She’s In: Warren Goes for 2020

Sen. Elizabeth Warren posted a video announcing the kickoff of her 2020 presidential campaign. Actually she only formed an exploratory committee, but aside from her ancestors’ DNA, what is there to explore? She’s in.
Warren tweeted: “Every person in America should be able to work hard, play by the same set of rules, & take care of themselves & the people they love. That’s what I’m fighting for, & that’s why I’m launching an exploratory committee for president.”
Commence now the public stoning by President Trump. He will be merciless, but Warren doesn’t care. She raised $34.7 million in her Senate run, of which she has $12.5 million on hand. This announcement has little to do with going after Trump, though surely she will. It has to do with being first in line for the endless buffet of handouts and political donations from liberal causes.
To beat Trump, Democrats are going to have to pony up at least a billion dollars, and that doesn’t include the primaries. Warren may not make it very far given her multiple self-owns dealing with her DNA and claims of Native American ancestry, which have been widely derided.
Someone had to test the waters, and either the midnight coven of Democrats threw chicken bones and decided it was her, or she on her own accord threw herself into the swirling maw a few months early. Testing how the base and donors react is a worthy endeavor.
But only by the farthest stretch of anyone’s imagination would Warren actually become the nominee, or (try not to lol) win.
While the mainstream media will be kind to her, even the Washington Post offered a bit of an eye-roll.
But recent events have illustrated some of her potential weaknesses. In a liberal state, Gov. Charlie Baker (R) got more votes than she did in November, and a recent survey in Massachusetts had her trailing former vice president Joe Biden and Sanders in a hypothetical 2020 matchup. A recent poll of likely caucusgoers in Iowa had her in fourth place at 8 percent, trailing Biden, Sanders and Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-Tex.).
Of that list, only Biden has won the last election in which he ran. Trailing Sanders, after he was steamrolled by the Clinton machine, and O’Rourke, who has won precisely nothing, is a very bad omen.
If her friends are tilting their heads and smirking, a quick perusal of Twitter uncovers a pot full of mockery by conservatives.
And my favorite, pre-empting the God-forsaken thought that anyone should be nostalgic for Hillary:
Someone had to be first, and we should all thank Sen. Warren for her commitment to becoming the first to attain irrelevance in the 2020 race.

Elizabeth Warren is Dead Wrong About Eastern European Success With Free Markets

The Massachusetts senator blames the U.S. for spreading “cutthroat capitalism” to the former Eastern Bloc.

Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) is not only mulling a run for president in 2020, she’s trying to market-splain to formerly Soviet-occupied Eastern European countries why shouldn’t have embraced “cutthroat capitalism” after regaining independence.

“Champions of cutthroat capitalism pushed former Soviet states to privatize as quickly as possible despite the enormous risk of corruption,” Warren said in remarks at American University on foreign policy. Watch her full remarks below:

Her statement is tone deaf and would be rightly laughed at by nations like the Baltic Republics of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania (the latter of which is my ancestral homeland).

They are enjoying free enterprise very much and succeeding at it. Per Heritage Foundation’s Economic Freedom Index, Estonia is the 7th most economically free country in the world. Lithuania is down to the 19th spot, while Latvia is the 28th most economically free country in the world, in this year’s world rankings. They all have free market institutes.

Here’s a good recap of why the three Baltics were quick to embrace free enterprise after their regained independence:

The recessions of the early 1990s overwhelmed Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia. A few years earlier the Soviet Union had collapsed, and with it the economic system that the occupying communist regime had enforced in the Baltic nations. In the span of only two years– from 1991 to 1993 – Estonia’s GDP dropped by 35 percent, while the economic output in Latvia and Lithuania fell by around 50 percent. In response, the three countries introduced an ambitious plan to reform and open up their markets. Flat income tax systems at low rates were put in place; general business-friendly regulations were established; governmental influence on the labour market was minimised.

Many economists viewed these changes as a gigantic gamble. The result was a resounding success. The average inflation adjusted growth rate* in the Baltics states from 1995 to 2014 was, as shown in the image below, over 5 per cent, or nearly four times the EU-28 average. No other European country matched this strong performance, driven in part by catch-up and growth-oriented economic policies. But it wasn’t all smooth sailing. In 2008 and 2009, the Baltic states were again hit hard by economic crises. The three nations were particularly sensitive to the global recession, since they had made the decision to maintain fixed exchange rates. Another factor was that foreign investment had contributed strongly to the rapid growth.When the global financial crisis hit, the flow of capital was reversed, deepening the crisis.

