Posts Tagged ‘elizabeth warren’

It’s been really something watching Elizabeth Warren go wild about pregnancy centers in the post Roe world because I’m so familiar with such centers and the work they do.

Such as Mira Vida, at Belmont Abbey College which allows pregnant college age women to transfer to Belmont Abbey college and get 10 classes hours for free while Mira Vida provides help both before and after the birth of their child.

Or Visitation House that gives residency, food, shelter and help on parenting and more including counseling and life classes to pregnant woman before and after they deliver.

Or problem pregnancy that provides financial, spiritual, social and physical needs of pregnant women so they can keep their children without fear.

As you can see the attacks on the center have been taking place long before the Dobbs decision.

and of course the video from this week about First Concern pregnancy centers that again focus on removing the problems that can prevent a woman from having their child rather than seeing the baby as the problem

All of these centers have some things in common

  • All of them attack the problems that women might face with pregnancy rather than the child being the problem
  • All of them serve a lot of women in financial need particularly the poorest
  • None of them restrict their support based on the religion or lack thereof of the mother
  • They get little or no attention from the media for the work they do

But there are two points that are really central to the hatred of these centers by the Democrat left in general and Senator Warren in particular

  1. All of these centers operate through private donations vs taxpayer funds meaning that the money is going to support women and their needs rather than financing Democrat activists and allies.
  2. Since there are no federal millions going to these centers there is no money to be kicked back to the Democrat party or their superpacs, or the campaigns of individual democrats running at the local, state or federal level.

Put simply there is no graft in it for the left and thus they are of no use to Democrats.

This is also why the media has had little or no interest in covering, promoting or extolling the good works that these groups and hundreds like them all across the nation are doing because every donated dollar to these organizations that saves a child’s life eats into Planned Parenthood’s bottom line which mean it eats into the campaign funds and support of thousands of Democrat activists and candidates.

It’s one thing to help women & children but if it shows Christianity in a good light and doesn’t help the Democrat Party it’s just not newsworthy.

By John Ruberry

In their quest to cure themselves of Trump Derangement Syndrome, Democrats have lined up, albeit sometimes briefly, behind several frontrunners for the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, including Pete Buttigieg, Elizabeth Warren, Michael Bloomberg, Bernie Sanders, and now, Joe Biden.

Also, for a bit, Beto O’Rourke and Kamala Harris were seen as top tier candidates.

Biden certainly had a fabulous Super Thursdayyes, the gaffe-prone former vice president said that. It really was Super Tuesday, but his rise was largely brought about by the endorsements of Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar, who may have slipped yesterday by saying she’ll be on the ticket with Biden this fall. That of course can only mean Biden has already asked her to be his running mate.

I won’t be surprised if Klobuchar dresses up as Princess Leia and utters, “Help me Jobi-wan Biden, you’re my only hope.”

But what if Biden fails? Oh, sure, he’s the favorite to win the Democratic nomination. But the general election is eight months away. A lot can go wrong, especially when you are Joe Biden.

For years Biden has behaved like a Chicago ward boss engaging in influence peddling, benefitting not only he son, Hunter, but his brother, James. Hunter formerly sitting on the board of Ukrainian energy firm Burisma Holdings, despite having no experience in energy and not speaking Ukrainian, is the most egregious instance. And of course Joe bragged that he got a Ukrainian prosecutor fired who was looking into Burisma.

Then there are the Biden gaffes. They are so many of them that they can provide that material for a short book. Or maybe a long one, particularly when we figure in future gaffes.

Because, as Mark Levin phrased it on his show a few days ago–I hope I have the quote right, “Joe Biden’s best days are behind him,” quickly adding. “Then again, I don’t think he had any best days.”

If elected president Biden will be 78 on inauguration day. At age 77 Biden sometimes seems confused in his appearances. In its tepid endorsement of Biden last week, the Chicago Tribune touched on the gaffes and his mental state. “Biden is not the perfect candidate,” later adding, “He has demonstrated a propensity for gaffes and lack of clearheadedness on the campaign trail.”

So far in this campaign Biden has twice forgotten what state he was in. No where in the world, Levin explained in that same broadcast, do people vote on Thursday. Now that Biden is the frontrunner his upcoming gaffes will receive much more attention and yes, scrutiny. What if these upcoming verbal miscues and his, in the Trib’s words, “lack of clearheadedness,” turns Jobi-Wan Biden into Old Man Joe. 

Yesterday in St. Louis a shaky Biden said, “We can only re-elect Donald Trump.”

Yes, Donald Trump is the oldest man to be elected president in his first term. But few people half the president’s age can speak on the fly for over an hour as Trump does in his regular rallies. 

But if Old Man Joe and his twin–Influence Peddler Joe–becomes a liability to the Democrats, as Bernie Sanders’ socialism apparently has, where do the Dems turn for their next only hope? 

Is there anyone left on the Democrats’ bench? 

Maybe Al Gore. Or Hillary Clinton.

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

Good luck with that

by baldilocks

Weaklings.

Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar wants you to think her struggles to gain momentum in her presidential bid are due to her sex — and the bias of the American public.

The Democrat took a swipe at fellow White House contender Pete Buttigieg, who leads her, by saying the South Bend mayor likely wouldn’t have garnered the support he has — given his light resume (in her opinion) — if he were a woman. (…)

California Sen. Kamala Harris raised similar claims to explain her single digit showings in the polls, questioning whether Americans are ready to elect a woman as their commander in chief.

