Former Gov. Charlie Baker (R-MA) holds a double-digit lead over Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) in a hypothetical U.S. Senate race match-up in Massachusetts, according to a poll.
The poll, conducted by the Fiscal Alliance Foundation, shows that 49 percent of the likely voter respondents would back Baker if he announced a bid, placing him 15 points ahead of Warren at 34 percent.
Moreover, the moderate Republican leads by a wide margin with independents, as Fiscal Alliance Foundation spokesman Paul D. Craney noted in a release associated with the survey:
Senator Warren has significantly higher unfavorable numbers than her fellow Democrats statewide and that seems to be creating an opening for Baker, who always enjoyed large amounts of cross-party appeal. Looking at the cross tabs, Republicans seem to coalesce behind Baker (79%) in a way that Democrats do not around Warren (56%), and Baker leads with independent/unenrolled voters 2-1 at 57-26%.
Warren’s favorability rating is 5 points above water, with 49 percent finding her favorable and 44 percent saying she is unfavorable, including 35 percent who find her “very unfavorable.” As Craney pointed out, her favorability rating indicates she is far less secure than some of her fellow prominent elected Democrat officials in the Bay State.
For instance, Boston Mayor Michelle Wu’s net favorability rating is plus 16 percent, as 47 percent view her positively, versus 31 percent who do so negatively. Similarly, 52 percent of likely voters say newly-minted Gov. Maura Healey (D-MA) is favorable compared to 27 percent who say she is unfavorable, giving her a net rating of plus 25 percent.
Baker and Warren both ran their last general election campaigns in 2018, and – perhaps surprisingly – Baker commanded more votes than Warren as a state-wide candidate that year and won his race by a larger margin than she won hers. In his contest against Democrat Jay Gonzalez, Baker took 1,781,982 votes to Gonzalez’s 886,281, an impressive margin of 67 percent to 33 percent for a Republican in deep-blue Massachusetts.
The general election for U.S. Senate in 2018 saw a race between Warren and Republican Geoff Diehl, who lost last year’s gubernatorial race to Healey. Warren garnered 1,643,213 votes, or 60 percent of the electorate, to Diehl’s 979,507 votes (36 percent).
While the poll looks promising for Baker, it remains to be seen if he will launch a bid for the seat after becoming the president of the National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA) a few months ago.
The Fiscal Alliance Foundation sampled 750 likely voters May 7-8. The margin of error is plus or minus 3.6 percent, with a 95 percent confidence level.
More importantly, the racial favoritism implicit in the claim that she unfairly benefited from racial preferences is a stain on contemporary society that openly endorses racial preferences. With her educational background (B.A. Williams College, M.A. and Ph.D at Brown), she has a far more prestigious background than Elizabeth Warren presented when receiving tenure at Harvard and being acclaimed as a breakthrough Native American faculty member. All in all, the Berkeley professor has a far better case to remain unpunished than does Senator Warren.
Echoes of Fauxcahontas Elizabeth Warren as fake Indian professor uncovered at Cal Berkeley, facing demands to resign By Thomas Lifson
Another high-profile female at one of America’s most prestigious universities has been outed for having falsely claimed Native American heritage and thereby illicitly benefitted from affirmative action, as well as deceiving research subjects with her false claims. The controversy has been building for over half a year, after Associate Professor Elizabeth Hoover in October 2022 revealed on her personal website that she had incorrectly claimed Native American heritage.
Via The Daily Californian student newspaper at UC Berkeley November 1, 2022:
“I have always introduced myself as the person my parents had raised me to be—someone of mixed Mohawk, Mi’kmaq, French, English, Irish, and German descent and identity,” Hoover said in the statement. “My identity within the Native community, rooted in the histories of my family, is something that shaped my entire life, even though I was not eligible for tribal enrollment due to blood quantum requirements.”
In her statement, Hoover also noted that she came to the conclusion that she cannot claim Indigenous descent after conducting genealogical research in response to recent questions about her identity, which she said she was first alerted to when a draft of a “pretendian” list circulated about a year ago.
Hoover said the news left her and her family “shocked and confused.”
“I made that public statement in order to communicate this message to a broader public,” Hoover said in an email. “I had no idea there would be the level of backlash that I and my collaborators are now facing. The statement was meant to start a conversation.”
Hoover added that she understands that the root of this general anger is the “idea that someone has wrongfully taken or benefitted from something set aside for other marginalized people.”