Do people really believe that countries occupied by tyrannical, socialist regimes would dip into that experiment again or allow that to transpire again after the bloodshed that ensued in 1939?

Not all the other formerly occupied republics share the same success, especially as Ukraine constantly struggles to ward off aggression from Russia. However, other countries that were coerced into communism – like Poland, Czech Republic, and Hungary— have also embraced a more market based system following the physical collapse of the U.S.S.R. and succeeded.

As an American of immediate Lithuanian descent, I’m grateful that my parents’ homeland is rejecting global socialism and succeeding economically. In fact, both Estonia and Lithuania are more market-friendly than the U.S. in its current standing.

Senator Warren need not shame Eastern European countries for embracing free enterprise. Perhaps she could learn a thing or two from them about sound economic policies.

h/t Daily Wire’s Emily Zanotti

The Democratic Party Has Finally Embraced Single-Payer

No one is really surprised – we all saw this coming. The Democratic Party has slowly encroached closer and closer to full-blown socialized health care for years now.

Conservatives warned that Obamacare would lead to this.. and now we are here.

Numerous Senate Democrats have openly embraced Sen. Bernie Sanders’ “Medicare for all” bill. This is legislation that would take the federal program that currently covers health care costs of citizens 65 and over and expand it to all Americans. If such a bill were to pass, the federal government would pay the tab of all medical expenses.

It’s not necessarily the number of Senate Democrats who have come out in support of this bill, but it’s the who. Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), among others, have publicly announced support for this legislation.

What do all four of these liberal senators have in common? They are all top contenders for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination.

These are people who will lead (or already leading) the Democratic Party in the years to come. The fact that they have already announced support for this bill before it’s been formally introduced (the bill drops today) demonstrates how much of a litmus test this will be. Any Democrat wishing to run against single-payer will automatically be branded as too moderate for their party nomination.

Bernie Sanders – a Democratic socialist who refuses to call himself a Democrat – is the sponsor of this bill. After his stunning performance in last year’s Democratic primary, it’s no shocker he returned to the Senate chamber a more powerful man among his caucus. Democrats hoping to run in 2020 don’t want to be outflanked from the left as happened to Hillary last year.

This bill has already gained strong momentum among Democrats despite it only being introduced today (Wednesday). Other, less interesting Democrats have also signaled support for the measure. They include Sens Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI.) and others. Even Sen Jon Tester, who represents the red state of Montana, has expressed mild interest in such an expansion of government into the healthcare realm.

Expect many more to follow the herd.

All the action isn’t only happening in the upper chamber. John Conyers, a Democrat representative from Michigan, has re-introduced a single-payer health care bill that has amassed well over 100 supporters – over half the Democratic caucus stands in approval. Conyers’ bill, a measure he introduces in the House on a perennial basis, enjoys more backing now than it ever has since he began introducing it over 10 years ago.

In other words: single-payer is no longer a sensitive subject for Democrats. It’s now mainstream.

There are, however, still some holdouts within Democratic ranks. After previewing it on Tuesday, both House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer have distanced themselves from Sander’s bill. Pelosi says she wants to focus on protecting Obamacare and Schumer more-or-less waffled by saying “there are many different bills out there” and did not endorse this particular one. The two are official congressional leaders of the Democratic Party – at least on paper.

These Democrats can hold their ground all they want, but the dam has already been flooded within their party.

Like it or not, Republicans are the only ones left to stop socialized health care from washing up on our shores.

Don’t miss out. Like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

Elizabeth Warren’s Liberation Theology

The definition of words and terms is everything in our modern culture. I mean it. I feel as if multiple times a day I have to stop conversations and ask the person I am chatting with to define what he or she meant by X or Y. Shared meaning and definition are absent in our world today and we are the worse for it. Gone are bright lines and in their place, muddled gray.

So when I saw the article from yesterday’s Boston Globe, Religion is a Constant Part of Elizabeth Warren’s Life, I was intrigued. Predictably, my first question was, “How does she define religion?” And, more specifically, “How does she define Christianity?”

Let’s take a few minutes to briefly define Christianity-real, orthodox, creedal Christianity.

For those unfamiliar with orthodox Christianity, there are the core essentials and peripherals.

Examples of the core essentials are:

  1. There is one, triune God.
  2. Jesus Christ died for our sins and rose on the third day
  3. There is a heaven and there is a hell
  4. There is sin and there is Truth

These are some of the essentials of orthodox Christianity, many of which are ensconced in the Nicene Creed. Without believing in these core essentials, you are not a Christian. You may be sincere in your faith (and by this I mean a Kierkegaardian leap of faith), but you are not a Christian. It’s that simple. Either you are or you aren’t by your acceptance of these core essentials. They are non-negotiables. And for those who will instinctively ask, “Who are you to judge?!” I will simply say, “I am not. I did not create the standards. I am merely pointing them out.”

