More Evidence Of The Ethics Void That Is Elizabeth Warren.

As America waits for the results of the epically botched Iowa caucuses, the fact that Elizabeth Warren still attracts any support at all is more testimony to the fact that 1) a lot of people are just as dumb as Warren thinks they are, and 2) Democrats just aren’t paying attention.

In an awful field for the Democratic Presidential nomination, Warren stands out for her Machiavellian manipulation, pandering and abuse of her presumed authority as a scholar. After I posted on Facebook about her head-explosionworthy promise to let trans teens have a veto over a cabinet position, maybe the most ridiculous pledge I’ve ever heard from any candidate regaring anything, a Facebook friend wrote that I appeared to be biased against Warren. It’s true—I am irrationally biased against politicians who say things they obviously don’t mean in order to get votes, and who are shameless, lying, demagogues.

Liz had a particularly revealing few days before the caucuses.  The Wall Street Journal reported:

On her first day as President, Elizabeth Warren says she will “ban fracking—everywhere,” while putting a “total moratorium” on leases offshore and on federal lands. Ms. Warren has signed a pledge to refuse campaign contributions over $200 from the oil-and-gas industry. She’s a past sponsor of a Senate bill called the Keep It in the Ground Act. Yet…

…. A 2011 deed says [Warren’s husband] had sold his interest in “all of the oil, gas, and other minerals” under assorted pieces of land in Latimer County and Pittsburg County. The stated price was $5,000. The buyer? Alexander Warren, the Senator’s son. The deed is dated Aug. 19. It says the transfer of royalty was effective Sept. 1. Two weeks later, Sept. 14, Ms. Warren announced her Senate candidacy in Massachusetts.

There are more transfers in 2014, as Ms. Warren’s political profile was rising. “We are on the cusp of a climate crisis,” she told the Senate that March, “a point of no return that will threaten our health, our economy and our planet.” Two months later, deeds dated May 19 say Ms. Warren conveyed to her two children, Alexander and Amelia, her mineral rights for lands in Okfuskee County and Hughes County, amid the Woodford shale field in the state’s southeast.

One of those Hughes County parcels appears on oil-and-gas leases from June and July 2017, signed by Alexander and Amelia, along with Ms. Warren’s three brothers. The agreements allow exploration and drilling on an 80-acre plot in exchange for royalties on any potential output. The leases had an initial term of three years, so they would appear to remain in effect through this summer.

“Elizabeth and Bruce sold or transferred these mineral interests to her children several years ago,” a Warren campaign spokesman said. “Her children still own them. They generated a few hundred dollars a year.” How long did Ms. Warren and Mr. Mann receive these royalties? Were the amounts larger in the past? The campaign declined to say. For context, gas wells become less productive over time.

…What makes this curious is that it belies the purism of her presidential rhetoric. She speaks as if oil inevitably stains everything it touches. “We want to make real progress on climate?” Ms. Warren said at a November debate. “Then we have to start by attacking the corruption that gives the oil industry and other fossil-fuel industries a stranglehold over this country.” A month later she added: “The biggest climate problem we face is the politicians in Washington who keep saying the right thing but continue to take money from the oil industry.”

But back when she was a Harvard law professor, Ms. Warren and her husband cashed those gas checks—or at least they did until the month before she launched her Senate campaign. Once she entered public life, they apparently unloaded the inconvenient assets by transferring them to her children, who then endorsed an oil-and-gas lease that would be politically toxic if it carried Ms. Warren’s signature.

Asks  Legal Insurrection: “Warren rails against oil and gas companies profiting from “pollution,” but it would appear she has no problem at all doing the same thing, even if it’s on a much smaller scale.  Maybe a reporter should ask her at what financial point profiting from pollution becomes unacceptable?  And in what way she thinks it acceptable for her to try to transfer “pollution” profits to her children just as she’s making a national name for herself as a green justice warrior?”

Why bother? Warren has posed as a Cherokee, she’s posed as a harassed employee, she’s posed as a discriminated-against expectant mother, and she’s posing as an environmental warrior.  It’s obvious now what she is. All people have to do is open their eyes.

The other revealing bit of grandstanding was this tweet:

This is no more than an old fashioned call for class warfare, as well as a transparent rejection of a citizen’s right to use his  whoever he desire. Warren is trying to poach Bernie’s ‘ Bolshevik vote. It’s none of Warren’s or government’s business whether the owner uses his wealth to buy a super-yacht, a South Seas island, clone a T-Rex or buy the Democratic nomination, but Warren wants it to be. Don’t spend your own money on approved projects and beneficiaries, and President Warren will see that its taken away from you. Her tweet is an appeal to base envy, and especially hypocritical for a woman whose  wealth has been estimated to be as much as $10 million.

Use your own money to pay off some student loans, Senator.

