Thursday, February 16, 2017

Elizabeth Warren Makes Me Scream!



Whether Elizabeth Warren deserves it or not she got an enormous boost to her image when Mitch McConnell suppressed her speech on the Senate floor. Like many other cases when she comes up with a good message I can't argue with the message but I have major doubts about her sincerity.

The coverage about Elizabeth Warren first seemed a little odd to me when it was drastically increased starting in 2011; and the traditional media started portraying her as the greatest hope for progressive liberal. At that time it seemed like it might be exaggerations but not much more to worry about. However the closer I checked the details the clearer it was that she was very vocal about a handful of issues taking positions that sounded good and would be good if she followed up on them at the right time and convinced a significant portion of the so-called progressives to join her.

Many other problems continued to turn up including numerous examples where she adopts the outrageous tactics she criticizes when other politicians uses them; routine endorsements to candidates that oppose many of her progressive positions; criticizing record breaking fund raising while participating in them; and many other examples where she has supported the corporate agenda that she seems to oppose, if you take the propaganda surrounding her seriously.

Basically what it comes down to is that she’s just another politician; except that she has much better propagandists helping her deceive the public; and intentionally or not she’s even getting help from the Republican Party with their extreme attacks on her like this obviously counter-productive attack from Mitch McConnell, which he should have known might backfire and boost Elizabeth Warren’s popularity!

This may seem like a farfetched conspiracy theory to some but a large portion of these conclusions doesn’t fit the definition of a conspiracy since it isn’t completely secret; which means that I can and have cited sources in past articles to support major doubts about her. However the patterns of behavior giving her one opportunity after another at certain times when it helps boost her image provides a growing amount of circumstantial evidence to indicate that there might be a bigger conspiracy to plan some of these events; however even if this isn’t true checking the stories that can be confirmed is enough to show she can’t be relied on to support progressive causes any more than other phony progressives that showed how much they supported Wall Street, contrary to campaign promises, after getting elected like Barack Obama and Donald Trump.

One of the most obvious examples which many progressives seem to recognize is her refusal to endorse Bernie Sanders and support for Hillary Clinton. Another example that gets far less attention is the enormous amount of coverage that she received as a progressive superstar at a time when people coming from the real grassroots couldn’t get any coverage at all.

Many of these grassroots candidates almost certainly would have done far more to support progressive issues if they actually got half the coverage that Elizabeth Warren gets.

What most people don’t realize is that she caved to Hillary Clinton far sooner than the media indicated and that the only reason she held out with her endorsement of Hillary Clinton is that when rumors that it might be coming got around there was an enormous amount of outrage that was easily visible on Twitter and almost certainly was accompanied by phone calls and E-Mails that are less visible; otherwise it is virtually guaranteed that she would have endorsed Hillary Clinton months earlier when the rest of the pseudo-progressive members of Congress did.

As I pointed out in a previous article, one of the reasons that she was able to develop her progressive image is that when she wrote her earlier book “The Two-Income Trap” she reported well on how Hillary Clinton opposed a bankruptcy bill as First Lady and helped convince her husband to veto it; but then after collecting a lot of donations for her Senate campaign she voted for an almost identical bill. However once she became a Senator she stopped talking about that and even provided a far different version in her next book "Fighting Chance;" but amazingly reports the opposition to the bill as first lady while completely omitting any mention that she reversed herself painting a very flattering picture of Hillary Clinton.

This book came out at approximately the same time she signed a letter urging Clinton to run, clearly implying that she would endorse her if she did. However this clearly tipped off many of the progressives, including a lot who believed her propaganda at that time and they made it clear to her that this wouldn’t be a popular endorsement and eventually when Bernie Sanders indicated he would run that they wanted her to endorse him who was far better. These progressives were widely reporting on her earlier criticism of Hillary Clinton.

there seems to be little or no doubt that this is why she was the only woman Senator that allegedly remained neutral during the primary.

Her hypocrisy was obvious to those paying enough attention; but the media hardly covered this at all; so it was understandable when most of the public didn’t notice; however her hypocrisy about statements about Lawrence Summers would have been even more obvious but it got even less coverage, even most reasonably well informed progressives probably missed that one.

In her book "Fighting Chance," which came out in 2014 she wrote that Larry Summers made it clear “But insiders also understand one unbreakable rule: They don’t criticize other insiders. I had been warned,” giving her readers the impression that she wasn’t inclined to play by those rules that that she would be the outsider. However prior to that book coming out she had already demonstrated that she was taking that advice to heart and not criticizing insiders, including Larry Summers who she said, "made terrific contributions to the field of economics;" and she also supported Janet Yellin, both of whom opposed the Glass-Steagall Act helping to bring about it’s repeal and preventing it from being reinstated which she accurately blamed, at least partially, for the collapse on wall Street in 2008. Ironically the media gave her an enormous amount of credit for standing up to Larry Summers and other issues like opposition to Climate Change even when a few lower profile articles accurately reported that she wasn’t actually doing much on either issue or many other issues she’s credited with supporting progressive causes.

