic stagnation, the fulfillment of Obama's promise of "fundamentally transforming the United States of America," and as the population numbers of his urban poverty plantations set new records, there is also another record set under his watch.
There are now 268 millionaires in Congress, and as you might have surmised the net worth of Democrats exceeds the net worth of Republicans...
But I digress.
Like most rich liberals, those with presidential aspirations make every effort to cast their identity as card-carrying proletariats, who are thoroughly in touch with the "struggling middle classes."
The most ridiculous example of this charade was Hillary Clinton's recent effort to portray herself as "dead broke," when in fact she and her serial sex-offender husband converted their White House tenure into wealth that now ranks them among the tiniest fraction of the richest One-Percenters.
Now, it appears Hillary has an equally disingenuous contender for the 2016 Democrat presidential nomination who may well send her packing in the primary: Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA).
So, just who is Elizabeth Warren?
Well, for starters, she's another limo-liberal hypocrite. Like Clinton, she recently attempted to deceive her supporters into believing what she isn't: "I realize there are some wealthy individuals," she said. "I'm not one of them..."
But according to her Personal Financial Disclosures filed in advance of her 2012 Senate campaign, she has something in excess of $14.5 million in accumulated wealth, had income in excess of $700,000 in her last year before being elected, and lives in a house valued at more than $5 million. But as for the wealthy, she's "not one of them."
Recently, lamenting the plight of the poor, Warren noted, "My brother lives on his Social Security. That's about $1,100 a month. $13,200 a year." Well, perhaps she should split her income with her brother, and donate the rest of her assets to charity.
In another fine example of deceptive rhetoric, Warren regurgitated her own version of Obama's "You didn't build that" insult to entrepreneurs across the nation. According to Warren, "There is nobody in this country who got rich on their own. Nobody. You built a factory out there -- good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. Now look. You built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea -- God bless! Keep a hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along."
Of course Warren, like Clinton and Obama, has never built anything but her investment portfolio, and refuses to acknowledge that successful entrepreneurs already pay 80% of federal and state taxes -- a violation of "the underlying social contract" which should imply flat taxation. Additionally, America's corporations pay the highest tax rates among the 33 industrialized nations. But Democrats never let facts get in the way of their classist political agenda, because their only real power is the ability to redistribute wealth to their constituents. And look what their so-called "Great Society" has gotten them.
So, why does it matter that Warren is as hypocritical about her wealth as Clinton?
Because she is a far smarter and more articulate Leftist than Clinton, and her policy positions mirror those of Obama, falling well to the left of Clinton.
She is the ideological heir apparent to Obama's "Imperial Presidency," and like Obama, she is a certifiable socialist -- a rising star among the New Democratic Party statists, who have infested the once-noble Democrat Party. Obama ran to the left of Clinton in the 2008 Democrat presidential primary, and Warren will do the same in the 2016 primary.
This doesn't mean Warren is a presidential shoe-in. Indeed, she has said that she's not running at all in 2016. But her performance at the "Nutroots Nation" convention recently certainly resembled the launch of a presidential bid, as she laid out her 11 Commandments of Progressivism.
If Warren runs, she would be a more formidable general election opponent than Clinton. She would also do a better job of rallying female voters -- and female voters have elected every Democrat president since Kennedy.
In 1797, John Adams wrote, "If an election is to be determined by a majority ... procured by a party through artifice or corruption, the Government may be the choice of a party for its own ends, not of the nation for the national good." And that describes the Democratic Party today.
P.S. Despite Warren's reassertion in an upcoming book that she has "native American ancestry," that lie is still just that. Honest Injun.
Mark Alexander is the executive editor of the Patriot Post.