Hoover added that the intentional decision to wrongfully take from marginalized communities is “unconscionable.” However, she said she does not believe she has done this because she was raised with a Native American identity, rather than coming into it later in life.
Professor Hoover on the left (Twitter via the UKDM )
Strikingly, her excuse for her false claims echoes that of Senator Elizabeth Warren: family lore, uncritically accepted, to great personal benefit. Her apology did not lead to forgiveness, however. On November 11, 2022, a group of over 350 people with roots in academia and Native American concerns issued a highly critical “collective statement” ( full text here ). It begins:
Elizabeth Hoover (Pretendian) is one of many settlers in academia who claim Indigeneity based on unverified family lore and has marketed this identity for personal gain, acquiring both fellowships and faculty positions (Hilleary 2022, Isai 2022, Viren 2021). The authors of this letter are Indigenous scholars and former students of Hoover with affiliations at Brown University and UC Berkeley. As scholars embedded in the kinship networks of our communities, we find Hoover’s repeated attempts to differentiate herself from settlers with similar stories and her claims of having lived experience as an Indigenous person by dancing at powwows absolutely appalling. Her statement fails to acknowledge the prevalence of settler self-indigenization (Sturm 2011), which we find wholly unacceptable. As students at Cal, we are extremely disappointed by the University’s performative statements and inaction. We demand that Elizabeth Hoover resign and seek out a new position based on her true identity. Although we offer steps of accountability, we defer judgment to the communities she has commodified. (emphasis added)
Hoover’s entire academic career appears to be built on Native American-related research. She specifies her research on the University’s website:
My research focuses on Native American environmental health and food sovereignty movements. My first book The River is In Us; Fighting Toxins in a Mohawk Community , (University of Minnesota Press, 2017) is an ethnographic exploration of Akwesasne Mohawks’ response to Superfund contamination and environmental health research. My second book project From ‘Garden Warriors’ to ‘Good Seeds;’ Indigenizing the Local Food Movement (University of Minnesota Press, forthcoming) explores Native American farming and gardening projects around the country: the successes and challenges faced by these organizations, the ways in which participants define and envision concepts like food sovereignty, the importance of heritage seeds, the role of Native chefs in the food sovereignty movement, and convergences between the food sovereignty and anti-pipeline and anti-mining movements. I also co-edited, with Devon Mihesuah, Indigenous Food Sovereignty in the United States: Restoring Cultural Knowledge, Protecting Environments, and Regaining Health (University of Oklahoma Press, 2019). I have published articles about food sovereignty, environmental reproductive justice in Native American communities, the cultural impact of fish advisories on Native communities, tribal citizen science, and health social movements.
Professor Hoover's portrait from her university website page
As the story of her false claims spread into national media, generating more outrage, Professor Hoover issued a longer, even more groveling apology on her personal website, dated May 1, 2023. It begins:
I have brought hurt, harm, and broken trust to the Native community at large, and to specific Native communities I have worked with and lived alongside, and for that, I am deeply sorry.
I am a white person who has incorrectly identified as Native my whole life, based on incomplete information. In uncritically living an identity based on family stories without seeking out a documented connection to these communities, I caused harm. I hurt Native people who have been my friends, colleagues, students, and family, both directly through fractured trust and through activating historical harms. This hurt has also interrupted student and faculty life and careers. I acknowledge that I could have prevented all of this hurt by investigating and confirming my family stories sooner. For this, I am deeply sorry.
Having my family claim Native identity does not mean Native nations claimed us. By claiming an identity as a woman of Mohawk and Mi’kmaq descent without confirming it with communities of origin, and by not confirming kinship ties back to politically and culturally affiliated Indigenous peoples, I betrayed and hurt my students, collaborators, and friends. I have negatively impacted people emotionally and culturally. For this hurt I have caused, I am deeply sorry.
For what is worth, Professor Hoover’s scholarship has not been impugned as erroneous, and has won several awards. He crime, such as it is, rests on falsely claiming victim-identity status. It may well be that some research subjects would have refused to talk to her, or have been more reticent, had she not claimed Native American status. But that reflects their own racial prejudice, as well as her deception. I have a hard time determining her stance as more blameworthy than theirs, if that is the case.