One of the biggest issues that she spoke about fixing when she was trying to get elected was campaign finance reform which she strongly supported as a candidate, but like most if not all candidates that support it during the campaign she quickly forgot about it as a Senator when she rarely mentions it at all. Even worse, a close look indicates that she’s shifting a large cost of campaigns to people that believe her propaganda who she may betray after collecting money from them.

Even when politicians like Elizabeth Warren do speak out about campaign finance reform they practically never discuss ways to put control of the election in the hands of the public, or come as close as they can to it; which is why I have repeatedly argued that campaign finance reform wouldn’t be good enough, since it typically changes the rules they manipulate so that they can just adjust their tactics without addressing the concerns of the public; which is why I have argued for a broader Election Reform and Saving Project Vote Smart and improving it or replacing it, which dramatically increases the public's ability to hear from all candidates, not just the ones the media wants to cover, and control a much more diverse interview process that candidates, or perhaps they should referred to as job applicants, would be required to fill out a job application controlled by grassroots members of the public and allow diverse people to ask additional questions at town hall meetings or debates that aren’t screened by a small segment of the media controlled by six oligarchies which currently control over ninety percent of the press.

Others have also come up with other improvements on our system but the best ideas, whether mine or from other people never get mentioned in the traditional press.

Instead, while criticizing the influence of money during her campaign she broke records raising more money than any other candidates for Senate. Part of the way she did this was to take advantage of all the positive propaganda she was getting from the press and asking for small donations from people that couldn’t afford it creating a virtual poll tax requiring the public to do their part helping to finance campaigns without being able to control them or ask their own questions in a high profile venue.

She writes about a kid who says, "I give you money every month and I'm taking on hours so I can give you more." And she goes on to say “It gives me goose bumps” as if this is the way to solve the problem. Many of these people donating to her campaign are relying on the propaganda that they hear from the traditional media and don’t realize that buried in low profile locations are an enormous amount of research raising doubt about her support for these progressive campaigns.

There is no way that poor people or middle class people can compete by funding campaigns this way and when they donate to a candidate like these they don’t have control over how it is spent, unlike large donors to traditional candidates that get an enormous amount of access behind closed doors.

And there is a major chance that if they donate based on deceptive propaganda from the commercial media that their candidates will take their money without supporting their cause when it counts, and all the small donors might get is broken promises just like other candidates.

This is already happening on a large scale in many cases. One of the most obvious ones is union money supporting Democratic candidates for years, yet the same Democrats have been taking enormous amounts of money from corporations as well, and when it comes time to make decisions they routinely favor the corporations while giving lip service to workers. Hillary Clinton was one of the most obvious ones and as I explained previously supposed supporters of workers like Richard Trumka seemed to favor Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders, even though he was much better on workers rights and the rank and file like him much more than union leaders. Many of these union leaders decided to remain neutral during this election, often because they knew if they put it to a vote workers might favor Bernie over Hillary, when the leaders like Trumka seemed to prefer Hillary.

If Hillary was so good for workers why would she support NAFTA so much and until it became clear that the working class hated TPP she was one of the strongest champions of it; and Elizabeth Warren supported her despite this.

Even Bernie Sanders, who I still believe is far better than most mainstream politicians, has caved when he agreed to endorse Hillary Clinton and campaign for her without pointing out the enormous amounts of election rigging that was going on that was exposed in the DNC and Podesta leaks as well as enormous amounts of voter irregularities in at least eighteen states that Bernie could have spoken out about; but instead he tried to convince his followers that the system wasn’t rigged despite all the evidence that it was and when they saw through it that was part of the reason Trump managed to get elected.

The thousands of small donors didn’t want their candidate to ignore that and see their donations going to an effort to patch together faith in a flawed system. On top of that even before the primaries were over the most vocal of so-called Bernie Sanders supporters like Van Jones and several others that got a fair amount of media coverage while the primaries were going on spent an enormous amount of time defending Hillary in a hypothetical campaign against Trump instead of speaking out for Bernie while he could have still prevented the primaries from being rigged.

If they financed an interview process like I suggested in the two previous articles about election reform and reforming Project Vote Smart then the people that donate to the interview process would have control over it instead of donating to campaigns and watching when they betray them after taking their money.

Elizabeth warren ahs also taken positions against teacher unions in favor of charter schools, provided propaganda to cover up planned obsolescence, hired gambling lobbyists to help run her campaign and opposed many other progressive causes which I went into in previous articles listed below. She also avoided her own primary thanks to help from the political establishment even though she had an opponent and refused to fill out her Project Vote Smart questionnaire and was reluctant to take many positions on many issues until she was pressured from the grassroots during her campaign, but this was quickly forgotten by the traditional media. The majority of problems with her politic as are reported briefly and quickly forgotten by the traditional media while propaganda glorifying her is repeated over and over again.