“Essentially, is America ready for a woman and a woman of color to be president of the United States?” Harris posited in an Axios interview in late October. (…)

And let’s not forget that Hillary Clinton has spent the years following her loss to Donald Trump trying to blame sexism and other character flaws among Americans for why she isn’t the first female president. Perhaps she’s forgotten she did get 3 million more votes than Trump. But thanks to the Electoral College, Trump outplayed her.

The writer doesn’t mention any complaints from Elizabeth Warren on the topic, and for a good reason; she’s polling right behind the front-runner — Joe Biden — as the potential Democratic Party nominee.

Okay, let’s pretend that America’s goose isn’t cooked if President Trump is removed from office or if he loses the 2020 election. Could you imagine being hectored and scolded for your “sexism” every time someone opposes a distaff President of the United States? I mean, it was bad enough being called racist for opposing the 44th president or for supporting the 45th.

What these women are doing is as old as the oldest profession: turning their deficiencies as candidates into someone else’s fault.

Some advice from the cheap seats: suck less, ladies. Suck it up, drive on, and quit your complaining. After all, your purses are still being filled and that’s something for which to be grateful.

Wait … gratitude? From leftist women? Never mind.

Now. We return you to your regularly scheduled Impeachment Theater, featuring another Democrat woman whining.

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng has been blogging since 2003 as baldilocks. Her older blog is here.  She published her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game in 2012.

Follow Juliette on FacebookTwitterMeWePatreon and Social Quodverum.

Hit Da Tech Guy Blog’s Tip Jar !

Or hit Juliette’s!

During the last presidential debate Senator Elizabeth Warren talked about her plan to punish those who are the most success in this country.  Of course she did not use the word punish, preferring to use one of the usual progressive platitudes.  I’m sure you can guess which one in a microsecond.  Warren is not the only democratic presidential candidate pushing a wealth confiscation scheme, at least two others are.

This type of wealth confiscation has been tried in several states and a great many countries with the same disastrous results.  The Mises Institute article The Problem with Elizabeth Warren’s Wealth-Tax Plan discusses Senator Warren’s plan in great detail.   

The central argument of Warren’s the wealth-tax proposal is this: through a progressive wealth tax system — which means those with more wealth will pay higher tax rates — the wealthiest people in America will pay their “fair share” and that fair share will enable the equal redistribution of wealth.

As you can see from the first component of her proposal, this is not just a tax increases of 2 percent on income, this is a tax on assets and wealth.  Components two and three prove that this is just the beginning,

First, households would pay an annual 2 percent tax on all assets for net worth equal or less than $50 million. Individuals and families who are worth more than a $1 billion would pay a 3 percent tax . Second, the Warren forecasts a revenue of $2.75 trillion, and that would be allocated in the creation of new government programs such as universal child care for every child age zero to five; universal pre-k for every three- and four-year-old; student-loan forgiveness; free tuition and fees for all public technical schools, two-year colleges and four-year colleges. Third, the Warren proposal aims to heavily tax corporations so that they would pay their so-called “fair share.”

The proposed 2 percent tax on the wealthy will only fund a tiny fraction of those new programs and there is no mention of the flagship progressive pipe dream, Medicare for All.  A massive amount of federal bureaucracy and regulation will be needed to ensure corporations pay their fair share.  This is discussed in the next quote.

The first consequence will be the significant expansion of federal authority over the economy. Even if, in theory, the Warren wealth-tax plan targets only the super wealthy at first, this does not mean that the middle-class is exempted from a potential rise in income tax. For Elizabeth Warren to fund all the programs that she wants to implement, taxing the billionaires — even at a very high level — won’t be enough. The middle-class will eventually be forced to contribute to the funding of these programs, which means that the plan, instead of alleviating the wealth gap, will reduce the purchasing power of the middle-class. This means that ordinary citizens will have a hard time saving for their retirement or to invest in business ventures. Moreover, the plan gives the federal government more extensive power and authority over the allocation of resources and the economy as a whole.

How bad will results of the plan be?  Check out the next quote.

As a result, federal agencies will have far greater control over how resources will be allocated and invested throughout the broader economy. Yet, experience suggests government allocates resources inadequately and inefficiently, while distorting markets, and leading to bubbles and malinvestments.

The second consequence will be a great decrease in productivity for the economy overall. Indeed, those who already own large amounts of assets often own those assets because they have managed to put them to good use expanding the economy and increasing employment.  The wealth tax, meanwhile, is built on the premise that government agents can convert that wealth into cash payments, and that the government knows better how to distribute it. 

Mass exoduses of those who produce always occur when these wealth redistribution schemes are  implemented which result in a large scale decrease in wealth and standard of living.  This will happen here because:

The Warren wealth tax plan may confiscate the material wealth of wealthy persons and families. But those same people can take their know-how and move elsewhere. The impact on American productivity would not be positive.

At first the negative consequences of Senator Warren’s plan may only affect the wealthy.  This won’t last long.  Very quickly the negative effects will spread down to the middle class.  This conclusion was reached by the author of the Mises article.

Senator Warren’s wealth tax plan, despite the well-intended programs that it will generate; will end up as merely a tool to increase the power of Washington policymakers. Over time, taxes will creep down the income scale as the income tax did, eventually hiking the tax burden for the middle class, while also cutting productivity which will drive down wages and wealth for everyone.

Very rapidly the negative consequences of the Warren wealth confiscation plan will ripple through the economy, eventually turning into a tidal wave of destruction.  This has happened wherever this type of plan has been implemented.