Does anyone else hear the sound of fingernails scratching every time Elizabeth Warren, affectionately known by some people as Betty Wigwam speaks?
Surely, Chief Justice John Roberts of the Supreme Court is feeling that way after the stunt Warren pulled during the impeachment show on Thursday.
Warren, who somehow still finds herself in the running for the Democratic nomination for president (although with the field running with her it’s not surprising), made a total ass out of herself (yes, I said it) Thursday during the portion of the impeachment where questions were submitted by senators through the chief justice, who is presiding over the trial.
Warren’s question was:
“At a time when large majorities of Americans have lost faith in government, does the fact that the chief justice is presiding over an impeachment trial in which Republican senators have thus far refused to allow witnesses or evidence contribute to the loss of legitimacy of the chief justice, the supreme court and the constitution?”
Wait, what? Oh Pocahontas!
Justice Roberts was (understandably) not happy. Even every conservative’s punching bag, Adam Schiff spoke out and scolded Warren.
John Roberts was NOT happy with @EWarren's nasty question about whether the legitimacy of SCOTUS (and Roberts himself) would be sullied if there are no witnesses in the Senate trial pic.twitter.com/60fbiME3Db
— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) January 30, 2020
“Senator, I would not say that it contributes to a loss of confidence in the chief justice,” Schiff said. “I think the chief justice has presided admirably.”
You have to give Schiff a little bit of credit for that one.
Warren cannot help herself. She tries to come across as a folksy, schoolmarm type of person who has her husband fetch her a beer which she drinks like a two-year-old sucking on a Coke bottle.
She spins yarns of her father, her “Papaw”—who had “high cheek bones like all of the Indians do”—that 1/1024th native American that she is.
Warren is nothing but a far-left, semi-Socialist hack.
Reporter Heather Monahan noted that Justice Roberts glared at Granny Warren for a full five seconds after her question.
Warren’s sideshow got a lot of reaction online from a majority of people who were providing analysis of the trial, with the only exceptions being left-wing hack websites such as HuffPo and the usual suspects
Mike DeBonis of the Washington post tweeted:
As @pkcapitol notes, the seeming attack on Roberts came a day ahead of a potential tie vote where Dems have been courting Roberts to intervene. Pelosi very solicitous today; D sens uniformly respectful.
— Mike DeBonis (@mikedebonis) January 30, 2020
“Pretty universal bewilderment in and around the chamber as to what point Sen. Warren was trying to make by her question about the trial contributing to a ‘loss of legitimacy’ for Roberts/SCOTUS.
Schiff wanted noting to do with it. As @pkcapitol notes, the seeming attack on Roberts came a day ahead of a potential tie vote where Dems have been courting Roberts to intervene. Pelosi very solicitous today; D sens uniformly respectful.”
Attorney and Fox 5 political analyst Mike Sacks wrote:
K: What have done?
W: What do you mean?
K: He was gonna vote to release Trump’s taxes.
W: That Q was FTW!
K: I *had* him. You pushed him away.
W: Whatevever. I’m gonna pack the court. Make you de facto Chief!
K: We wish.
— Mike Sacks (@MikeSacksEsq) January 30, 2020
“Pretty sure Warren’s old boss Justice Elena Kagan ain’t happy about that stunt.”
Roberts also gained some kudos for how he handled the situation. Adam White noted:
“The fact that Senator Warren submitted his question, and the fact that Chief Justice Roberts read it unflinchingly, highlights how well and dutifully he executes his office, and how poorly and cynically she executes hers.”
Even far-left “news” network CNN hit back at Warren, saying that her question was not playing fair. He noted that a panel led by Erin Burnett “universally condemned her hasty question about the legitimacy of the Supreme Court and Chief Justice John Roberts being sullied if the impeachment trial ends without witnesses.”
One CNN analyst also said:
“To use him in that way didn’t go well and the real question is, what will his role otherwise be? Because we shouldn’t put hi in that kind of a position.”
CNN contributor Scott Jennings added:
“I thought that was ridiculous honestly. To hector and pressure of the Chief Justice of the United States with that political question, that was a question written by someone who’s running for president who doesn’t know any other way except to sort of be rather vicious in the way she was raising the specter of his illegitimacy.”
Perhaps this stunt that Warren pulled Thursday will show all but the hardest leftists that she is unfit to serve as President of the United States. She has no respect for anyone but herself. She is rude, she is arrogant, and more so, she has done nothing as a Unites States Senator.
The total lack of respect she showed to a respected member of the judiciary should give pause to anyone considering her for president.
She lied about her heritage to get herself a cushy teaching position at Harvard, yet rails about college tuition costs when she was someone who directly benefitted from them.
She complains about “millionaires and billionaires” on one hand, while having her hand out for their money with the other.
