Elizabeth Warren (shaking my head). She has earned a lot of pejorative names in recent years, but my favorite is “Fauxcahontas.” How is it possible that the woman is apparently a serious Democrat presidential candidate after a lifetime of falsely passing herself off as someone of “Native American descent”? How does anybody take what she says seriously? Are rank-and-file Democrats that far gone? Why haven’t they demanded that she give her accumulated wealth away to the “poor” since it was gained under false pretenses?

Whenever I hear her screech in a public appearance, she reminds me of the caricature of the evil mother-in-law. I think of Endora from the ’60s/’70s sitcom “Bewitched” – always meddling in stuff about which she knows nothing. Her strident and falsely earnest pronouncements about this and that are transparently politically-motivated and nonsensical. Let’s look at some of her recent public statements and activities:

She is all-in on the Green New Deal; it perfectly aligns with her socialist economics (an oxymoron if there ever was one). We witnessed 50 years of false claims by climate alarmists, and she and the GND crazies want to turn the US and world economies upside-down:

She’s going to “fix” healthcare with “Medicare for All”! Never mind the cost; she’s a fiscal genius, don’t ya know?

Warren estimates that her health-care scheme would cost about $2 trillion — every year, forever. As often is the case when we are talking about the federal budget, the numbers sound incomprehensible to many people: millions, billions, trillions, squidillions, whatever. To put that $2 trillion a year into perspective, a comparison: That is more money than the federal government collects annually in all of the personal and corporate income taxes combined. Put another way, even if the federal government were able to successfully double the revenue it gets from personal and corporate income taxes, the additional revenue would not pay for Warren’s health-care plan.

The “great thinker” has answers for dealing with threats. “We need a president with a sound strategy, willing to use every diplomatic and economic tool we have to step us back from the brink of war.” She’s kidding, right? President Trump is the king of using economic pressure in achieving US objectives in international relations. What’s her foreign policy experience and achievement again? Nada.

“Donald Trump is dangerous.” Really? Show us the evidence of that, Liz. How does the “Iran crisis” look today instead of when you tweeted this out? The President exerted real leadership, which he detailed in Wednesday’s public remarks.

Then there was her participation in a conference call with a pro-Iranian lobbying group on Wednesday. Never mind the Iranian-backed militia’s attack on the US embassy in Baghdad, eh, Liz?

Democratic presidential hopefuls Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders faced criticism online Wednesday for participating in a conference call with an Iranian-American advocacy group just a day after Iran launched a ballistic missile attack in Iraq aimed at U.S. military personnel.

The group was the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), which critics claim lobbies in Washington on behalf of the Iranian government.

And here’s the pièce de résistance. She spouted on Wednesday that she would require all new buildings built to be “carbon neutral.” I thought Democrats were supposed to be big on science? That’s just crazy, as it would tank the building industry completely.

Presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) said Wednesday that her administration would mandate that any new buildings built from 2028 onwards must be carbon neutral.

Warren also backed regulation that would make light-duty trucks and cars carbon neutral by 2030, and all electricity production carbon neutral by 2035.

“We also need to make environmental justice really at the heart of our climate plan,” Warren said. “A central part of the plan for me is I want to put a trillion dollars into cleaning up the places that collectively we have destroyed as a nation and bringing them back.”

Why yes, she’s simply going to make a grand pronouncement from the Oval Office and turn the country green while destroying the economy. Is she merely pandering to her leftwing base, or does she really believe that nonsense? Note how none of that would go into effect until 2028 or later – in other words AFTER her supposed 8 years as president.

And “environmental justice”? That is just the latest Marxist claptrap: anything to convince the rubes to implement totalitarian socialism everywhere. Do a web search and take note of all of the leftwing organizations around the world that are involved. If that euphemism meant anything at all beyond finding another reason for leftwing radicals to manipulate the system and turn the economy on its head, it would apply first and foremost to the impacts of poorly conceived environmental initiatives implemented without regard to the adverse impacts on poor people.

My verdict? This woman can’t be allowed anywhere near the Oval Office except on a guided tour. She’s like fingernails on a blackboard with a big dose of crazy thrown in for good measure.

The end.

Stu Cvrk
Stu Cvrk served 30 years in the US Navy in a variety of active and reserve capacities, with considerable operational experience in the Middle East and the Western Pacific. An oceanographer and systems analyst through education and experience, Stu is a graduate of the US Naval Academy where he received a classical liberal education which serves as the key foundation for his political commentary. He threads daily on Twitter on a wide range of political, military, foreign policy, government, economics, and world affairs topics.
Read more by Stu Cvrk