It should come as no surprise to hear that Elizabeth
Warren has become the darling of the hardcore left, with a growing number now
in favor of her providing Hitlery Clinton with a little competition. However the hypocrisy of Warren is becoming
more and more a matter of record. The very same woman who said of the
hate-the-rich Occupy Wall Street movement, “I created much of the intellectual
foundation for what they do. I support what they do,” is not only wealthy
beyond the dreams of most Americans, but is part of the very 1% that the Occupy
Movement so venomously vilifies.
So, you may ask, just how rich is she who is, if you can
believe it, is the senior senator, and potential 2016 candidate, from Massachusetts? Well, her net worth is reported to be
somewhere between $3.7 million and $10 million, and that’s with leaving out her
three-story Victorian home in Cambridge, Mass., which is reportedly worth another
1.9 million. Her average net worth is said
to be in the vicinity of $8.75 million.
And yet she is able to feel quite justified in spewing all manner of
idiotic rhetoric while at the same time actually denying the fact that she is
very, very, wealthy.
We’re told that most of Warren’s wealth is invested with
TIAA-CREF; she and her husband, yes this weirdo fund someone to marry her, each
have $1 million in the TIAA-CREF Traditional fund, which guarantees your
principal will never be affected, you are guaranteed a minimum interest rate,
and your income stream will never die. She
also received an advance of $525,000 to write her book, ‘A Fighting Chance’. She
and her husband earned $981,000 in 2009 and $955,000 in 2010. She was paid $430,000 as a Harvard professor
in 2010 and part of 2011.
This is the same Elizabeth Warren who once told MSNBC’s
‘Low Rents’ O’Donnell, “I realize there are some wealthy individuals – I’m not
one of them, but some wealthy individuals who have a lot of stock portfolios.”
She apparently forgot that she owned between $100,001 and $250,000 of IBM
stock. Her spokesmoron Kyle Sullivan later lamely claimed, “Elizabeth was
making the point that, unlike many members of Congress, she does not have a
broad portfolio of stocks in individual companies. If elected, she’ll get rid of
the one stock she does own.” Throw the
bullshit flag up on that one!
And let’s not forget that she is the same hapless dingbat
who snapped back in September 2011, “There is nobody in this country who got
rich on his own. Nobody.” This is the
same woman who said while supporting Senator Mark Udall, “Republicans believe
this country should work for those who are rich, those who are powerful, those
who can hire armies of lobbyists and lawyers.”
Actually, if you were to insert ‘Democrats’ in place of ‘Republicans’ in
Ms. Warren’s statement it would be much, much, closer to the truth. In looking at the most recent election it’s
easy to see who the rich supported.
There is an ongoing myth perpetuated by both the Democrat
Party, and their many allies in the state-controlled media, that it is the
Democrat Party only that is the protector of the so-called “little guy.” But as Ronald Regan once asked, and I’m
paraphrasing here, “How is it that a political party that can be for bigger and
bigger government, claim to be for the little guy?” Let’s face it, the Democrat Party excels at
very little more than the creating of more and more “little guys” and then
getting them addicted to government.
No comments:
Post a Comment