There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for."
-- Elizabeth Warren (pictured right), ex-Obama aide, Harvard professor, and Massachusetts U.S. Senate candidate, 2011
She made this statement in a home meeting of 15 to 20 supporters as she opened her campaign to unseat Scott Brown, last month. It is the concept embedded in these words that is the rhetorical supply for the ultra-liberal objective of wealth distribution.
This is a woman who has never worked in the private sector. She is an academic, a theorist if you will.She is as passionate a Marxist as exists in the Obama circle of friends, unashamed and militant.
Her claim to political fame is her hand-picked selection by Obama to create a new federal agency called“The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau” and install her as the bureau’s first chairperson. The position has a 5 year term and must have the approval of the Senate. The folks at The Daily Beast pretend that Obama “stopped short” of putting her forward as the chairperson, as if this was not his intention. Typical Leftist misinformation -- also, in the case, known as a lie.
The fact of the matter is this: she is such a controversial personality in DC , that opponents made it clear that her appointment “would never be approved.” Salon, another Left wing blog, makes my point. In commenting about Warren’s Senate aspirations, Solon makes the case that now that she has “officially been passed over to head the Consumer Financial Protection Board,” the door is open for her pursuit of Scott Brown’s seat. In moving on with this essay, one wonders why The Daily Beast did not know of Warren's rejection when other Lefties did? Could it be that the Daily Beast is trying to carry Obama's water, on this deal? Just askin'.
Warren is as radical as they come. Google her name and you will see what I mean. She has a problem: she could not reason her way out of a maze, if it stood only 12 inches high and her future depended upon it. Take the statement above. Her implicit message is that the rich do not have a right to the wealth they possess because of the complex matrix of realities that made "getting rich" possible; that welath is the product of us all . . . . . bought and paid for. Understand that the terminology, "we paid for it," is critical to Warren's point, because it means "we own it -- the wealth of America." I mean, if we paid for it, we own it, right? Of course. But "ownership" is the very thing she objects to. Look, I say, if all are owners, none are owners.
Take "air," for example. It belongs to all. If all own it, none are owners. If even one person could be an owner of "air," she could refuse to share it with others . . . . because she owns it. The radicalized One World, Marxist Liberal, believes that "wealth" is a national resource, that it is a commodity like air and water, and, as such, is to be shared with those who have not. These people are forced into the logically peculiar position of having to support the doctrine of "equally shared wealth." Warren is not a millionaire, as far as I know, but the fat Michael Moore is, many times over, and along with other Leftest ideologues, has no intentions of sharing his wealth equally with the "have nots" of this society.
Listen to this Marxist jerk talk as if he did not OWN millions of dollars of personal worth. Understand that he cannot deal with the question, "if wealth belongs to us all, why do you have so much of it and when, pray tell, will you surrender it to the have nots of this world?" Maybe I should have said. ". . . . . prey tell," instead.
In the Warren statement, what is "paid for" is education for all. What is paid for are the highways and infrastructure for all. Fire and police protection are services paid by all (via taxation) for all. If you want to talk about "national resources," talk about these things. But don't go forward with the notion that if we all benefit from education, if we all drive down the same roads, if fire and police protection are for all of us, that wealth must be shared equally, by all. Why? Because Michael Moore's very lifestyle is a repudiation of such nonsense; ditto Elizabeth Warren. While she might not be rich, I'll bet may next "equality" check from Warren, that she has more money than I. Heck, Obama has made more than eight million dollars, in just the last 32 months, or so. And, when it comes to parting ways with his stash, he is just like the rest of us damn capitalists!!
Any of you ever seen a picture of Karl Marx, the father of communalism? Well, that's him at the top of this post . . . the one who is not Elizabeth Warren. Anyway, he is the only Marxist I know that lived and died, a man of little means . . . . . and that is exactly what applied Marxism gets you. He practiced what he preached, but had to live off his industrialist comrade, Friedrich Engles, to make ends meet. There is a pro-capitalist lesson in this material dialectic, somewhere.
No comments:
Post a Comment