As usual, Warren used a lower-common denominator argument, failing to take into consideration that the 100 million isn’t just sealed in the boat. Reporter Ryan Saavadra explained, in a counter-tweet, that all that money,

“…helps employ people who: -Designed it -Built it -Transported building materials -Manufactured building materials -Mined elements needed to make building materials -Etc… Those people get paid for their work, which allows them to live.”

 

Now here’s the funny part: Warren didn’t name the NFL team the yacht-happy owner owned, but it’s the Washington Redskins. You know, this team…

How ironic.

8 thoughts on “More Evidence Of The Ethics Void That Is Elizabeth Warren.

  1. I am happy to report that I have distrusted (is “mistrusted” a word?) Elizabeth Warren since the first time I saw her carping against big business in the 1990s in CLE seminars where she spoke on bankruptcy matters. My colleagues raved at her brilliance and effective oratory skills. My colleagues were dismayed that I didn’t get on the Warren Train to Nowhere. I thought then, as I do now, that she is shameless. I was pleased to see she was polling at 6 or 7 percent in various Iowa polls yesterday, even though Iowans can’t figure out how to run a cellphone app. Hopefully, that will stick a fork in her future political ambit. . . oh, wait . . . she still gets to keep her Senate seat. Dumb luck, that. As an aside, maybe there should be a law that when a sitting member of Congress runs for higher office said person must step down from the current one and let that state’s party fill the vacancy with someone otherwise not distracted by a higher calling.

    As a further aside, watching the Iowa caucus mess on CNN and Fox, I was amused that Jake Tapper actually criticized Democrats for incompetence and Bret Beier actually stated that they had nothing to talk about since the polls were “verifying” results. On both networks lovely people dressed in their Election Bests droned on about silly things. Oh, and Amy Klobuchar gave her victory speech (to which my long-suffering wife responded, “Good Lord she is dull”) and someone on Fox said it was a brilliant move to set up victories in New Hampshire and Heaven knows where else.

    Laura Ingraham retorted with a “what else does she have to lose?”and promptly discussed Trump’s polling in Iowa, which apparently is a thing – who knew? She said his popularity is riding somewhere around 60% compared to the Democrats’ 26% to 30%. Maybe that is a false comparison because Trump is the GOP candidate and Democrats still need to pick one but her point was Trump still wins Iowa in November.

    jvb

  2. “I was pleased to see she was polling at 6 or 7 percent in various Iowa polls yesterday, even though Iowans can’t figure out how to run a cellphone app.” – jvb

    As an Iowan, I feel like I should be offended, but I’m so happy at this – 93-94% of those polled don’t want anything to do with Elizabeth Warren – that all offense is washed away.

    I actually got my first Democratic-party text message yesterday from the Warren camp, asking if she could count on my vote. I responded with “Uh…no, but thanks for asking.” Fifteen minutes later, the phone beeped again with, “Are you a democrat?” I did not respond, but in hindsight, I should have written later in the evening, “I’m a software developer and it looks like you all could use my help.”

    Anyways, what a revealing post, Jack. We just achieved energy independence last fall. I believe you wrote that we were a net exporter, and Senator Warren pledges on day one to end it, making us subservient to foreign, Middle-East oil…and OPEC influence. There are a great many reasons to avoid this woman…and this is a big one.

    I think I’ll send my text-message response to Warren this morning, and mention the fracking.

  3. It’s true—I am irrationally biased against politicians who say things they obviously don’t mean in order to get votes, and who are shameless, lying, demagogues.

    Jack, I’m not sure this can be accurately qualified as an irrational bias. It is defensibly disqualifying for someone to exhibit this behavior, so if you put more weight on this than other folks do, I’d be hard pressed to say that is in any way an irrational bias, though bias it may be.

    Maybe a better way to put that is that it’s an important criterion in your judgment — I think fairly so.

    Warren’s dedication to extreme Leftist positions such as class warfare, socialistic embrace of bigger government, sexual identity politics and climate alarmism are jointly and severally disqualifying for me, regardless of her sincerity or lack thereof. Does that make me “irrationally biased?” I like to think it makes me eminently sensible.

    I won’t attack Warren on the substance of this post since you have done so eloquently, but I do think we need to recognize that it is never “irrational” to be biased against a liar, a panderer, a phony, and a race/gender huckster. I consider it a societal duty to reject such people, and with prejudice (note: I almost wrote “extreme prejudice,” but realized that sounds like a death threat).

  4. After I posted on Facebook about her head-explosion worthy promise to let trans teens have a veto over a cabinet position, maybe the most ridiculous pledge I’ve ever heard from any candidate regarding anything, a Facebook friend wrote that I appeared to be biased against Warren.

    How did such an idea even occur to her?

    It would be like giving an anorexic teen veto power over an appointment of an Assistant Secretary for Health.

    Or giving some kid that identifies as Commandant of the United Nations Space Marines veto power over an appointment of a Secretary of Defense.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.