Then there are the peripherals. Peripherals follow upon the core essentials-you have to have the core essentials established first.

Examples of peripherals are:

  1. Infant baptism versus adult baptism (my Baptist, Presbyterian and Anabaptist friends all just took a deep breath).
  2. Sabbatarian versus non-Sabbatarian
  3. The role of Christians in politics
  4. Etc, etc, etc.

Having established the above for the parameters of this post, let’s breakdown the article on Warren starting with the first quote.

But then Warren shifted her focus to Matthew 25:40 — and Jesus. “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me,” Warren said, quoting the Gospel. Then she shared her interpretation: “He’s saying to us, first, there’s God in every one of us, there’s Jesus in every one of us — however you see it in your religion, that inside there’s something holy in every single person.”

I liked the start. It’s true and it’s something I think the modern Church has lost sight of as government has drifted heavily into the business of welfare. Jesus said, “You always have the poor with you. . .” Poverty is a constant and it is up to the Church to care for the poor.

Then Warren veers away from Christian orthodoxy with, “There’s God in every one of us, there’s Jesus in every one of us. . .”

There’s not, actually, and that’s not what Jesus is saying.

That line is some modern combination of Eastern mysticism and pantheism and really bad theology. God created each one of us in His image, but He’s not in each one of us. The Bible is very clear about this subject, from the Old Testament to the New Testament. As the John wrote in I John 5:1, “Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God and everyone who loves the Father also loves the one born of Him.” For there to be an transformational indwelling, there must be genuine belief (see core essentials).

“See,” Jesus says, “I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me.”

Then there is the passage that should give anyone who reads it pause: Matthew 25: 31-46, the parable told by Jesus himself about the sheep and the goats.

When the Son of Man comes in his glory and all the angels with him, then will he sit on his glorious throne. All the nations will be gathered before him and he will separate them one from another, just as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on his right, “Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.”

As the passage continues, Christ gets to the goats.

And they (the goats) will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.

I could delve deeper into this, but the Bible is definitive on this subject. Warren has clearly drifted into trying to modify God into her own image because if God is in each one of us, then the distinction above between the sheep and the goats cannot be true.

As Tozer writes, the downfall of modern culture is that,

We insist upon trying to modify Him and bring Him nearer to our own image.

But let’s be clear on this subject: a god created in our own image is an idol.

As the article progresses, it becomes increasingly clear that Warren is engaged in a 21st Century version of Liberation Theology. This is reinforced by her relationship with Jim Wallis of Sojurners, a man for whom I have grudging respect and yet suspect his theology.

Wallis has (in)famously said, “Jesus didn’t speak at all about homosexuality. There are about 12 verses in the Bible that touch on that question. Most of them are very contextual. There are thousands of verses on poverty. I don’t hear a lot of that conversation.”

And, “I don’t think that abortion is the moral equivalent issue to slavery that Wilberforce dealt with. I think that poverty is the new slavery. Poverty and global inequality are the fundamental moral issues of our time. That’s my judgment.”

The problem for Wallis and Warren is that Scripture speaks to all of life and there is a continuity in the Old and New Testaments. The Triune God of the Old Testament is the same Triune God of the New Testament (“He who has seen me has seen the Father” and “I and the Father are one,” are just a few statements of this that Jesus made in the New Testament clarifying this. Even God says in Malachi, “I AM the Lord-I change not.”).

What does that mean? That Jesus did address the subject of homosexuality and sin and truth and our relationship to all of these subjects.

The other problem Wallis and Warren appear to face is absolute truth. As I wrote recently, this is the modern conundrum. When Jesus said, “I am the Way, the Truth, the Life,” he wasn’t walking about speaking truth or believing truth, he was saying, “I am Truth.” That is an absolute statement and from this Truth springs all other truth. The power of that statement begins with the first two words, “I am,” echoing God when Moses asks God who he is to say sent him when the people of Israel ask. God answers, “I AM who I AM.”

Given her voting record on abortion and her stance on same sex marriage, there is a clear divide between Biblical truth and Warren’s (and Wallis’) attempt to create a modern, “more friendly” God. There is an attempt by both to sweep stances that are contrary to Scripture under the rug. You cannot take parts from the sum and expect the whole.

So what have we learned about Warren’s faith from this article?

That it is skin deep, not life deep, picked and chosen for her own comfort.