Perhaps one of the most obvious problems is that she never actually came from the grassroots at all; she was closely tied to the political establishment going back to the Clinton administration and first became famous when she was working with the Obama administration; the candidates or researchers that really do have grassroots rarely get so much coverage. She was forced to retract her statement, “I created much of the intellectual foundation for what they [Occupy Wall Street] do” when it was exposed that it wasn’t even remotely true. There are many researchers like Naomi Klein, Stacy Mitchell Michelle Alexander that did far more to research an “intellectual foundation” for them to expose epidemic levels of fraud.

One of them is also Juliet Schor who exposed what Elizabeth Warren refers to as the “over-consumption Myth” and also exposed fraudulent advertising to kids; but instead of agreeing with her she provided a lame and misleading argument against Juliet Schor, so not only was she not helping in this case but she was arguing that people should essentially buy more of the hyped up garbage that they have no use for.

Using political hype to glorify pseudo-progressives isn’t limited to Elizabeth Warren; many of the supposedly progressive members of Congress lined up to endorse Hillary Clinton long before the primaries, even though she had the worst popularity ratings in history with the possible exception of Donald Trump.

The fact that these two horrible candidates could ever get the nomination in the first place partially with the help of the political establishment including Elizabeth Warren should raise major questions.

One of the worst so called progressives besides Elizabeth Warren is Corey Booker but the media is presenting him as one of the most popular candidates that could potentially run in 2020; yet he was one of the Senators that took enormous amounts of money from pharmaceutical industries, then voted against the bill to re-import drugs from Canada saving consumers enormous amounts of money.



Not that there aren’t legitimate problems with a bill that would essentially require drugs to be exported so they can be shipped back to save money; but none of the opponents objected to that part; nor did the supporters try to fix it; which should raise even more questions.

This bill would have been better than the current system but it should be obvious that if Canada has much lower process for the same drug and it is just as safe they must be doing something right and we should simply consider doing the same thing without requiring export and re-importing, which is foolish.

Why aren’t the reasons for these high drug costs, patents, ever mentioned or explained to the public?

Could it be that if they explained it the public would realize how corrupt the system is and that the government is helping corporation gouge consumers?

Well, yes that is exactly what is going on. The government subsidizes research for medical purposes and routinely gives them patents that allow monopolies without anything in return. There are no limitations on how much they can charge in return for the subsidies. The government takes the risks but the drug companies get all the profits. They spend far more on advertising than they do on research and there are many other problems indicating that the heath of the public isn’t nearly as important as the profits of the drug companies donating money to political campaigns.

Googling about pharmaceutical industries government subsidies for research or advertising expenses quickly turns up relatively low profile articles like Big pharmaceutical companies are spending far more on marketing than research 02/11/2015; How taxpayers prop up Big Pharma, and how to cap that 10/27/2015; and How The US Subsidizes Cheap Drugs For Europe 09/24/2015; that are rarely repeated in the media unless members of the public seek them out. These could help educate the public but only those that do good research find out about them.

Instead of re-importing drugs we could just finance research with a tax on medications that would be far less than the price gouging. This would allow full disclosure of research so that competing companies could share their research data and minimize replication of the same research enabling them to find out more about potential problems. The current system encourages them to keep everything secrets so that different companies won’t know about advancements that other companies are making and they might not know about potential dangers. Full disclosure would allow free exchange of information decrease costs and increase safety for patients.

But is would make it much more difficult if not impossible for the drug companies to gouge consumers committing enormous amounts of fraud.

Why aren’t any of these so-called progressives even discussing this?

I don’t like Donald Trump and his outrageous cabinet any more than anyone else but I’ve been looking closer at Elizabeth Warren since she first raised doubts about herself in 2011 and one problem after another has come up which the media routinely buries. She’s not nearly as progressive as the media presents her; and if we turn to her for solutions she’ll betray us just like the other manipulative politicians that have routinely done it in the past, including both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama who both came up with excellent rhetoric during campaigns but showed they didn’t mean any of it when in office.

The following are some of my past articles that include many external sources showing how fake her progressive image is. Many of these sources were reported briefly by the traditional press but quickly buried and forgotten, which is a routine propaganda tactic that works like a charm for the oligarchs.

How sincere is Elizabeth Warren?

Elizabeth Warren is NOT as sincere as she appears!!

Is Elizabeth Warren supporting Charter Schools not Unions?

Elizabeth Warren is NOT a “consumer advocate!!”

Elizabeth Warren's propaganda overlooks many flaws!

Elizabeth Warren is a charismatic propagandist not the Messiah

Elizabeth Warren steals credit from real grass roots efforts

Media Conspiracy Theories and Propaganda about Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren

House Sit In Is Political Theater On Both Sides

Book Excerpts: Elizabeth Warren “The Two Income Trap” 2003

Book Excerpts: Elizabeth Warren "Fighting Chance" 2014

Shutting Down Speech by Elizabeth Warren, G.O.P. Amplifies Her Message 02/08/2017

Read Coretta Scott King's Letter That Got Sen. Elizabeth Warren Silenced 02/0/2017












No comments:

Post a Comment