More importantly, the racial favoritism implicit in the claim that she unfairly benefitted from racial preferences is a stain on contemporary society that openly endorses racial preferences. With her educational background (B.A. Williams College, M.A. and Ph.D at Brown), she has a far more prestigious background than Elizabeth Warren presented when receiving tenure at Harvard and being acclaimed as a breakthrough Native American faculty member. All in all, the Berkeley professor has a far better case to remain unpunished than does Senator Warren.
As for the demands that she resign, the supposition must be that she would end up teaching at a less prestigious campus than Cal Berkeley. She is trained in and an expert on researching Native American environmental issues, so what other career options exist that build on her years of training? Maybe government work?
A confession: I have a personal interest in the proposition that a scholar need not be of a certain ethnic background in order to become an expert on that culture. In my first career, I was a scholar of Japan without a drop of Japanese blood in me. And I reject the notion that genetics determines the legitimacy of scholarly work, as well as racial and ethnic preferences in hiring.
JUST HAPPENED! Elon Musk EXPOSED Senator Elizabeth Warren's CORRUPTION!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_e5F6frnBc
BUT SUCK IN BRIBES!
Warren’s Anti-Corruption Plan Does Not Prevent Hunter Biden Scenario
JOHN BINDER
An anti-corruption plan put forth by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) in the 2020 Democrat presidential primary would not prevent a scenario where a sitting vice president’s child is allowed to serve on the board of a foreign corporation, as former Vice President Joe Biden’s son did. Released last month, Warren’s plan to “End Washington Corruption” seeks to end a series of loopholes where presidents, vice presidents, lawmakers, and their family members have been able to effectively sell influence to line their pockets — a scheme that the Clintons were famously accused of with the Clinton Global Foundation, and one which Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, are now accused.
In April 2014, as Breitbart News’ Haris Alic has reported , Hunter Biden was appointed to serve on the board of Ukrainian oil company Burisma despite having no qualifications do to so. At the same time, Biden led the Obama administration’s response to Russia’s invasion of Crimea, pushing billions of dollars in U.S. taxpayer aid to the Ukrainian government. Some of that money allegedly filtered out to Burisma, the corporation of which Biden’s son was a board member.
When asked last month whether her anti-corruption plan would prevent a case where a sitting vice president’s child could serve on the board of a foreign corporation, Warren evaded the question, saying “I don’t know.”
“I’d have to go back and look at the details on the plan,” Warren said.
A review of Warren’s anti-corruption plan, though, reveals that there is no explicit language preventing another case where a sitting vice president’s child can serve on the board of a corporation, let alone a foreign corporation.
The closest Warren’s plan comes to dealing with a Hunter Biden scenario is banning lawmakers and their staff from serving on the boards of corporations, domestic and foreign.
“My plan bans members of Congress and senior congressional staff from serving on corporate boards — whether or not they’re paid to do so,” the plan states.
While Warren’s plan would mandate presidential transition team members to disclose their involvement with corporations, foreign governments, and other potential conflicts of interest, this portion of the plan does not extend to members of an administration who later involve themselves in potential conflicts of interest.
“It also strengthens ethics requirements for presidential transition teams to ensure that those who are shaping our government disclose any conflicts of interest and comply with the highest ethical standards,” the plan reads.
Though the Hunter Biden question was asked of Warren almost two weeks ago, her campaign has yet to follow up on whether they would revise their anti-corruption plan to include banning the family members of sitting vice presidents from serving on the boards of foreign corporations.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder .
AND WATCH THE DEM PARASITE LAWYER-POLS RAKE IN THE SPEECH FEE BRIBES!
Warren: We Are Headed for Financial Crisis as Bad as 2008
https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2020/03/05/warren-we-are-headed-for-financial-crisis-as-bad-as-2008/
PAM KEY
5 Mar 2020 630
Thursday on MSNBC’s “The Rachel Maddow Show,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) predicted that coronavirus could cause a global financial crisis as large as 2008.
Maddow asked, “You rose to national prominence around the last global financial catastrophe, predicting it, crucially helping explain it while it was happening, and then trying to save us from its impact. This crisis we’re going through now and heading into now because of coronavirus is different. Is it reasonable to be worried this might be a financial disaster of a similar scale?”
Warren said, “Yes.”
She continued, “Understand it this way. Before coronavirus was on anybody’s radar screen, this economy was already showing the cracks. Lending defaults, loan defaults were up. Small businesses were failing and not able to help pay their — not able to service their debts. There were declines in manufacturing. You kind of can see shaky signs in the economy, problem number one. And number two, the Trump administration had spent the bail-out tools. So they’d done this ginormous tax break and ballooned the debt and done rate cuts to juice the economy. And the consequences of both of those had not been investment in the real economy. It had been to do things like stock buybacks that produced things for a handful of folks at the top and executives but didn’t actually create more goods and more services in the economy.”