She told Massachusetts residents she wouldn’t run for president when she was up for reelection for Senate, then two months after she was sworn back in started running for president.
She’s a fake, she’s a phony and worse of all, she’s a money grabbing Socialist.
Hopefully her “day in the sun” will be over soon. We could not imagine having to listen to that voice for another four years. Scrrrattchh!
Iowa dad to Warren over student loan plan: People paying for tuition would get ‘screwed’
Elizabeth Warren isn’t use to being called out face-to-face about her proposed policy failures.
That changed at a presidential campaign town hall in Grimes, Iowa on Monday. That’s where she was confronted by a father curious about her student loan debt “solutions”.
In a video that was uploaded by the Daily Caller on Twitter, an unidentified father confronted presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren about her plans to address mounting student loan debts.
Now, for those not familiar with her intentions regarding college debt, she intends to wipe away a heft amount owed by individuals.
This father, who could be heard speaking with Warren, was wondering what she intended to do about parents who have already foot the bill for their child’s secondary education.
The man drew close to Warren and stated the following:
“I just wanted to ask one question. My daughter is getting out of school. I’ve saved all my money. She doesn’t have any student loans. Am I going to get my money back?”
Without skipping a single beat, Warren replied with:
“Of course not.”
What in the backwards social justice logic is this? Warren has no issue suggesting reparations going toward black Americans based upon historical wrongs – so why would she be against rewarding historical rights?
“My daughter is in school. I saved all my money just to pay student loans. Can I have my money back?”@ewarren: “Of course not”
“So you’re going to pay for people who didn’t save any money and those of us who did the right thing get screwed?”pic.twitter.com/EXoU2ci2Wt
— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) January 23, 2020
Historical rights, as in someone being responsible with their income and diverting some to afford the opportunity for their kid to go to college. If her answer confused you, it certainly infuriated the father in her presence.
The father snapped back at Warren saying:
“So you’re going to pay for people who didn’t save any money and those of us who did the right thing get screwed?”
This gentleman is clearly showing too much logic, as it’s been known to confuse proponents of social justice initiatives.
See, in order to propose free college as a means to introduce social justice, one would have to acknowledge that people having previously paid for college was a social injustice. Thus, the concept of social justice is righting a wrong from the past, which makes the concept of Warren’s baffling.
Warren’s platform is not only boasting universal free public college, but also a cancellation of federal student loan debt for up to $50,000 for those making under $100,000 per year.
If that alone is perturbing, just know that she’d intend to bypass Congress if necessary, and have the act move forward her first day in the Whitehouse. Her modus operandi is to eliminate college debt by more than 95 percent, and claims it would mitigate the “racial wealth gap”.
The father continued while explaining how he managed to save for college for his kid, while his peers didn’t:
“My buddy had fun, bought a car, and went on all the vacations, I saved my money. He makes more than I did. I worked a double shift. You’re laughing at me. Yeah that’s exactly what you’re doing. We did the right thing and we get screwed.”
Warren responded to that dose of truth with the following:
“I appreciate your time.”
That is the kind of lip service you can expect from a Warren presidency folks.
By the way, this college plan of hers will cost roughly $640 billion. Of course, since Warren seemingly hates anyone rich who isn’t her, she’ll enact a wealth tax on those earning more than $50 million.
She claimed that the tax on the wealthy could fund not only debt cancellation, free college, and also free pre-K education. She certainly knows how to be generous with other people’s money, since she doesn’t like talking about her own $12 million.
Let’s not forget, this is the same woman who has touted a plan to end all private health insurance and strip millions of American union workers from their negotiated healthcare plans.
She’s pushing for Medicare for All, which would force taxpayers onto public healthcare plans – at a cost of $52 trillion. TRILLION.
And how the presidential hopeful, Democrat Sen. Elizabeth Warren from Massachusetts, plan on paying for it all?
By providing amnesty to as many as 22 million illegal immigrants living in the United States.
That’s right – the woman who wants to be our President says that by driving up the population to the highest levels possible to increase federal tax revenue, we’d cover the costs.
Apparently you don’t have to be very good at math to run for President.
Currently, America’s immigration levels sit at historic highs. We’re adding more than 1.5 million foreign nationals to our population every year. Yet Warren wants to decriminalize sneaking across the border, provide amnesty for all who already did, and increase legal immigration levels.
“I support immigration reform that’s consistent with our values, including a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants and expanded legal immigration consistent with my principles,” Warren wrote.
“That’s not only the right thing to do – it also increases federal revenue we can dedicate to Medicare for All as new people come into the system and pay taxes.”
Here’s what’s scary. According to Breitbart, her plan is supported by “tech billionaires, the open borders lobby, the outsourcing industry, the Chamber of Commerce, as well as the nation’s giant multinational corporations that have sought for decades to drive down U.S. wages by importing cheaper foreign workers to compete against America’s working and middle class.”