Elizabeth Warren Knows the Left Has a Jesus Problem

While the loudest voices on the left these days tend to be godless atheist Bernie Bros, the Democrats are increasingly aware that they have a Jesus problem. As more and more atheists take over their party, they are leaving black and hispanic voters on the sidelines — two of the most religious demographics in America. On top of that, they are losing their ability to compete for heartland white voters. The bulk of the nation does not identify with New England and coastal atheism. Insult the “imaginary sky god” all you kids want, it doesn’t help you compete.

And Elizabeth Warren notes it. In a hagiographic profile in the Boston Globe, reporters want you to know Elizabeth Warren has Jesus, or at least pretends to have Jesus. There aren’t really any contradictions at play with Warren as there would be if there were a profile of, for example, Donald Trump’s faith.

The reporter does not try to reconcile Warren’s support of forcing Christians to provide goods and services for same-sex weddings. Nor is there any effort to reconcile Warren’s support of abortion on demand and rejection of explicit Biblical sins like homosexuality.

All Warren needs to do is have a favorite Bible verse and she’s got sainthood in the bag for reporters.

What is so funny about all this is how little reporters even understand about Christianity in America. Michael Cromartie of the Ethics & Public Policy Center, who just passed away, had ample stories of journalists confused about the faith. Once he was asked for the contact information for the author of one of the books of the Bible.

This is a fairly typical thing. Most reporters on the national scene are as liberal as Elizabeth Warren. So the fact she can quote a verse of the Bible means she is more religious than them. There is a problem though. Like Mitt Romney speaking conservatism as if he just took a Rosetta Stone course, Democrats tend to speak Christianity the same way. Sincere people of faith can spot those pandering and those winging it. Even Trump supporters will concede he isn’t really one of them. They just think he’s more with them than someone like Elizabeth Warren who can quote scripture, but imposes anti-Christian secularism on people of faith.

Even Satan can quote scripture, after all. That Elizabeth Warren feels compelled to quote scripture and go to churches is a reminder that Democrats know they have a problem, even if their base wishes they’d move on to full throated atheism.

Elizabeth Warren Is Sick – And So Am I

Senator Elizabeth Warren stated last week that she is “sick of coming down to the Senate floor to explain to Republicans what Planned Parenthood does,” before doing what she does best – using fiery rhetoric and purposely misleading statements to pander to her pink-hat supporters.

“I am sick of explaining that it provides millions of women with birth control, cancer screenings, and STI tests every year. I am sick of pointing out, again and again, that federal dollars do not fund abortion services at Planned Parenthood or anywhere else.”

If you’ll pardon the foray into the personal here, I’d like to use this space send the good Senator a message.

Senator Warren, I’m sick too.

I’m sick of hearing that Planned Parenthood doesn’t spend any of that half a billion dollars – roughly half its income – on abortion. Without that money, much of their abortion expenditure would have to be diverted to other costs – which means that regardless how they shuffle it around, that half a billion enables them to provide abortion services.

I’m sick of hearing that abortion only accounts for about 3% of the services provided by Planned Parenthood simply because they count handing out one brochure on safe sex as an equal service to the intentional dismembering and vacuuming out of a preborn human being.

I’m sick of hearing how Planned Parenthood uses that half a billion to provide those services, some of which can often be obtained from local government health clinics for free or nearly free.

I’m sick of hearing politicians like yourself and many of your colleagues on both sides of the aisle manipulate figures and twist facts for the sole purpose of gaining points for their own party, getting another mention in the New York Times, or firing up Twitter followers.

I’m sick of hearing that abortion is a women’s health issue when it’s really a women’s character issue.

But mostly I’m sick of hearing that every year hundreds of thousands of our most innocent are slaughtered on the altar of sexual freedom and personal convenience – and I’m sick of people like you telling me that I hate women if I don’t embrace it.

So, Senator, I have a suggestion that will end both your sickness and mine: Convince your friends at Planned Parenthood to just drop their abortion services.

If what you say is true, it shouldn’t be a problem. After all, it’s only 3% of what they do.

Imagine the result of such an action.

Republicans would be forced to either drop their opposition to Planned Parenthood or risk exposing themselves as the woman-haters you claim them to be.

Planned Parenthood could hang on to that half a billion dollars without having to spend millions of that same money lobbying to keep it.

They also wouldn’t have to spend so much time and effort playing a glorified shell game with that half a billion just to claim that none of it is spent on abortion.

And think of all the time you’d save and how much better you’d feel by not doing something that makes you sick. You could even use that extra time to do something for yourself.

I hear has some great tools for researching your family tree.