She added, “So, OK, so you’ve got a kind of cracky economy, and you’ve got the tools spent down and along comes the coronavirus. And now you’re going to get hit again because it’s things like supply chains. The trucks that are stopped in China and just literally the stuff is just not coming over. So manufacturers here in the United States that need 147 parts to put something together to send it out, two of those parts come from China, you’re done. You need to the ingredients to be able to manufacture a drug, and two of those come from China, and you’re just done on this. So that starts twisting the economy. Then part two, you have an economy right now that is deeply interrelated. Five big banks in America now, and they’re not only here, they’re tied all around the world. So as soon as one of these businesses that can’t do its manufacturing or can’t produce its drugs because it has a supply chain problem, can’t make a loan payment, and you start stacking those up all of a sudden—those banks they’re in trouble themselves. More defaults on the loans. Now the banks start to get in trouble.”
She concluded, “There’s a third problem, an incompetent administration. An incompetent administration is like its own natural disaster. When you’ve got a president who engages in magical thinking and says, no, he decided there were only 15 cases, and they would all be gone by April. And whatever it is he decides, my gosh, it almost doesn’t matter what he decides. The point is he’s not listening to the scientists. He’s not listening to the experts on this. And then he picks Mike Pence as the person in the White House who’s really going to be in charge of this. He picked the one person who actually has experience with a health care crisis, and that was back in Indiana, and Mike Pence was in charge as governor as made it a whole lot worse. It’s like the worst of all connections here. So if we were doing our dead-level best and going at this smart, we’d be working on the coronavirus. We’d be working on the tests as you talked about at the top, the vaccines. We would set aside a big fund of money so that we now would let anybody take sick leave who is diagnosed so people can keep themselves inside and try to slow down the spread. There are a lot of steps we could be taking on. They’re not taking them on. They’re engaged in a magical thinking. But there’s also steps we could be taking on the economic front, and it’s not just a rate cut, it’s actually we need to be talking about stimulus now. And look, yeah, they did the tax cuts and ran the debt up, and that makes it a lot tougher for us to get stimulus through now. So all these pieces are related to each other, and none of them are good.”
Elizabeth Warren: Lying, Money-Laundering Socialist Punishing the rich for generating – and enjoying -- their wealth.
Jason D. Hill
Sen. Elizabeth Warren said on Wednesday October 13, 2021, that billionaires who have enough money to shoot themselves into space , as Jeff Bezos did this summer, will pay for the Democrats’ multitrillion-dollar reconciliation bill that is still being negotiated in Congress.
Before analyzing the pure envy and hatred of the productive benefactors of humanity that lie behind her statement, let us identify Warren for what she is: an equivocating, lying, money-laundering, Ponzi-scheming socialist who lives to expropriate the wealth of others to finance socialist programs. She’s contributed nothing in terms of productive value to society—short of being some pit-bull bureaucratic watchdog who lives for enacting legalized theft and money-laundering schemes, which is what socialism boils down to. She denies the fact that production comes before distribution, and that the wealth she so gleefully wants to appropriate was made possible by the ratified choices of individuals who endorsed Bezos’ products and made him wealthy because he added superlative value to their quality of lives. The notion that billionaires don’t pay taxes is such a case of the Big Lie, that it is not even worth refuting.
What Warren despises is that Bezos regards his personal welfare, enjoyment, and pleasure—all value-choices that comprise his pursuit of his own happiness which is his inalienable right to do with as he pleases. He neither seeks nor needs the permission of others to live optimally.
Elizabeth Warren is jealous, envious, and filled with rage that he has so much surplus income that he can dare to spend it on what she considers to be a frivolous and wasteful activity. Guess what, Warren? The liberal state by design is supposed to remain agnostic on the question of persons’ conceptions of the good life—provided such choices do not violate the rights of others. She is outraged that he’d rather spend millions on a short trip to space than fund the decrepit and corrupt government schools that teach hatred and bigotry via Critical race Theory; that he doesn’t seem to care about funding historically Black colleges which are a total disaster (they are failing abysmally and graduating semi-literate students); that her tuition-free community college education plan won’t be financed. No one should ever be compelled to finance the education of another person’s child. We are not responsible for the procreative choices of other people. The responsibility for a child’s education lies with the parents.