Based on the current immigration levels, we’ll increase the U.S. population to 404 million by 2060. That’ll be the largest population in American history. It will also mean that one in six U.S. residents will have been born outside of America.
To add contract, that number was one in 20 in 1970.
Based on the current levels, approximately 580,000 foreign-born residents will be added to the population every year. Compare that to the just 1.3 million native-born residents are set to be added every year.
Another way of paying for that massive Medicare for All plan would be a 42% national sales tax. But what would that mean for law enforcement?
We have been engulfed by a myriad of programs and platforms from the boatload of candidates for the Democratic nomination for President. Every single one of them is EXPENSIVE.
While most of them are not about to explain how they think they will pay for such programs, common sense tells us that the only way to cover these costs are to significantly increase taxes.
What would these incredible tax hikes do to career fields that are already known for not paying well – namely, the emergency responder community?
For the record, the vast majority in that community do what they do because they have a heart to serve, not because they are looking to make a financial windfall. But what would happen to the current work force if everyone’s pay was cut in half? What would the impact be on recruiting efforts?
For the sake of this argument, we will use the national average annual salary for a cop in the US, $48,739.
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) has done voters a favor by spelling out what kinds of new taxes it would take to come up with that much money. The following calculations and percentages are all part of a breakdown on Democratic campaign promise costs done by the CRFB.
Using Medicare for All as the primary example, this huge, single-payer government health plan backed by Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and several other Democratic presidential candidates, say it’s time to think big and move to a health plan that covers everyone.
Getting there is a bit tricky, however. A variety of analyses estimate that Medicare for All would require at least $3 trillion in new spending. That’s about as much revenue as the government currently generates. So, if paid for through new taxes, federal rates would have to theoretically double.
Warren justifies many of her programs by saying all it would take is “two cents” from the wealthy. That’s a reference to her 2% wealth tax on ultra-millionaires.
But Medicare for All would be so expensive that if you taxed top earners at 100%, yes, take every penny, of people earning more than $408,000 per year—you’d still fall far short. And everybody getting taxed at 100% would obviously stop working.
But that scenario would not only not be possible, it would also eliminate most law enforcement officers from the conversation.
Moving on to methods that have been discussed, the CRFB outlined a variety of options.
A 42% national sales tax (known as a valued-added tax) would generate about $3 trillion in revenue. It would also destroy the consumer spending that’s the backbone of the U.S. economy. A tax of that magnitude would be like 42% inflation, wrecking consumer budgets and the many companies that depend on them, from Walmart and Amazon to your local car dealer.
Did you know that Law Enforcement Today has a private new home for those who support emergency responders and veterans? It’s called LET Unity, and it’s where we share the untold stories of those patriotic Americans. Every penny gets reinvested into giving these heroes a voice. Check it out today.
And what would this number do to cops take home? Nothing at first – until the massive impact of inflation begins to trickle down.
Until then, that new truck you wanted with a sticker price of $62K, ($65,875 after taxes in Texas) is now $88,040 no matter where you live. That new pistol you wanted for $900 would cost you $1,278.
This would obviously drive spending down, thus leaving us in a situation where the government has promised millions healthcare that they cannot pay for.
Other options include a 32% payroll tax split between employers and workers or a 25% income surtax on everybody.
Looking at each of these, splitting the difference with your municipality would cost you an additional $4,142.82. The surtax would do exactly what you think it would do. Your annual take home would decrease from $41,428.15 to $32,898.83.
The government could cut 80% of spending on everything but health care, which would include highways, airports and the Pentagon. That would also cut the funding that departments across the country rely on to operate.
We could also just borrow the money and quadruple Washington’s annual deficits.
The CFRB said that the best idea might be charging every enrollee in the new program $7,500 per year, so they’d be paying directly for the coverage they’re getting. Some people pay more than that now for health care, by purchasing insurance outright or sacrificing pay raises in exchange for employer coverage. It would still be a nifty trick to propose that to voters.
What would any of these ideas do to the existing level of resources that departments across the country are dealing with? Many departments are understaffed. They are dealing with decreased recruiting pools, increased retirement, and a revolving door when it comes to retention.
Overtime and off-duty opportunities would be at a premium for many officers, deputies and agents to be able to make up the difference in lost wages.
In 2008, departments in west Texas lost numerous officers to the oil field boom that doubled and tripled many of their annual salaries. Many of those agencies have struggled to return to a fully staffed department.
Parts of our current societal climate is discouraging younger people from considering a career in law-enforcement. If you add a decrease in salary, longer working hours that create more difficult working environments, and constant scrutiny from certain sections of our country that want to see cops disarmed and departments completely disbanded.
God help us all if one of these money-grubbing Socialist candidates change their address to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.