Elizabeth Warren On GOP Healthcare Bill: ‘These Cuts Are Blood Money’

Sen. Elizabeth Warren is not at all pleased with the Senate’s version of the GOP healthcare bill. She argued on Thursday that the budget cuts entailed in the legislation helps the rich and powerful in America at the expense of the poor and downtrodden. These are her same old, repetitive talking points when attacking Republicans.

Amid the criticism, Warren gave a rather extreme description of the bill. “These cuts are blood money. People will die,” the senior senator from Massachusetts exclaimed. She used the “blood money” phrase more than once in her tirade:

This is not the first time Warren has used severe rhetoric when talking about the GOP. It wont be her last. However, given the events of the past couple of weeks, you’d think Warren would be more careful with her words – even if it was simply out of respect for those injured by liberal violence.

Just a few days ago, a deranged shooter targeted Republican lawmakers at their baseball practice in Alexandria, Virginia. The attacker, James Hodgkinson, volunteered for Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign and “liked” many liberal and anti-GOP Facebook pages. Of course, neither Bernie nor any lawmaker is at fault for a crazy man’s actions. Nevertheless, we should be more careful of the language we use when speaking of our political opposition. There are sick people out there in the world and they are, in fact, listening to what we say.

I do not relish in saying this, but the left does appear to have a problem with violent rhetoric. Following the incident, a Nebraska Democrat Party official was recorded on tape saying he was glad Rep. Scalise was shot – he even said he wished the Republican majority whip had died. Let me emphasize that this was not some random individual. He was the technology chairman for the Nebraska Democrat Party.

President Trump has been on the receiving end of violent commentary for a long time now. Kathy Griffin ruined her career after posing for a photo holding a severed and bloodied “Trump” head. Actor Johnny Depp had to apologize Friday after publicly asking when the last time an actor had assassinated a president. These are all shocking statements. The civility of liberal discourse is fast deteriorating.

Be careful with your words, Sen. Warren. Your followers are listening.




Saying “Pocahontas” Isn’t Racist; But Pretending to be Pocahontas to Get a Job Might Be

During President Trump’s speech to the National Rifle Association last Friday, he again skewered the irritable Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts as “Pocahontas” – an obvious jab at her claims of Cherokee heritage. And as expected, the Democrat/Media Complex became apoplectic over the joke.

NBC News’ Daniel Arkin cried:

President Donald Trump returned to one of his most derogatory insults Friday, referring to Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren as “Pocahontas” — a jab at her Native American ancestry.

That would be a great lede, Daniel, if it weren’t for the fact that Warren has no Native American ancestry even though she claimed she did in order to appear in the minority section of a law-teachers-for-hire directory to land a job at Harvard – which is what makes Trump’s joke meaningful. Even the left-wing Atlantic revealed biological confirmation five years ago in 2012 that Elizabeth Warren has no blood claim to Native American heritage:

Warren would need to be certified by the Bureau of Indian Affairs as at least 1/16 Eastern Cherokee on a CDIB to be eligible to join the Eastern Cherokee. The United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee has an even stricter enrollment cut-off: “a minimum blood quantum requirement of one quarter (1/4) degree Keetoowah Cherokee blood” documented via a CDIB plus a direct descent from someone on the Dawes Rolls. Tribal citizenship standards are set by the tribes themselves, and not the U.S. government.

Elizabeth Warren has absolutely no family ancestors listed on the Cherokee tribe rolls, which stands as the legal requirement for all claims of membership or connection to the Cherokee Nation. While verbally protesting that her “family lore” confirms her belief, Warren has abjectly refused to take a DNA test to reveal whether or not she pretended to be Native American to get a job.

Yet demonstrating the kind of world we live in, rather than being roundly criticized and shamed for her exploitation of Native Americans to land a professor gig, colleagues and reporters defend her “honor” against the President’s mockery. Take Sam Stein of The Huffington Post who tweeted:

Trump calling Warren Pocahontas is racist. We kind of gloss over it at this point. But this is the president being racist.

I understand that the political left has butchered the definition of the term “racism” in their desperate efforts to destroy anyone who doesn’t share their politics. But how does this accusation even make sense? Let’s suppose Warren hadn’t lied, and she really was part Native American. Referring to her or mocking her by using the name of the great Native guide Pocahontas could fairly be deemed impolite or even loutish. But racist seems a stretch even if she was Native American.

But. She’s. Not.

Why does the Democrat/Media Complex like NBC and Huffington Post have such staggeringly low trust ratings amongst the general public? Because as Jay Caruso so aptly put it, they believe Trump calling Warren Pocahontas is more offensive than her faking her heritage for financial gain.

That’s the real joke.