If you cannot afford to educate a child then don’t have one, just as you would not purchase a house or car if you could not afford to finance them. No one has a constitutional right to have children. And no one’s child can be a necessary social good for anyone but the parents of that child. State schools today (and many private schools) are bastions of indoctrination centers teaching hatred of our great republic, encouraging and practicing cancel culture, weaponizing defiance against authority, decolonizing courses by stripping them of canonical texts, and turning schools into Marxist conduits of Social Justice, radical activism, and social eugenics breeding grounds to transform America into a communist charnel house by canceling human agency, and then history, and then our Constitution. No, Sen. Warren. Some of us are going to devote our lives to defunding all public schools and shutting down government schools. She is incensed that she won’t have her drug-pricing policies and undefined “climate crises” funded and foisted on corporations that would just stifle growth and productivity.
Warren knows that she must walk a fine line with corporations and folks like Bezos. Financing socialist programs is not as simple a matter as taxing-the-rich and using their wealth to indiscriminately finance said initiatives.
What the bark-with-no-bite senator wants to do is create a certain climate of resentment against success within the culture. She wants to reorient the sensibilities of the American people, to divest them of their personal independence and the cherished principle that they hold regarding property: that one has the legal and moral right to use and dispose of one’s property according to one’s judgment and conscience, provided it does not violate the individual rights of other persons.
Warren and the progressive left want to change the vocabulary of rights entirely. They want a notion of positive rights to be sneaked in surreptitiously for us to forget the proper understanding of rights as delineated by classical liberalism. John Locke, John Stuart Mill, Ludwig von Mises, and Ayn Rand all reminded us that rights pertain to a right to pursue action in pursuit of a good, an object, a service, and values. No one has the right to a job, a house, or an education per se; only the right to pursue the means to such tangible goods. Otherwise, one is demanding that one has a right to the efforts and actions and services of another. No one has ever been able to justify on what grounds such a right to that sort of action could be legitimized.
Warren, like all socialists, is a money appropriator. She has no intention of creating real wealth in the sense of creating a real value in the world whose application is manifestly ratified by the choices of others in trading their money for that applied value. She may be a money-earner, and she has grown rich by that means; but it was through the created wealth of a producer on whose efforts she herself is parasitic. She is mostly known in politics as someone who has been responsible for policies that have led to banking regulations. This means that she strangles and aborts initiatives, innovation, and the creative capabilities of others.
And this is what she hates about corporate leaders and those who have the temerity to enjoy their wealth by traveling into space. This woman bears the trademark of every money-laundering socialist: she has a sense of entitlement coupled with hatred for talent that can be monetized. She does not even have the dignity of a pillaging humanitarian. She’s a primal thug who is going after the rich for no other reason than because they are rich, and because their sensibilities and drives are offensive to her. She feels the rich should give back. But to whom and for what reason? From whom have they stolen or taken anything that was not theirs legally? They have raised the quality of lives and standard of living of many in ways that, if such persons had been left on their own, many of them otherwise would have been condemned to a life of destitution. Bezos has nothing to give back. He and his customers have traded value for value in a reciprocal exchange of mutual advantage.
Warren desires to bring the rich and affluent down to the level of the lowest common denominator of those whom she thinks need government help; to invoke some notion that those corporate leaders and billionaires are just like everyone else. But they are not. And they should never accept the uninvited moral agenda of lesser people.
I end with words addressed to money-laundering Sen. Warren via the great economist Ludwig von Mises, spoken to philosopher Ayn Rand when he told her she had the courage to tell the masses the truth. Von Mises said: “You are inferior, and all the improvements in your condition which you simply take for granted you owe to the efforts of men who are better than you.”
These words are applicable to the money-appropriating senator who would do best to genuflect before the billionaires and pay homage to them for the gift of her paycheck, rather than have the infernal impertinence to even aspire to lecture them—let alone steal their wealth.
Jason D. Hill is professor of philosophy at DePaul University in Chicago specializing in ethics, social and political philosophy, American foreign policy, and moral psychology. He is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center. Dr. Hill is the author of five books, including the forthcoming book, “ What Do White Americans Owe Black People: Racial Justice in the Age of Post-Oppression .” Follow him on Twitter @JasonDhill6.
No comments:
Post a Comment