It’s hard to believe that anyone can make President Joe Biden’s pet projects seem acceptable — even doable. But Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, a Democratic ally of the president, is effectively promoting parts of Biden’s socialistic agenda by proposing even more than he wants in spending and federal controls.
Warren wants to cancel $50,000 in indebtedness per college student borrower. Biden wants only $10,000 wiped away. Warren wants to dole out $700 billion for child care, far more than the president has proposed. She claims boosting taxes on the very wealthy will cover the costs of her ideas, and the hike she would impose on the rich exceeds what Biden has called for. The differences between her proposals and Biden’s have led many Americans to look more kindly on the president’s plans, as if he has suddenly become a cautious conservative.
Don’t be fooled by this seeming reversal. An important feature of the Biden-Warren differences is that the Biden plans, seemingly the “lesser of two evils,” is still evil. It really doesn’t matter which of these two wins out because the American people will be the losers if their ideas are not rejected. As it now seems, government growth will continue, the dollar will become weaker, and the plunge into total socialism — let’s call it “Marxism” which is what it truly is — will continue.
Born and raised in Oklahoma, Elizabeth Warren (nee Herring) started her climb to political power as a Republican where, in high school years, she was known to classmates as a “diehard conservative.” She’s now regularly refers to herself as a “progressive.” That puts her in league with a growing number of flaming leftists such as House member Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her hard-left colleagues who like to be known as “the Squad.” All socialists, they delight in identifying with Senator Bernie Sanders, the proud admitted socialist from Vermont who prefers to be labelled “Independent” because most Democrats aren’t sufficiently leftist enough to meet his socialistic plans.
Warren and her first husband, Jim Warren, left Oklahoma for Houston, where she became a student at the University of Houston, graduating in 1970 with a Bachelor of Science degree in speech pathology and audiology. Her turn-away from the GOP began when she and her husband relocated to New Jersey, where she enrolled in Rutgers Law School. While there, she not only earned a law degree, she also divorced Jim Warren and eventually married law professor Bruce Mann. Curiously, she has retained her first husband’s name, Warren. She then taught at a number of law schools starting with her Houston alma mater, followed by the University of Texas in Austin, the University of Michigan, the University of Pennsylvania Law School, and finally, in 1995, Harvard University Law School, where she changed her political affiliation to Democrat.
At Harvard, her teaching specialties included bankruptcy and commercial law, topics she had written about in several books. Already a rising political star, she earned a tidy six-figure salary that, combined with other compensation, added up an annual take of $291,876, the highest amount paid to any professor at Harvard.
Earlier, her switched political preference became obvious to University of Pennsylvania colleague Gary Francione, who remembered her as an outspoken conservative. He later commented after hearing her deliver a politically ambitious speech that he “almost fell off his chair” as he recognized how she had abandoned her past convictions and become a leftist Democrat. In 2011, when she announced her candidacy for U.S. Senate in Massachusetts, she defended forcing the well-to-do to pay more in taxation. Her claim that “no one got rich on his own” pointing to roads built by others, workers educated by others, safety paid for by others, etc. Barack Obama adopted the Warren put-down of any successful American entrepreneur in his 2012 run for reelection. And Warren won the Massachusetts Senate seat in 2012.
It was during her reelection campaign in 2014 (her first Senate victory filled only the final two years of the term originally won by the deceased Ted Kennedy) that her claim of American Indian heritage became a potentially harmful issue. She had earlier claimed such a background in Texas when registering as a lawyer, and then at Harvard where the university listed her as a “Native American” employee in an affirmative action report required by the federal government. When she seemed poised to run for president in 2020, Donald Trump jumped at the chance to label her “Pocahontas.” Intense investigation never proved that she benefitted politically from her claim to have Indian ancestry. And Harvard sought likewise to brush away the matter, even though the university’s listing her claim to be an Indian helped Harvard to satisfy federal diversity requirements.
Her first run for the presidency collapsed in 2020. Whether she will seek the presidency in 2024 or later remains to be seen. She is now a well-known national figure, and her liberal stand on issues has solidified her appeal to left-leaning voters. During her run for the Democratic nomination in 2020, she proposed as many as 45 plans to deal with a variety of issues. These included healthcare, universal child care, the opioid plague, clean energy, climate change, foreign policy, corporate influence at the Pentagon, police reform, and what she regularly insists is “Wall Street’s stranglehold on the economy.”
With one or two exceptions, none of her current stands can be classified as adherence to the U.S. Constitution. Warren never hesitates to refer to herself as a “progressive.” That means she’s no fan of the limitations on government in the U.S. Constitution. But it also means that, like her colleague Bernie Sanders and the House members of the “Squad,” she’s more comfortable with the proposals contained in The Communist Manfesto than with traditional Americanism
Americans who value personal freedom and limited government have no friend in Elizabeth Warren. It is our hope that many U.S. voters will become aware of how radical she has become.
